mar leadership resource book

[11:37:36 AM] Maru Arreola: es que todo el y su entorno es mi sueño!

[11:37:42 AM] Maru Arreola: (inlove)

Acknowledgements

T

MAR Leadership

Resource Book

Launching Innovative

Conservation Projects and

Learning with Young Leaders

in the Mesoamerican Reef

Paquita Bath and Maria Eugenia Arreola

Authors: Paquita Bath and María Eugenia Arreola.

Photos: Javier Ochoa, Yuself Cala, Claudia Taylor.

Editor: Claudia Taylor.

Acknowledgements

The MAR Leadership Program was launched in 2009 thanks to the visionary foresight of the

Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C. (FMCN) and The Summit

Charitable Foundation. An Executive Committee made up of Lorenzo Rosenzweig (FMCN),

Carlos Saavedra (Summit Foundation), and María José González (Mesoamerican Reef Fund)

has guided the program from its inception. As the program has grown, additional donors

have offered their support, including the Oak Foundation, the TreadRight Foundation, The

Bodhi Tree Foundation, and individual donors through GlobalGiving. The program has also

been fortunate to have a strong Executive Director, María Eugenia Arreola, who with a

committed staff has worked to identify motivated fellows and provide them with the tools

and coaching to advance their ideas and launch innovative projects.

Special thanks to Claudia Taylor, editor, and Paquita Bath, Founder of Aligning Visions

(www.aligningvisions.com), for working on this manual.

MAR Leadership Resource Book: Launching Innovative Conservation Projects and Learning with Young Leaders in the Mesoamerican Reef, 3rd

edition/Paquita Bath and María Eugenia Arreola. – Mexico City: Fondo Mexicano para la Conservación de la Naturaleza, A.C., 2013.

77p.: il.

1. Project design. 2. Training. 3. Conservation.

http://www.aligningvisions.com/

This manual was made possible thanks to the

support of our donors:

Page

Introduction: Seeding Innovative Projects ................................ 1

Launching MAR Fellow Cohorts ................................................................................. 1

The Mesoamerican Reef System................................................................................ 4

Building MAR Fellow Impact ..................................................................................... 5

Project Planning Evolution ........................................................................................ 7

Step 1: Define Project Scope ................................................ 10

1A: Project Scope: Physical Geography .................................................................... 10

1B: Project Scope: Target ...................................................................................... 12

1C: Project Scope: Threats .................................................................................... 13

Step 2: Identify Project Strategy .......................................... 16

2A: Opportunities and Passions .............................................................................. 16

2B: Theory of Change............................................................................................ 19

2C: Linking Strategies with Results ......................................................................... 21

2C-1: Logframes and Results Chains .................................................................... 21

2C-2: Goals and/or Outcomes ............................................................................. 22

Step 3: Engage Key Partners ................................................ 28

3A: Assess a Variety of stakeholders ....................................................................... 28

3B: Stakeholder Analysis ....................................................................................... 30

3C: Engagement Strategies .................................................................................... 32

3C-1: Examples of engaging Stakeholders ............................................................ 35

Step 4: Monitoring & Evaluation............................................ 40

4A: General Background ON M&E ............................................................................ 40

4B: Monitoring Methods ......................................................................................... 42

4C: Completing Results Chains with Indicators ......................................................... 44

Step 5: Develop a Work Plan ................................................ 47

5A: Work Flow Diagrams ....................................................................................... 47

5B: Additional Work Flow Tools ............................................................................... 50

5B-1: Gantt Charts ............................................................................................ 50

5B-2: Budgeting Time with PERT ......................................................................... 53

5C: Finalizing Planning for Implementation .............................................................. 55

Step 6: Build the Budget ...................................................... 57

6A: Fixed and Variable Costs .................................................................................. 57

6B: Direct and Indirect Costs.................................................................................. 59

6C: Time Is Money ................................................................................................ 60

6D: Categories and Line Items ............................................................................... 62

6E: Revenue Streams and Matching Funds ............................................................... 63

Conclusion ......................................................................... 69

Completing Project Design ..................................................................................... 71

Next Steps ........................................................................................................... 71

Annex 1: List of Fellows by Cohort ........................................ 74

2010 Cohort ..................................................................................................... 74

2011 Cohort ..................................................................................................... 74

2012 Cohort ..................................................................................................... 75

Annex 2: Participating Experts .............................................. 76

Mesoamerican Reef References ............................................. 77

MAR Leadership Resource Book

http://marleadership.org Page 1 of 77

Donors, staff, and Mesoamerican Reef (MAR) Leadership Fellows recognize that fellows can,

and must, change the world by reversing the behaviors which have stressed and degraded

the Mesoamerican Reef. Our goal is to induce key stakeholders in the MAR region to choose

a more sustainable path so that the reef and the ecosystem services it provides (such as

coastal protection from storms, habitats for the fish that feed coastal communities, and

protecting the species that inspire and attract tourists) are preserved for future generations.

In support of this vision, the MAR Leadership Program selects an annual cohort of 10-12

committed visionaries who have an innovative idea of how to:

Improve coastal development planning

Encourage sustainable tourism

Build more sustainable fishing practices

Reduce land-based pollution affecting rivers that drain into the MAR

Strengthen the existing network of marine protected areas

Fellows selected range from high school graduates to Ph.D. students. They represent not

only the traditional NGO sector but also business, government, education, and the media.

Some of them are the sons and daughters of fishers; others are immigrants to the coastal

zone. Fellows’ ages generally range from 25 to 35. The one thing they all have in common is

a strong commitment to the MAR and an innovative idea to change conservation in the

region.1

1 See Annex 1 for a full list of MAR Fellows.

A vision without a plan is just a dream

A plan without a vision is just drudgery

But a vision with a plan can change the world.

Proverb



Recognizing that the MAR requires cross-border solutions, fellows are chosen from the four

countries that share the Mesoamerican Reef: Mexico (specifically, the state of Quintana

Roo), Guatemala, Belize, and Honduras. An unusual aspect of the MAR Leadership training

program is that each cohort focuses on a different issue affecting the MAR. The 2010 cohort

focused on unsustainable tourism, the 2011 cohort on unsustainable fishing, and the 2012

cohort on Marine Protected Areas. This decision was based on three ideas:

1. The expectation that cohorts of fellows who are trying to impact the same major

threat would build greater synergies for peer review and effective networking. In this

way, fellows build greater synergies and cross-border collaborations.

2. A desire to forge common ground and give fellows time to share their perceptions,

voice their concerns, and identify overlapping stresses.

3. The convenience of thematic focus in terms of providing relevant materials,

attracting expert speakers, and developing background documents.

Each cohort cycle lasts 18 months, during which the program’s fellows receive individual

and group training aimed at making them more effective leaders and helping them design

and implement sophisticated conservation projects with strong potential for replication.

Over the three years of the program, we have adapted the training program for each

cohort, but many successful elements have remained the same. Three workshops are

offered during the fellows’ first year (see MAR Leadership Cohort Cycle), during which

fellows gradually improve their project design and enhance their understanding of the MAR

ecoregion while refining their leadership abilities. For individual trainings, fellows have

access to a small budget that can be used to participate in courses or technical diploma

programs, intensive English or Spanish classes, visits from mentors, visits to pilot projects,

While each cohort meets four times, the program also makes an effort to bring cohorts together to

enhance networking across the region and build relationships that can support fellows throughout their

professional lives. In March 2012, fellows from all three cohorts came together.



and internships in international organizations related to the fellow’s project. These funds are

expended according to a training plan designed with inputs from both the program’s staff

and experts.

Experts from major conservation organizations and academic institutions provide

background on the state of the Mesoamerican Reef at every workshop during the first year

of the cycle. These experts not only present their research to the fellows, but also listen to

the fellows’ explanations of their project ideas and provide feedback based on their technical

expertise. In this way, each fellow receives technical support in addition to the project

design training that is the focus of this manual.2

2 See Annex 2 for a full list of experts who have worked with MAR Leadership.



The Mesoamerican Reef System (MAR) is the most biologically and economically significant

reef in the Americas. It extends for more than 1000 km along the coasts of Mexico, Belize,

Guatemala, and Honduras. The MAR ecoregion includes oceanic habitats, coastal zones,

tropical forests, and watersheds that drain into the Caribbean Basin. Coral reefs and

mangroves provide critical protection against damage from hurricanes and tropical storms.

They also support generations of fishermen providing fish for millions of consumers. Over

the last few decades a prosperous tourism industry has arisen along the reef, taking

advantage of beautiful beaches, snorkeling and diving opportunities, and species attractive

for sport fishing. The region is also unique for its biodiversity: it is home to sea turtles,

manatees, more than 65 species of coral, and more than 500 species of fish, including the

charismatic whale shark. Local cultures move to the rhythm of the ocean, fish migrations,

and the schedules of species that have defined their livelihoods.

The main threats to the Mesoamerican Reef are well-known. These include land-based

pollution sources, severe overfishing, predatory tourism development, and global climate

change. These threats are being addressed to varying degrees by a cadre of committed

local and international organizations, but their impact is limited due to a lack of leadership

training and deficient project design and development initiatives.

The Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef 3 is an

important data source on reef health. The fifty sites (36 in Belize, 4 in Honduras, and 10 in

Mexico) surveyed in all three report cards published to date (2008, 2010 and 2012) show

that although overall reef health declined between the first two reports, there are now signs

3 Healthy Reefs for Healthy People. 2012. Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef: An Evaluation of Ecosystem Health. http://www.healthyreefs.org.

The beauty of the Mesoamerican Reef attracts high volumes of tourists. Photo: Javier Ochoa.

http://www.healthyreefs.org/



of recovery in these sites. In particular, when comparing the 2010 and 2012 report cards,

the percentage of reefs in critical condition decreased from 30% to 15% of the sites, and

reefs in good condition increased from <5% to almost 10% of all sites.

Currently, less than 4 percent of Belize’s territorial waters are under strict (i.e., “no-take”)

protection. This figure is between 2 and 3 percent for the Mexican state of Quintana Roo,

less than 0.5 percent for Honduras, and practically zero for the Guatemalan Caribbean. With

the understanding that healthier ecosystems show greater natural resilience, the MAR

Leadership Program has taken on the mission of developing a network of multifunctional

marine reserves to counteract reef degradation. While there is no consensus regarding how

much protection is needed to ensure recovery of depleted populations, the MAR Leadership

Program, in line with regional goals and initiatives, strives to support fellows who have

interesting ideas of how to engage more fishers, businesses and government agencies to

help secure at least 20% of absolute protection in the territorial waters of each MAR

country.

With the goal of helping fellows launch innovative projects along the MAR, the MAR

Leadership Program provides a generous amount of support to fellows.

During workshops, fellows learn and practice a variety of leadership skills, including:

Negotiation and conflict resolution

Presentation skills and elevator speeches

Interpersonal communication (emotional intelligence)

Inspiration and creative thought

1. Project Planning Guidance

Workshop 1: Project Scope/Strategy

Workshop 2: Partners/Monitoring and

Evaluation/Work Plan

Workshop 3: Budgeting/Proposals

Regular meetings with a planning coach

2. Group intranet (Groupsite) for networking and

information-sharing

3. Presentations by visiting experts

4. Funding for discretionary training/mentoring

opportunities

5. Project design manual

6. Peer and expert reviews of projects

7. Support in securing resources for project launch

María Eugenia Arreola,

Executive Director of

MAR Leadership



In exchange for all of these inputs, much is expected of MAR Fellows. Throughout the first

year of the MAR Leadership program, fellows are encouraged to take their innovative idea

and develop a strong proposal that can be used to attract the interest of donors and/or

potential partner institutions. Some fellows identify a particular government agency that

could support their project implementation, while others seek private capital investments or

philanthropic donations. In all cases they must put together a coherent plan that includes:

A clear statement of the problem

Their theory of change and a coherent strategy

A detailed work plan

Measurable results

A multi-year budget

Plans for project sustainability and replication if successful

The goal of project planning workshops is to help fellows develop effective strategies while

building their confidence, and the confidence of donors and partners, in the feasibility and

impact of the project. The MAR Leadership program also recognizes that many fellows will

be adapting and developing new projects over a lifetime of living and working along the

Mesoamerican Reef. Strengthening their ability to design coherent projects will continue to

have a positive impact for decades.

1. Acknowledge that project plans are

dynamic, and be willing to adjust.

2. Present updated project plans at every

workshop.

3. Mirror plan with strong presentations.

4. Use training funds to advance ability to

implement projects.

5. Incorporate feedback.

6. Provide feedback to peers.

7. Submit a full project proposal by September

of the cohort cycle.

8. Actively work to launch project, sharing

lessons learned in the process with other

MAR Fellows.

Kim Ley, 2011 MAR Fellow,

sharing his lobster tagging

expertise with his cohort



Over a three-year period, the

MAR Leadership Program has

climbed a steep learning curve

to ensure that fellows can

successfully apply planning

methods to their project ideas.

In 2010 we used a business

planning methodology, but

soon found that most fellows

were better served by project

planning and proposal writing

tools.

With the 2011 and 2012

cohorts, planning training

incorporated the two major

planning methodologies used

by donors and conservation

organizations this decade: the

Logical Framework Approach and Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation4 (also

known as “Conservation Action Planning,” or CAP). The training program for the MAR

Fellows familiarizes them with both approaches. The MAR Leadership process adapts the

CAP methodology5 for smaller-scale projects, because fellows generally do not have the

resources or capacity to address multiple threats at seascape or ecoregional scales.

However, we fully recognize the need for the fellows to be aligned with these wider

programs and think regionally as they look to replication. Many are employed by, or can

partner with, larger programs in which the full CAP methodology can be used. This manual,

and the approach used in training fellows, are designed to empower individual action that

can build on the local connections, commitment, and place-based understanding needed for

effective projects.

The basic training program and homework activities of the MAR Fellows during their first

year are tailored to ensure effective project design. The three planning workshops in year

one all include practical application exercises and clear deliverables that fellows can work on

between workshops. We recognize that MAR Fellows’ plans for their projects will change

many times throughout the process. Thus, we repeatedly take the time to go back and

ensure that all parts of the project fit together and are well-aligned.

4 www.conservationmeasures.org reflects the work of the Conservation Measures Partnership. 5 http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/ActionPlanning/Pages/conservation-action-plann.aspx

is a website managed by the CAP Coaches’ Network that helps all organizations implementing the Open Standards process to continually improve their capacity.

http://www.conservationmeasures.org/

http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/ActionPlanning/Pages/conservation-action-plann.aspx



Following this format, all fellows commit to submitting a strong project proposal by the

conclusion of the training program in year one. To assist fellows in developing a plan, and

ultimately in securing funding, each fellow is asked to complete the following template, or,

alternatively, the proposal outline provided by a potential donor.

1. Problem:

What important threat affecting the Mesoamerican Reef does this project address?

What is the current status of this threat?

2. Theory of Change:

What is your goal for a biodiversity target(s)? In what geographic area?

What are the major and indirect threats affecting your targets? (If not covered in #1)

What are the key opportunities where you can make a change?

Have similar interventions been effective elsewhere?

What is new and innovative that has potential for replication/scale about your strategy?

3. Game Plan:

Who are the key actors and how are you engaging with them to achieve this change?

What are the difficulties and risks (internal and external) that threaten the project? How will your

team manage these?

What outputs can be measured with annual benchmarks that will allow you to adaptively

manage your project?

Demonstrate a Gantt chart or other project phasing tool (activities and timeline) with annual

output indicators.

4. Budget:

What is the estimated 3-year cost (with annual breakouts) of implementing this project?

What are current sources of funding?

What is the estimated funding gap?

5. Sustaining the Project:

What organization/team will have responsibility for the ongoing sustainability of your project?

How will funding be secured?

What capacity is in place to implement these strategies and to lead, manage and adapt the

project over time?



Of the 2011 and 2012 cohorts, 96 percent of the fellows (23 of 24) were able to design an

ambitious, yet viable, project at the conclusion of the three workshops. Similarly, as our

selection process, coaching, and training methods improved, the number of fellows securing

funding and launching projects increased with each cohort. Five fellows of the 2012 cohort

secured funding for project launch within 10 months of entering the MAR Leadership

Program.

The following chapters provide more detail, and case study applications, of each of these six

sections of project planning.



To begin a discussion on their projects, each fellow brings their initial idea to the first

workshop. Using these ideas, we start with scope.

Scope: A range or extent of action or activity that, for these projects, refers to:

1A: Physical geography

1B: Target

1C: Direct and indirect threats

The MAR Leadership Program works with all three concepts, making sure targets, threats,

geography, and their link to strategy all make sense.

Starting with physical parameters, fellows are asked to clearly identify what area of the

Mesoamerican Reef they can impact: a defined area where they hope to see the

implementation and results of their projects. They are asked to map the geography where

they have ties to the local communities through their birth, their residence, or their work.

This geography is often an area defined by the boundaries of a protected area, a fishing

zone, a delta, or an area defined by prior data collection that can be used as a baseline.

Defining the coordinates helps fundamentally define the scope, the stakeholders, the extent

of the measures, etc. in any of the fellows’ projects. Given that fellows are invited every

year from each of the countries that border the MAR, the geographic scopes of the projects

are increasingly overlapping, creating opportunities for exciting synergies.

These are a few examples of the many ways in which projects are influencing each other

across cohorts:

Cohort Fellow Title of the project Geographic area

impacted

Overlap

2012 Joel Verde

Developing an integrated

management plan, using a CAP methodology, for 4 adjoining

protected areas in Mexico and

Belize

Bahía de Manatí,

Mexico through Northern Belize

(Corozal)

Built his idea in part

from the success of the Southern Seas

integrated management

program where

Nicanor is working.

2011 Nicanor

Requena

Empowering local committees

for Community Managed Access

Programs in Port Honduras

Port Honduras

Marine Reserve,

Belize

His work in expanding

managed access is now

being complemented

with no-take zones by Seleem.



2012 Seleem Chan Expanding replenishment zones

with fisher support and use of

lobster shades

Port Honduras

Marine Reserve,

Belize

Is gaining support from

fishers to leave a no-

take area and install lobster shades based in

large part on Kim’s

success in Mexico.

2011 Kim Ley Cooper

Effectively marketing sustainably produced lobster for value-

added fishing income

Banco Chinchorro,

Mexico

Is also sharing his skills with other MAR

fellows such as

Maricarmen García,

Celso Cawich and Kirah Foreman

By the end of this section of the training, fellows have a good idea of a geographic area

where they have the potential to:

Act because they are known and accepted in the community

Measure (and preferably have access to) baseline data

Identify key stakeholders

Assess assumptions and risks that could impact project success

Have an impact!

The MAR Leadership Program recognizes that the geographic area where a fellow may have

the best opportunity to make an impact may be insufficient to include the full set of habitat

types or key ecological attributes needed for a given conservation target. At the same time,

it is often possible to help fellows tie into the efforts of a larger entity such as the Toledo

Institute for Development and Environment (TIDE), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), or a

government effort such as the National Commission on Protected Areas in Mexico

(CONANP). In addition, if the project proves effective and replicable, it can be expanded to

incorporate the broader area needed to impact the conservation target. Most importantly,

the geographic scope helps fellows identify the key stakeholders and communities with

whom they will engage.



The next issue that fellows are asked to address is the

project target: species, natural communities, or ecosystem

functions. While many begin with broad statements such as

“the health of the Mesoamerican Reef,” we encourage them

to break down the big picture into biodiversity or

socioeconomic targets that can more readily be tracked

and measured for impact. Fellows are encouraged to define

targets of ecoregional significance to the overall MAR, and

make that case in their proposals. The 2012 fellows chose

the following criteria for selecting targets:

Umbrella species

Flagship species

Iconic species

Of commercial interest

Provides ecosystem services

Related to Blue Carbon

Measurable

Culturally important

At this stage in the project design process, fellows need to identify a clear target(s) and a

general statement of direction to start crafting a future goal statement. Examples include:

Target Fellow

Increase number of viable Acropora palmata

communities that are spawning in Xcalak National Park.

Gabriela Nava, 2011

Increase the number of reproductive female

spiny lobsters in the Hol Chan Marine Reserve.

Kirah Forman, 2011

Increase lionfish consumption and fishermen’s

income in Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve.

Constanza Ribot, 2011

Increase the number of acres of mangroves conserved by hotel owners in the Riviera

Maya.

Carlos Segura, 2012

Implement sustainable fishing practices for

spiny lobster and increase income of fishermen in Banco Chinchorro.

Kim Ley Cooper, 2011

The Queen Conch (Strombus

gigas) is 2012 MAR Fellow Yuself

Cala’s target. It is a flagship

species in the MAR region.

Photo: Yuself Cala.



Based on the work of the Conservation Action Planning Coaches’ Network 6 and the

publications on “Situation Analysis” by Foundations of Success,7 much of the fellows’ initial

work is to define the situation as they see it. They are challenged to identify the indirect and

direct threats that impact the health and viability of their targets. This leads to a situation

analysis where fellows can explicitly express their understanding of the relationship between

human activities and the biodiversity targets (species, natural communities, or ecosystem

functions) on which they will focus their projects. A few examples of situation analyses

designed by MAR Leadership fellows follow.

“In the 1970s and 80s the abundance

of Acropora palmata was reduced

dramatically across the Caribbean in

response to a bacterial infection

(Aronson and Precht 2001). With this

loss, and exacerbated by other threats

that caused a general decline in coral

reefs, some areas saw declines as

steep as 90% from the original cover

(Bruckner 2002). In Mexico, the

growth of the tourism industry, coastal

development, anchor damage and ship

groundings, and coral bleaching due to

climate change have contributed to a

series of pressures on coastal and

marine ecosystems. In Xcalak National

Park, even with only a small amount of tourism pressure, the lack of understanding of the

important functions of species, overfishing, lack of strategic management planning, ship damage,

and the lack of active restoration efforts have had an impact on the reef: degradation of habitat,

reduction of coral cover, and low recruitment of young corals are some of the problems identified

that will affect the development and resilience of these coral reefs.”

6 http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/ActionPlanning/Pages/conservation-action-plann.aspx

7 Using Conceptual Models to Document a Situation Analysis: An FOS How-To Guide, April 2009 Foundations of Success. www.fosonline.org.


http://www.fosonline.org/



“The fast rate at which mangrove

forests are disappearing in Belize

is leading to increased

vulnerability of coastal

communities and contributing

significantly to carbon emissions.

Mangrove forests provide natural

protection to coastal communities

from climate change impacts

such as sea level rise and

increased hurricanes. These

forests not only capture carbon

within the trees themselves (like

other forests), but there is also a

significant amount of carbon

stored in the substrate. With

increasing climate variability,

impacts on coastlines such as sea level rise and hurricanes are more pronounced and

destructive.”

“In Belize, unlike other countries’

Marine Reserves that are no-take

zones, Marine Reserves were

zoned to include both general use

areas and no-take zones.

Traditional fishers are allowed to

continue fishing inside the general

use zones of the reserve.

However, the management of

marine reserves has not

examined how fishing pressure

has affected the success of

reserves in maintaining fishery

stocks. Fishing, in terms of both

quantity of catch and methods

used has, for the most part, gone unmanaged. Hol Chan has never monitored catch

information from fishermen, although they report a decline in both lobster and conch. Illegal

fishers, poorly designed gaff hooks that kill young lobster, extremely small no-take zones,

and the lack of formal agreements on catch limits all put big pressure on the reproductive-

sized lobster and conch populations.”



Once fellows have completed their situation analysis, they should be able to do any

additional research needed to write a response to the first question of the Proposal Format

discussed in the Introduction.

What important threat affecting the Mesoamerican Reef

does this project address?

What’s the current status of this threat?



Once the situation analysis is clear, fellows can begin defining their strategy. We approach it

as a four-step thought process:

2A: Define the opportunity: What can you influence?

2B: Describe your theory of change to clarify the strategy

2C: Build a results chain or logical framework to indicate how the project will work

2D: Develop a stakeholder engagement strategy

This is one of the more difficult parts of the training program. Many fellows begin with

strategy (e.g., we want to tag sharks to see their movements) and have to fight the impulse

to drive with strategy before ensuring that they have a clear target and strong situation

analysis. It is only once they have a strong situation analysis that they can begin the

iterative task of determining if their strategy is truly a good fit for positively impacting the

target that they have selected (2B).

Fellows are aware that they cannot attack all the threats to the MAR in one project. Ideally,

they will be working with other institutional partners and stakeholders who are advancing

work in other areas. In a departure from the traditional CAP processes, we do not rank the

threats at this point, as this manual is designed to allow individuals to make an impact, not

identify threats that fellows are not well-positioned to tackle. Rather, based on each fellow’s

skills, interests, and position in the community or in an organization, we ask them to define

which of the threats they can truly impact.

Pertinent questions include:

Do you have credibility with key stakeholders who can affect a threat?

Do you have special credentials/skills that allow you to tackle a particular problem?

What are you passionate about changing?

Are there threats that no other organization is effectively addressing that you could

impact?

Are you in a position/organization where you could impact a particular threat?

What learning objectives do you have that could be reached by addressing one of the

threats?



A fun Venn diagram that has been widely shared online also helps fellows realize that their

project must connect with their passions and vocation:

Once fellows have reflected on their strengths and passions they identify the areas where

they have the perseverance and commitment to implement their projects. A few examples

are included below. The full situation analysis is shown, but the indirect threats that fellows

are not best suited to impact are now lighter in color, and arrows indicate the areas where

fellows feel they can have the strongest impact.

Gabriela is a Ph.D. student and an

experienced scuba diver. She

recently founded a nonprofit

organization, Oceanus A.C., with

her business partner. Her

specialty is in coral genotypes and

she is very familiar with the coral

structure in Xcalak National Park,

near her hometown. Thus, she

has chosen to focus on the threats

where her skills can be best put to

use.



Kirah is the daughter of a fisherman on

Ambergris Caye. She understands the

needs of fishermen and knows how to

communicate with them and work with

them. She works in the Hol Chan Marine

Reserve, which has 13 staff, the largest

reserve staff of all of the Marine Protected

Areas in Belize. Thus she sees her biggest

opportunity working directly with the

traditional fishers who are currently using

the Hol Chan fishing grounds.

Giacomo was named Director of the

South Side Office of Roatan Marine Park

(since then, he has become the director

of the whole park!). He helped design of

the park’s project management plan and

works to enforce it. Giacomo is the

founder of Shark Legacy Project, a

Roatan-based organization that played a

key role in the declaration of Honduras

as shark sanctuary as well as the

declaration of Cordelia Banks as a Site of

Wildlife Importance for Honduras. He has

an opportunity for fundraising as well as

stopping ship groundings and anchor

damage with buoys.

One of the most important parts of this discussion is to ensure that fellows recognize that

they can rarely, if ever, affect all of the indirect threats and causes of threats. Their goal in

this section is to identify what special skills and contacts they bring to the MAR that will

open up unique opportunities for making a difference.

http://www.roatanmarinepark.com/about/our-staff/

http://www.roatanmarinepark.com/about/our-staff/



Once it is clear which threats fellows may be able to impact, they are asked to draw a

schematic of their “theory of change.” Theories of change require fellows to turn their

assumptions about how their actions can impact a target into explicit statements. We do

this in a group exercise, using the same diagramming techniques that we have done to

date. Fellows have all answered the following questions, presented them to colleagues, and

been challenged by experts, to ensure they were clear on their responses:

What is your goal for a biodiversity target(s)? In what geographic area?

What are the major direct and indirect threats affecting your targets?

What are the key opportunities where you can make a change?

If fellows can clearly do all of the above, they are then asked to explicitly state what their

strategy is for affecting those targets. The strategy is named and then the key assumptions

are listed in terms of how the indirect and direct threats will be impacted. This a general

statement; more detail will follow in their results chains (section 2C).

Using the same examples from the previous sections, “theory of change” statements are

then constructed:

Gabriela will start a Reef

Restoration Program, beginning by

rehabilitating sites of Acropora

palmata (AP) through the

establishment of coral nurseries.

She will engage the community

through an ecotourism/scientific

tourism project that can bring

more income into the local

community. The project will

restore habitats with genotypes

that have proven resistant to the

bacterial infection that has

decimated this coral in the past.

Ultimately the new corals will be

planted on the skeletons of former AP reefs so that they will once again be covered in new

corals and generate the structure and habitat needed for species recovery and connectivity

in these areas.



Kirah seeks to fill in the management

gaps within Hol Chan to further protect

the conch and lobster fisheries. For

fisheries management to be

successful, park managers need to

know the extent of fishing pressure in

and around the MPA. Hol Chan has

been operating as a managed access

area since the establishment of the

reserve. However, agreements

between fishers have not been

formalized, the no-take zone is very

small, and the quantity of catch being

extracted has not been monitored.

This proposal will help to fill in these management areas and work with fishers to ensure

that fishing activities are carried out sustainably to benefit the fishers and the biodiversity of

Hol Chan. This project is a pilot study in the Hol Chan reserve, working with a few fishers to

ensure greater success, with future plans to replicate it in two other reserves (Caye Caulker

and Bacalar Chico Marine Reserves).



To ensure that strategies logically align with results, we use a technique called “results

chains.” Results chains are diagrams that show the causal relationship between elements of

the strategy from actions to outputs.8 They perform many of the same functions as more

traditional logical frameworks, but show the direct links between elements of the strategy

which larger table- or pyramid-style logical frameworks can sometimes miss. A logical

framework can be pictured like this:

With a causal relationship, a logical framework looks like the following graphic:

Project Description

Indicators Source of Verification

Assumptions

Goal

Outcome(s)

Outputs

Activities

If the OUTCOMES are accomplished;

Then this should contribute to the overall goal

If OUTPUTS are produced;

Then the OUTCOMES are accomplished

If adequate RESOURCES/INPUTS are provided;

Then the ACTIVITIES can be conducted

If the ACTIVITIES are conducted;

Then OUTPUTS can be produced

The Logic of Logframes

8 Using Results Chains to Improve Strategy Effectiveness: An FOS How-To Guide. Foundations of Success, May 2007. p. 2. www.fosonline.org.

Start here




Logical frameworks are used in many conservation and development projects. Results

chains take the idea one step further by better diagramming the relationship between the

specific activities, outputs, and outcomes.

Basic Components of a Results Chain

Threat abatement

Outcome Output

Goal =

Impact on Target

StrategyOutput

Results

Once the relationship between logical frameworks and results chains is clarified, we ask

fellows to consider their work to date and state this work as results that will logically and

sequentially contribute toward the ultimate goal. This exercise is not a work plan that lays

out detailed project activities (that is covered in Step 5), but rather it is designed to see if

the alignment between the outputs and outcomes truly makes sense. Good results chains

have:

• A causal diagram of “if-then” statements for achievement of outcomes and goals

• Only one result in each box

• Enough boxes to logically connect how we think a strategy or set of outcomes will

reduce a threat and/or conserve a target

• Some results that can be measured so we can test our assumptions during project

execution

• Key objectives (results with SMART goals, Step 2C-2) labeled explicitly on the chart

MAR Fellows are next encouraged to take their target and think about a measurable goal. In

some cases fellows are not able to do so because they are more focused on reducing a

threat; when this is the case, they use the same process below but state a measurable

outcome instead of a goal. For example, Yimi Chirinos, from the 2011 cohort, has a theory



of change that impacts a threat (reduced illegal fishing), instead of making an effort to

measure the full population of fin fish along the Honduran coast.

The MAR Leadership Program uses well-known approaches such as SMART goals to develop

a schematic. In their project design, fellows are encouraged to use short, clear, compelling

language to describe these goals.

SMART goals enable:

Clarity for strong priority-setting and

decision-making

More focused and effective fundraising

and marketing as fellows can describe the

challenge and importance of their project

Adaptive management by building in

milestones or feedback loops

SMART goals also enable fellows to measure

success. It can be challenging to balance

ambitious plans with realism, but realistic

planning is crucial to achieving a feeling of

success and empowerment. Yuself Cala of the

2012 Cohort describes coming to terms with

this issue: “With my original project idea, I

would have won the Nobel prize if I had

achieved it, however with the new plan I can

actually envision myself getting the funding and

time needed to do it.” The goal needs to be challenging but attainable, not something so

large that fellows will be frustrated or lose the confidence of local stakeholders. Helping

fellows develop challenging yet attainable goals is crucial in this phase.

Gabriela Nava, 2011 MAR Fellow

Work with the local community to restore 4 reef sites (500 m2) of Xcalak Marine Park by increasing the coverage of Acropora palmata coral through the establishment of 10 coral nurseries and the transplanting of 4000 new corals,

with a 70% survival rate, over 3 years.

Seleem Chan, 2012 MAR Fellow

Extend the no-take zones of Port Honduras Marine Reserve by 2014 which will result in a 25% increase of conch, spiny lobster, and fin fish populations by 2018.

Giacomo Palavicini, 2012 MAR Fellow

Reduce by 80% the amount of shark bycatch in Cordelia Banks in 3 years.

SMART Goals S •Specific

M •Measurable

A •Attainable

R •Realistic

T •Time-Bound

Challenging

Attainable



Similar to goals, outcomes are sometimes the most explicit measures of project success.

Outcomes go through the same process as goals, with fellows asked to think about clear,

SMART descriptions of what they will achieve.

Yimy Chirinos, 2011 MAR Fellow

This project will train 30 judges and prosecutors along the Atlantic coastline of Honduras to more effectively interpret

and apply the fishing laws of Honduras. This project will increase the application of the Honduran Fisheries Law, and

attention to the activities permitted within protected areas, as indicated by an increase in reports, fines, and guilty verdicts for illegal fishing.

Kirah Foreman, 2011 MAR Fellow

Develop an ecologically and economically sustainable management plan for the conch and lobster fisheries in Hol Chan Marine Reserve by 2014 by engaging fishers and managers in adopting responsible fishing practices, expanding

the no-take zone, and monitoring and adapting fishing pressure based on fishery data collection.

Pamela Ortega, 2012 MAR Fellow

Provide economic alternatives to 20 families in Los Cayitos, Utila, through a system of micro-credits, and by 2014

diversify their sources of income, minimizing their economic dependence on fishing.

Kim Ley, 2011 MAR Fellow Kim’s project’s objective is that fishers from Banco Chinchorro and Sian Ka’an adopt good fishing practices for spiny

lobsters in order to promote lobster conservation and sustainable management.

The expected results from the project are:

The organization of fishing grounds into parcels upon consolidating the network of artificial and natural

shelters to contribute to the lobster fishery in Banco Chinchorro.

The strengthening of fair and sustainable trade by spreading and applying the CHAKAY principles and

criteria and the MSC certification.

The creation of a participatory biological monitoring method to permanently analyze lobster stocks and the

functioning of artificial fishery reserves in no-take zones.

2C-2.1 INPUTS AND OUTPUTS

While we will delve into this in much more detail in Step 6, at this stage the inputs and

outputs are general ideas that are placeholders for the overall strategy for the project.

Fellows transfer inputs and outputs directly from the theory of change strategy ideas and

state them in very general terms in order to clarify their main activities so that outputs,

outcomes, and goals can be clearly stated as results.



2C-2.2 LINKING THE CHAIN

Once the elements are identified, fellows are asked to begin diagramming. A full results

chain is then shared with their colleagues for input and feedback. Results chains that fellows

have developed include:



The results chain is the basis for further developing the proposal and moving on to a clear

set of activities and outputs as part of the work plan (Step 5). By the time the fellows have

reflected on their opportunity, their theory of change, and a results chain, they are in a

good position to respond to the second question from the Proposal Format.

What is your goal for a biodiversity target(s)? In what

geographic area?

What are the major direct and indirect threats

affecting your targets? (If not covered in question 1)

What are the key opportunities where you can make a

change?

Have similar interventions been effective elsewhere?

What is new and innovative about your strategy? Does

it have the potential to be replicated and/or scaled?



To finalize this section of MAR Leadership Workshop 1 and make sure all of the fellows are

confident about their project design, fellows are encouraged to “tour” one other’s diagrams

and provide feedback. Feedback is essential to designing an accurate logical framework, the

importance of which is clear in this diagram from Foundations of Success:9

After receiving this initial training (Workshop 1), all of the fellows prepare and deliver

presentations for their colleagues and visiting experts to ensure that they can articulate and

defend their project idea. This original presentation is improved and refined over the course

of the next two workshops to reflect on stakeholders, monitoring and evaluation, work

plans, and budgets. By the conclusion of the first workshop the fellows have completed

Steps 1 and 2 of the project planning approach.

9 Foundations of Success: http://www.fosonline.org/




The design of a strong and coherent project strategy takes the most time, thought, and

reflection from fellows, but it is critical to invest time to get this right. In the three-month

break between the first and second workshops, fellows are encouraged to review their

theory of change, adapt their results chain as needed and write a response to the first two

questions in the proposal format. Upon arriving for the second workshop they need to be

very comfortable with their situation analysis and theory of change so that they can think

more deeply about community stakeholders and possible institutional partners.

While we focused on biodiversity targets in the first workshop, now we focus on people. The

major threats to targets are due to unsustainable human activities, and conservation only

happens when people engage. Fellows need to be clear about who they will be working with

and the best methods for engaging them; project success depends on this. We approach

this through a three-part process:

3A: Assess the full, diverse range of stakeholders

3B: Stakeholder analysis

3C: Engagement strategy

“Stakeholders” is a difficult word because it reflects a variety of groups: participants,

beneficiaries, partners, and distantly interested individuals. We work with fellows to identify

the individuals, groups, or institutions who have an interest in the natural resources of their

project area, and who could be affected by their activities and have something to gain or

lose if conditions change or stay the same.

A full set of stakeholders, which reflects the diversity in coastal communities, emerges when

fellows are asked the question:

Who is affected by your goals and strategies?

By geographical location

By use of the protected area

By relationship to the protected area targets

By ethnicity and background

By gender

By status

By influence



We spend time discussing the need to think broadly about all potential stakeholders before

jumping to prioritization and engagement strategies.

While looking at the broad array of community

members we ensure that fellows are thinking about

gender issues as well: the socially constructed roles

and characteristics assigned to men and women in

their local communities. Gendered realities have an

enormous impact on people’s access to, use of, and

control over natural resources. When working on

marine issues it is easy to focus on the

predominantly male captains and crew of the local

fishing fleets. However, more and more women are

also fishing, both men and women work in the

tourism and guide industry, and women are major

decision-makers in household economics and

resource consumption. Gender realities and

expectations shift over time in response to changing

economic and social conditions. Furthermore, the

rich national and cultural diversity along the MAR includes strong minority populations of

garifunas, k’ekchi, and expatriates, all of whom have different gender realities. Fellows need

to reflect on how their projects will be viewed by both men and women in the community

and how benefits and sacrifices will be distributed.

The most important takeaways are to:

1. Give visibility and support to both women’s and men’s contributions individually.

2. Don’t assume that a project will affect men and women in the same way; benefits

and sacrifices will be felt differently.

This mural in the fishing cooperative of

Punta Allen, Mexico shows that conservation

doesn’t happen without community

involvement.



Once fellows have thought broadly about a range of diverse stakeholders, we begin

narrowing down this full list through a stakeholder analysis:

1. Identify principal stakeholders by determining whose interests and behaviors are critical for your project to succeed.

2. Investigate their interests, roles, and capacity or motivation to participate.

What is causing the threat to the target?

Why are they contributing to a threat to the conservation target?

How do they benefit from more sustainable use of the conservation target?

3. Identify relationships between stakeholders, noting potential for cooperation or conflict.

4. Identify who has power and influence that could affect your project.

5. Interpret the findings of the analysis and determine how you can enhance project

design and success.

To respond to these questions, the following two charts are helpful. The first addresses

questions 1-3 above:

Stakeholder

Interest in project Effect of project on their interests

Capacity/ motivation to

participate

Relationship with other stakeholders

10 Caldwell, R. 2002. Project Design Handbook. CARE. http://www.ewb-international.org/pdf/CARE%20Project%20Design%20Handbook.pdf

http://www.ewb-international.org/pdf/CARE%20Project%20Design%20Handbook.pdf



Stakeholder Interest in

project

Effect of project on

their interests

Capacity/

motivation to

participate

Relationship with other

stakeholders

Barra Sarstún

Village

High interest

in the project

This project will be

positive for them,

because they will

have a better

understanding and

control of the fishing

zones.

The fishermen and

women’s group

from Barra Sarstún

are eager to

participate in the

process.

This community has

good relationships with

three other coastal

communities from

Sarstún protected

areas. However, their

challenge is to negotiate

with the trawlers from

Livingston.

The second chart explores the issue of whose interests and behaviors are critical for the

project to succeed, abruptly narrowing the full set of stakeholders to a much smaller group.

It also identifies who has the influence to help a project succeed or cause it to fail.

Stakeholder Unknown Low Moderate Significant Critical

Stakeholder Unknown Low Moderate Significant Critical

Coastal communities from the Río

Sarstún Multiple Use Area

x

Trawlers from Livingston x

Fishers’ network x

CONAP x

Barra Sarstún Fishers x

Barra Sarstún Women’s Group X x

11 Caldwell, R. 2002. Project Design Handbook. CARE. http://www.ewb-international.org/pdf/CARE%20Project%20Design%20Handbook.pdf

http://www.ewb-international.org/pdf/CARE%20Project%20Design%20Handbook.pdf



With time to reflect on the different

types of stakeholders, their interests,

and who will be affected, fellows can

then use this chart to establish their

priority stakeholders, from A to D.

By the end of this exercise, fellows

should have a strong sense of how

different groups will be affected by

and/or can influence their project,

allowing them to start prioritizing

engagement strategies.

Once fellows are clear about the importance of different groups, they need to plan

communications and engagement strategies. It is difficult, especially in small and relatively

close-knit communities, to manage effective communications, make the wider set of

stakeholders still feel engaged, and not burn out and get sidetracked by numerous other

issues and perspectives. Fellows need to be strategic about the time and effort spent in

reaching these different groups, so the following tables are helpful to ensure appropriate

communications and follow-through.

As a general rule, stakeholders identified as Group A in the chart above would tend to be

listed in the Involve, Collaborate, or Empower areas of the chart on the next page. These

areas will require the majority of the work, time, and relationship-building invested. By

contrast, those listed in Group D can be informed through mass media-style approaches

such as a newspaper article, a project launch announcement, or a website. By developing a

comprehensive plan for engagement, fellows can then better apply their time where it is

most needed and think about project work plans (Step 5).



Process

Stage Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Coordinate and facilitate

planning process

Collect basic information

Identify and assess targets

Identify and assess threats,

opportunities and stakeholders

Strategy development

Strategy Implementation

Monitor and evaluate

management effectiveness

12 Excerpt from: The Nature Conservancy. February 2009. Protected Area Management Planning: A target-based approach, a practitioner’s guidance. Unpublished draft.

Process

Stage

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Coordinate and facilitate

planning process

Coastal

communities

from the Río

Sarstún

Multiple Use

Area

Collect basic information

Trawlers

from

Livingston

Identify and assess targets

Fishers’

network

Identify and assess threats,

opportunities and stakeholders

CONAP

Barra

Sarstún

COCODE

Strategy development

Barra

Sarstún

Fishers

Barra

Sarstún

Women’s

Group

Strategy Implementation

Barra

Sarstún

Fishers

Barra

Sarstún

Women’s

Group

Monitor and evaluate

management effectiveness

Barra

Sarstún

COCODE



The Nature Conservancy further developed this idea with the following chart to structure

different levels of stakeholder engagement with the accompanying set of example

techniques.

LESS Level of Stakeholder Impact MORE

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Participation

goal

Provide

stakeholders with

objective

information on the

problems,

strategies,

opportunities,

and/or solutions.

Obtain

stakeholder

feedback to

inform the

analysis,

strategies, and

decisions.

Work directly

with

stakeholders

throughout the

process to

integrate their

concerns and

aspirations.

Partner with

selected

stakeholders in

decision-making.

Place final decision-

making in the hands of

the stakeholder group.

Promise to

stakeholders

We will keep you

informed.

We will listen

and acknowledge

your concerns

and aspirations

and let you know

how your

feedback

influenced our

decisions.

We will work

with you to

incorporate

your concerns

and aspirations

into our

strategies.

We will

incorporate your

advice and

recommendations

into the decisions

to the maximum

extent possible.

The final implementation

decision will be yours.

Example of

different

techniques

Fact sheets

Web sites

Posters

Open houses

Public

comment

Focus groups

Surveys

Public

meetings

Workshops

Focused

polling

Advisory

committees

Consensus-

building

activities

Formal partner

MOUs14

Citizen juries

Ballots

Delegated decision-

making

NGO/CBO capacity

building15

13 Adapted from: The Nature Conservancy. 2009. Protected Area Management Planning. A Target-Based Approach.

A Practitioner’s Guidance. Unpublished draft February 2009. 14 MOU: Memorandum of Understanding 15 Non-Governmental Organization or Community Based Organization capacity building: the idea is to strengthen

their capacity to advance projects in the community. For example, MAR Fellow Angeline Valentine (2011) arranged for training in communications and lobbying to help the Belize Coalition to Save our Natural Heritage win over

96% support in a national referendum on offshore drilling. The decision on how to apply that training to their referendum was made solely by the Belize Coalition.



The final point for fellows, beyond strictly asking people to engage, is to identify what

benefits key stakeholders hope to gain from a fellow’s project. To motivate their key

constituencies, fellows must clearly identify:

1. Whose involvement is necessary?

2. What are their motives?

3. What incentives do they need to support the project?

Project: Establishing Fishery Recovery Areas with Key Stakeholders in Bahía

Cocolí. Cleopatra Méndez, 2012 MAR Fellow.

Barra Sarstún Village is a community located in the northern

part of the municipality of Livingston, department of Izabal,

Guatemala; it shares a border with the country of Belize. The

village was founded in 1902 by the Milian family, who own

the majority of the village’s lands. Over the years, other

families arrived, settling mainly on the banks of the river, due

to the limited availability of land and the ease of the location

for fishing. Currently, Barra Sarstún has more than 110

families, 90% of which subsist by fishing. The village is a mix

of the Maya Q’eqchi’ and Mestizo cultures.

The organization of the community, as mandated by the Law

of Development Councils of Guatemala, is known as COCODE, Community Development

Council. This council, by law, must include people of both genders. Aside from the COCODE,

there are three committees in the community: the fishers’ committee, the women’s

committee, and the tourism committee.

The Barra Sarstún fishers’ committee is made up of 33 people: 24 men and 9 women. The

committee is currently running a mojarra fattening project (mojarra is a local,

commercially-traded fish) and a center for buying and selling fish. Both projects are

managed directly by the committee, and the work is divided equitably with the exception of

chores that require greater physical strength, in which women don’t participate. Women are

assigned less labor-intensive work or work considered appropriate for their gender. Profits

are distributed equitably at the end of the month, unless a member missed a work shift, in

which case it is docked from his or her pay. Furthermore, each member receives a bonus in

June, as if it were the mandatory “14 bonus” which is required by law only for formal

workers with benefits, and a Christmas bonus in December, which is also required by law for

formal workers. In other words, the members of this organization receive an extra two

months’ salary each year as a result of their hard work and their dedication to follow strict

procedures to keep the organization running properly.

Cleopatra Méndez

Photo: Claudia Taylor



The women’s committee is made up of 22 women of the Maya Q’eqchi’ culture and was

formed in 2005. The majority of the women don’t know how to read or write. The leader of

the group is a young Maya Q’eqchi’ woman, Sonia Tiul, who had the opportunity to go to

college and graduated with a degree in primary education. The women on the committee

are an example of perseverance and hard work; they row up to half an hour daily to reach

the meeting spot or the place they are going to work. They currently have an oven and

meet every Saturday to make bread. They also have a mill for cooked maize (nixtamal),

which they manage as a group, beginning work at 5 a.m. and ending at 6 p.m. Each

member has established shifts. In addition, they make mud sculptures to sell. They have a

boat with a motor which, aside from using it to get to Livingston or other places, they rent

to members of the community. Currently, their most productive and profitable activity is a

meal service. They have training in meal service and they serve tourist groups and local

workshops. Due to the women’s high level of need for day-to-day subsistence, the profits

from the meal service are distributed after each event. The earnings from the other

initiatives are distributed in December of each year.

Aside from their productive activities, the fishers’ committee and the women’s committee of

Barra Sarstún actively collaborate in environmental education and conservation initiatives,

reporting illegal activity and voluntarily establishing fishery recovery zones. The Boca Barra

Sarstún is one example of a voluntary no-take zone, which is in the process of being

formalized with the relevant authorities.



Project: Creating a Market for the Control of Lionfish (Pterois volitans) in the

Fishery Replenishment Zones of the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve, Mexico.

Constanza Ribot, 2011 MAR Fellow.

This project is focused exclusively on improving actions to control

the population of lionfish inside the fish recovery zone, and it will

complement the efforts that CONANP (National Commission for

Protected Areas) and CONAPESCA (National Commission for

Aquaculture and Fishing) carry out in the Sian Ka’an Biosphere

Reserve. The project will create a new market for lionfish

consumption by building awareness about responsible

consumption.

CONAPESCA and CONANP will support the project with personnel

and boats during lionfish hunting tournaments, making sure that

the rules are respected. The local fishing cooperatives will

contribute their personnel and the use of their equipment to this

project. This will be the first step toward permanent actions to control this exotic species,

but the efforts to control its population must be carried out indefinitely. Part of the success

of this project will be the result of the new skills that the fishing community will develop,

and the community’s involvement in conservation actions. Building awareness and

convincing people that the lionfish is an edible species of comparable quality to other

commercial species are also essential to this project.

The project will have support from CONAPESCA and CONANP to train fishers in surveillance

and to implement the yearly community surveillance program.

This project is crucial to maintaining the efforts to conserve the reef that we have carried

out with fishers over the last four years. The objectives of this project were defined through

collaboration between the fishers’ cooperative and COBI, while keeping the authorities

informed. These objectives are focused on reducing two threats that put fisheries and the

fishers’ way of life at risk, which are the threats that most worry the fishers. The potential

positive impact of this project extends beyond Sian Ka’an and can be replicated in other

coastal communities of Quintana Roo.

Constanza Ribot

Photo: Javier Ochoa



Project: Building Social Capital by Empowering Community Managed Access

Committees for Long-term Fisheries Management Within Marine Reserves in

Belize. Nicanor Requena, 2011 MAR Fellow.

The Belize Fisheries Department, Wildlife Conservation Society

(WCS), Toledo Institute for Development and Environment

(TIDE), and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) are working

with fishermen to implement a managed access program at

Glover's Reef Marine Reserve and Port Honduras Marine

Reserve, sites that provide a livelihood to several coastal

communities. In order to implement a managed access

licensing regime, it was vital that a community managed access

committee be appointed to represent fishers from all the

communities that depend on these two reserves. The

committee has one representative from the Belize Fisheries

Department, the local co-managers, tour guide association

representatives, and a fisherman from each of the communities

that directly depend on the fisheries resources from each of the marine reserves. Fishermen

make up the majority of the members on the committee. One of the functions of the

committee has been screening license applications to obtain a managed access license and

making necessary recommendations to the Belize Fisheries Department. Hence, in order to

represent fishers and provide transparency in issuing licenses and managing the program’s

performance, it is important that this committee functions and is sustainable in the long

term, especially since fishermen represent the interest of the community members at the

respective marine reserves. Building the social capital is an integral component of the

process to ensure the successful implementation and viability of managed access at these

two marine reserves with minimal external interventions. Success will make these reserves

a model for similar management programs in other marine reserves.

At present the overall managed access project in Belize is sustained by an active

partnership among the Belize Fisheries Department, WCS, TIDE, and EDF that pools

together technical, human, and financial resources for implementation at two marine

reserves. The ongoing sustainability of the project is being evaluated at the end of a two-

year pilot/transition period with the goal of local partners including fishermen and the

Government of Belize taking the leading role in future phases of the project. A growing

number of local and regional actors are taking an active role in supporting the overall

project or key components; these include COMPACT, OSPESCA, MAREA (USAID), PACT, and

Social Investment Fund of Belize. The activity of the committees is a responsibility that is

envisioned to be fully embraced by local fishermen and local NGOs, with fishermen in a

leadership capacity and having an ability to have the committees function.

Nicanor Requena

Photo: Javier Ochoa



By thinking through the needs and aspirations of key stakeholders, fellows gain the ability

to respond to two more key proposal format questions:

Who are the key actors and how are you engaging

with them to achieve this change?

What are the difficulties and risks (internal and

external) that threaten the project? How will your

team manage these?



After fellows complete their stakeholder analysis, we ask them to

focus on their long-term plans for monitoring and evaluation

(M&E). While it will be some time before they launch their

projects, we raise the issue of M&E now because:

1. M&E is a critical part of objective-setting, and fellows

have many new output ideas after the stakeholder

discussion.

2. Fellows need to build the time for M&E into their work

plans.

3. M&E can prove expensive and must be included in

budgeting.

4. A clear statement of objectives and measurement is

needed in all good funding proposals.

Adaptive management is critical for all successful projects, and building in M&E is a

prerequisite for making needed changes along the way.

By this point, fellows have been exposed to available data that could serve as baseline

information. For example, a focus on key threats and resources using information from

sources such as the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (www.healthyreefs.org)

survey data allows many fellows to better articulate how they will create a change and

measure their impact, either by reducing a threat or enhancing the viability of a biodiversity

target with greater technical understanding.

Monitoring and Evaluation:16

Help identify problems and their causes

Suggest possible solutions to problems

Raise questions about assumptions and strategy

Force reflection on where the project is going and if it is on track

Provide information and insight

Encourage choices and action based on the information and insight

Increase the likelihood that the project will make a positive difference

Allow fellows to revise their results chains with clearer objectives, ensuring that the

stakeholder information is fully incorporated

16 Adapted from Civicus, Monitoring and Evaluation, by Janet Shapiro. P. 6.

Gabriela Nava preparing

to monitor coral health

Photo: Javier Ochoa




Our approach builds on past activities by returning to the results chain and completing it

with clear indicators for outputs, outcomes, and the final goal. How will fellows know that

their project is moving in the right direction? They need indicators that tie in with their

theory of change. To do this they select indicators of achievement that are:

Measurable

Precise

Consistent

Sensitive

We discuss the importance of developing indicators for monitoring and evaluation:

The selection of indicators should include consideration of:

Quantitative indicators addressing questions such as: Who? How much? How often?

or How many?

Qualitative indicators assessing less measurable items, such as how people are

feeling, how behaviors are changing, or how motivations are shifting

Establishes indicators of efficiency,

effectiveness and impact

Collects and records indicator information

Analyzes the information

Uses the information to inform ongoing

management

Compares goal to actual achievement

Assesses strategy effectiveness

Measures the efficiency of resource use

Examines the sustainability of the project

Evaluation is best for learning if not left until the

end, so try to assess progress toward a goal or

do a mid-term review.



Once a number of clear indicators have been developed, fellows are asked to consider the

methods they will use to assess those indicators.

Examples of monitoring methods:

Recorded observation (head counts, participation levels, etc.)

Diaries

Recording and analysis of important incidents (called “critical incident analysis”)

Structured questionnaires

One-on-one interviews

Focus groups

Case studies

Surveys

Systematic review of relevant official statistics

The table below gives an example of how fellows begin planning a monitoring schedule by

listing indicators and methods and then building monitoring into their timelines (more on

timelines in Step 5).



Fellows with a stronger science emphasis need to be very thoughtful about types of data

collection, time periods, and strict adherence to a given methodology. Filling out a detailed

table, like the one below, will help them with their project work plan and their budget.

In these situations fellows are also advised to build from existing third-party data sources

when available, such as www.healthyreefs.org or government agency data.

To conclude this session, fellows have time to work on their results chains and specify

indicators. We emphasize indicators as core components of fellows’ projects to be sure they

are fully incorporated into their work plans and their adaptive management strategy.




At this point fellows look at their results chains and consider how to ensure there are

indicators for the most important outputs, outcomes, and goals. As our process is iterative,

this is one of the moments when fellows can now review their past work with new, fresh

ideas and incorporate more measurable stakeholder and M&E objectives within the results

chain.

Examples include:



Project Indicators

Sarteneja Alliance for Conservation & Development

(SACD) has a strong monitoring and evaluation process

in place under which all project implementation is

monitored against a project implementation matrix,

developed at the start of the project and integrating an

indicator framework with indicators identified in the

Project Development Table.

The SACD Executive Director will have oversight of the

project and monitor day-to-day activities and outputs

managed by the project coordinators and program

officers. The Executive Director will provide updates on

project activities and financial statements during ongoing monthly monitoring and

evaluation workshops of all SACD organization members, to provide Board oversight and

project transparency. Quarterly reports will be submitted to the Board and, if requested, to

the funding agency. An internal evaluation of the project will be implemented following

completion. An internal end-of-project evaluation will be completed to highlight the

strengths and weaknesses of the project and the lessons learned.

Standardized Indicators

Corozal Bay Wildlife Sanctuary has no coral, and is therefore better evaluated using the

indicators selected for Payne’s Creek (herbivorous fish count and percent of sea grass bed

cover).

The turbidity of the water in Corozal Bay doesn’t permit AGGRA/MBRS fish surveys, but

SACD has some baseline data from 2012 for all commercial species of fish from fish trap

catch assessments. The primary research target output for 2013 is to map the seagrass

within the Wildlife Sanctuary through ground truthing and comparison with satellite

imagery.

However, as the project is directed at system-level planning, it would be feasible to include

monitoring of coral reef health:

(1) Biomass (g/m2) of all fish in MPAs (pre/post action)

(2) Herbivorous fish count (parrotfish and surgeonfish)

(3) Percent live coral cover

These are annual monitoring outputs from these protected areas, with baselines in place.

These same three standardized indicators will be required of all projects that will be

developed in the nine marine protected areas designated last year. This way they can be

evaluated based on their ability to make progress on the goals of the program. This

standardization will also facilitate evaluating the success of the program across projects.

Joel Verde (bottom right) with an

SACD-sponsored soccer team

Photo: SACD



Finally, at the end of this section, fellows can also address:

What outputs can be measured with annual

benchmarks that will allow you to adaptively




Up to now, fellows have spent all of their time focused on developing a clear theory of

change and understanding how their project will impact targets and stakeholders. We have

moved through the first four steps in the project planning process and had time to align the

different steps to ensure a clear results chain.

By working through the past four steps, fellows have started to get a sense of the duration

and energy needed for their respective projects. To turn that inkling into a reality, it is time

to design a work plan. The work plan, in turn, enables fellows to construct a relatively

accurate budget (Step 6).

While the results chain shows the achievement of project results, a work flow diagram

depicts the execution of activities. To date we have had just a vague box, “Strategy,” that

does not provide any detail on what actions are involved.

It is now time to specify, for example, how the fishermen will be educated or what it will

take to put together a Fisheries Law training program for judges. This section breaks apart

the general strategy bubbles and builds a hierarchical list of activities that must be

completed.

All fellows have seen numerous ambitious projects fail in their communities. The 2012

cohort developed the following list of reasons that projects fail:

Lack of engagement of key stakeholders

Limited time and resources

Lack of understanding of the motivation of participants

Lack of a baseline and inability to monitor impacts

Poor execution

Bad monitoring plan

Poor budgeting

Non-SMART objectives

Lack of follow-through

Lack of logistical competence

Lack of clear commitment

Project not sustainable

Lack of attention to escalating problems

Many of the factors described above are design mistakes, which fellows hopefully know how

to avoid by this point in the training process. The rest of the issues are implementation



mistakes. Most common are mistakes made with scheduling, budgeting, and errors that

affect a project’s reputation or trust within the community. One of the other reasons behind

project malfunction is a failure to understand that projects are three-legged stools. If the

scope of the project changes, it will affect both the work plan and the budget. Similarly, if

the work plan and schedule change dramatically, changes must be made to the budget and

scope.

Project Quality

Scope

BudgetWork Plan/ Schedule

To help avoid these mistakes, fellows are encouraged to write up a work plan for their

project, specifying:

What activities are required

Who will be responsible for each activity

When each activity needs to be done

Resources required to complete each activity

How much each activity will cost and what is funded (see Step 6)



When looking at a strategy, such as Kirah’s “Engage local fishers to gather catch data,”

fellows are asked to write down all the activities this implies.

Objective: Gain fisher support for no-take and managed access

Strategy: Engage local fishers to gather catch data

Activity Who By when Comments

Identify Fishers Kirah May 2012

Design catch registry tool Kirah May 2012 Make 60 copies

Host meeting Kirah June 2012 Explain registry

tool – distribute

copies

Objective 1: Establish long-term partnerships between Protected Areas (PAs), local conservation

organizations and local stakeholder communities in target areas, to form a model and sustainable

working foundation for increased management effectiveness of target critical ecosystems

Duration of Activity

in Months

Activity Responsible Party Means of

Verification 1 2 3 4 5

1.1 Contract Project

Consultant to Implement

project

Blue Carbon Executive

Committee

Terms of

Reference X

Signed Contract

1.2 Meeting with Key

Stakeholders and technical

advisors to define project

scope and select target

Protected Areas

Blue Carbon Executive

Committee

Project Consultant

Meeting Minutes X X

1.3 Meeting of project

participants and technical

advisors to define project

scope and partners within 2

selected target areas

Project Consultant Meeting Minutes X



The work plan template works well for some fellows, but others prefer to use a more visual

flow chart, which looks like:

There are many different project management software tools available to help document

and check in on work plans. The work flow template is easily managed in Microsoft Excel,

whereas the flow chart works best in PowerPoint. Other programs for project management

that fellows listed include Microsoft Project, Project Builder, www.ganttproject.com, and a

more expensive option, www.projectmanager.com.

Once fellows have a basic work plan we discuss two more sophisticated tools in detail:

5B-1: Gantt charts

5B-2: Budgeting time with PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique)

Gantt charts are particularly useful in sequencing activities. They:

Break down activities into a clear structure

Indicate the sequence of activities

Provide a basis for scheduling

Identify a “critical path” for a project with an end date

Can be grouped to plan the allocation of resources needed to complete the project

Can be easily manipulated in Microsoft Project or on graph paper



When developing a Gantt chart for the first time, it is easiest to visualize it in discrete steps:

1. Break down activities

2. Organize activities on a timeline

3. Organize the list by start time and due date

With experience it becomes easier to jump into creating a Gantt chart without the

intermediate steps, but requires a flexible software tool. The first step is to fill out a list of

activities, like that in your work plan, but then indicate whether the activity is sequential (is

part of a chain wherein something must happen before something else can take place) or

parallel (can occur independently of the other activities). A table like this one spells out the

relationship between activities.

Parallel



The second step is to organize the activities along a timeline. Note that sequential activities

are all the same color, whereas parallel activities can be different colors.

The last step in creating a Gantt chart is to reorganize your activities to reflect start and due

dates so it is easy to follow your work plan. The final Gantt chart for the above activities will

look like:

= critical path



The “critical path” is a useful concept because it allows a project implementer to quickly see

when they have fallen behind on a key activity that will derail others going forward. If the

meeting with fishers to explain data gathering doesn’t go well, and an additional meeting is

needed in month 3, it derails the whole work plan. Project adaptation would be needed to

move data collection out by another month to provide enough data for a useful review.

Thus, a Gantt chart allows the project implementer to see when schedule changes are

required. Similarly, if there is extra time in some month, then parallel activities can be

moved up or back, as they are not part of the critical path.

Some fellows already have experience with Gantt charts, and most are able to jump quickly

from a work plan to a Gantt chart without having to work through all three steps. For

fellows with relatively straightforward projects, Gantt charts can be very useful. However, if

there are over 30 activities they can become difficult to manage and often work better if

broken up into subtasks.

As a final exercise to prepare for a Gantt chart, fellows are asked to take their work plan

and identify parallel and sequential activities in the worksheet below.

Activity Start time (can

be week or

month)

# of days

anticipated

Type (parallel

or sequential)

Dependent

(upon which

other activities)

A

B

C

Fellows always have a lot of questions about how to budget their time. It is important to

resolve this issue prior to moving into financial budgeting. Given that all fellows work in

areas where many of the conveniences of regular internet access, cell phone reception,

three-day package delivery, etc. do not exist, they need to be prepared for unexpected

delays. In addition, fellows depend on the stakeholders they work with. Planning a meeting

with fishers means finding a time outside of their regular fishing season or once they have

pulled back into port. Fellows must take their context into account when budgeting for time.



There are two other “MAR factors” that are important to discuss in the context of the MAR

region:

1. Pelican time.17 This refers to the amount

of time needed to “hang out” to gain and

maintain the trust of key stakeholders

that live along the MAR. Arriving and

announcing that you will host a meeting,

and expecting people to show up, without

putting in the time to visit with them,

swing by their houses, or have a drink at

the bar, is a recipe for failure. Fellows

need to build pelican time into their

projects.

2. Make deposits.18 To quote Greg Low: “You

can’t expect to take withdrawals (e.g.

expect community support for your

project) unless you have made previous deposits (supporting something important to

the community). This ongoing give and take is a part of the life and culture of small

communities—and, for that matter, communities everywhere.” Fellows, most of

whom have been born and raised in the MAR region, know this well, but they need to

consciously account for “making deposits” in their time management.

A tool for thinking about time management in a budgeting sense is called a PERT chart, for

“Program Evaluation and Review Technique.”

While this equation is useful, the most important part of training in time management is the

process of thinking about possible time ranges.

17 I thank my friend Luis Bourillón of COBI for this great descriptive phrase. 18 I thank my friend Greg Low, who first crafted this concept in his book Landscape-Scale, Community-Based Conservation: A Practitioner’s Handbook, The Nature Conservancy 2009.

1. Estimate the shortest possible time each activity will take, 2. Estimate the most likely length of time, and 3. Estimate the longest time that might be needed.

Set up an equation:

(shortest time + 4 x likely time + longest time)

6

Constanza Ribot, 2011 MAR Fellow, has

invested significant “Pelican time” with the

fishers of the Puerto Morelos Cooperative, who

are key stakeholders in her project.

Photo: Javier Ochoa



Now that fellows have a well-defined work plan and a clear idea of their time allocation

needs, we conclude this section with a brief discussion about the importance of

incorporating efficiency measures into activities.

As we discussed in Step 4, monitoring and evaluation help assess impact, effectiveness, and

efficiency. Efficiency is inescapably tied to time and budget management in project

implementation. Efficiency monitoring for ongoing management adaptation requires

questions such as:

Is the project on track?

o Maintaining its schedule?

o Are partners on track too?

Is the budget on track?

Has the time allocation proven accurate?

Are meetings being managed effectively?

Just as we encouraged fellows to develop indicators for monitoring effectiveness, we now

remind them that the same can be done for efficiency. An example is Kirah’s chart:

Developing efficiency indicators prior to project startup helps fellows make adjustments

early in project implementation, especially related to time expenditure.



After receiving training in Steps 3, 4, and 5 during Workshop 2, fellows develop their project

presentations to include information on stakeholders, M&E, and plans for project

implementation. Again, a “tough love” approach is used to provide fellows with strong

feedback to improve their projects.

At the end of their second workshop, the fellows have already covered a lot of ground in

designing strong projects. Fellows can finish working through the first five steps of the

project planning process over the next few months, conferring with their coach along the

way.

Finally, prior to attending Workshop 3 on budgets, we ask fellows to develop new narratives

to continue improving their draft proposal. They addressed the first three aspects of the

2012 proposal format in the previous steps, and can now complete the final step.

Who are the key actors and how are you engaging

with them to achieve this change?

What are the difficulties and risks (internal and

external) that threaten the project? How will your

team manage these?

What outputs can be measured with annual

benchmarks that will allow you to adaptively


Demonstrate a Gantt chart or other project

phasing tool (activities and timeline) with annual

output indicators.



Fellows come to the third workshop with clear results chains and work plans so they are

ready to begin the final step in project planning: budgeting. The purpose of this training is

to clarify that budgets drive activities and are essential to all effective project planning.

Outcomes

Outputs

Activities

Budget

Goal

A budget tells a story. It is a project or organizational plan stated in monetary terms. Many

donors and others look at the budget before reading a proposal, because it clearly shows

what the project will do with the money. If the proposal narrative doesn’t align with the

budget story, the proposal loses credibility. Budgets provide a forecast of revenues and

expenditures, enable financial monitoring, and allow fellows to determine the level of

funding on hand and how much they still need to raise. As an introduction to the art of

reading budgets, fellows are given a budget of a project they don’t know about and are

asked to interpret it.

Fellows are introduced to five key concepts for budgeting while taking the time to apply

each to their own projects:

6A: Fixed and Variable Costs

6B: Direct and Indirect Costs

6C: Time is Money

6D: Categories and Line Items

6E: Revenue Streams and Matching Funds

Total costs include both fixed costs and variable costs.

Fixed costs occur regardless of the amount of project

activity and are usually considered the core costs of

running a business or a nonprofit such as office rent,

equipment, and insurance. Fixed costs vary little over a

fixed period (we use one year) and tend to rise

gradually with inflation or major market changes.

$

Total Costs

Units

Fixed Costs

Variable Costs



The 2012 fellows considered their expenses and came up with the following ideas of fixed

costs:

Office rent

Insurance

Equipment (scuba gear/GPS etc.)

Car/boat payments

Utilities

In contrast, variable costs expand or contract depending on the amount of project activity.

For example, if a fellow is monitoring coral reef sites, the number of trips out to the site will

affect variable costs such as gas, boat rental, and meals. The 2012 fellows came up with the

following list of variable costs:

Salaries

Payments to local workers or boat captains

Gasoline

Boat rentals

Lunches/drinks/meals offered to crew

The fellows then discuss why it is important to understand the difference between fixed and

variable costs. This knowledge enables them to scale projects up or down depending on the

funding available. It also gives them a cost breakdown of the added value of a new unit

(e.g. trip to the coral reef) so that they can respond when requests come in and know what

the real cost of the additional trip will be.

Activity Fixed

Costs

Variable

Costs

Total

Costs

A Intro meeting with fishing coop

Fixed Car payments ($200/mo) $200 $200

Telephone ($50/mo) $ 50 $ 50

Variable Gas $80 $ 80

Drinks/Food $40 $ 40

TOTAL $250 $120 $370



The second key concept in budgeting is direct and indirect costs. Many fellows work for

nonprofit organizations, small businesses, or are sponsored in some way by groups that

have the legal status that allows them to submit proposals for funding. Understanding what

the expected administrative overhead rates are and why those are important for

organizations is crucial, as is understanding that donors often put very tight limits on what

indirect cost rates they will support.

Direct costs are applied “directly” to project implementation. They can include line items

such as staff salaries, gas, transport, materials, some equipment, etc. Indirect costs are

items that are needed for organizational function, but are shared with numerous projects.

These can include a copy machine, office stationery, a receptionist, the Executive Director’s

salary, etc. The difficult part of the concept is that many line items such as “rent” could be

easily placed in either direct or indirect costs, depending on the use. For example, renting a

small, on-site office where the project is based would be a direct cost, whereas the rent for

organization headquarters in another part of the country would be an indirect cost.

However, the square footage of the office where the project director sits could be

considered a direct cost! While many fixed costs are indirect costs, many are not, depending

on their use, so the two concepts are fundamentally different. An example of how similar

line items can be direct or indirect costs is provided in the table below:

Difference depends on use!Direct Costs

• Salary of Project Manager

• Rent of Project Office

• Supplies – flipcharts, training materials, markers

• Telephone – cell phone operation in region

Indirect Costs

• Salary of Executive Director

• Rent of NGO Headquarters

• Supplies – copier paper, library materials, stationery

• Telephone – Main Office voicemail.



For established organizations, an indirect cost rate has usually been determined over a year

or two of activity by dividing the total indirect costs by the total direct costs of the

organization. In larger organizations this rate is determined by an auditor. For the most

part, fellows don’t have to try to set an organizational indirect cost rate. They do, however,

need a clear understanding of the concept for three reasons:

1. To understand why organizations have to charge an overhead fee if they are

sponsoring fellows’ projects (to help provide much of the back office support such

as financial reports, web sites, etc.)

2. To be able to justify putting items into direct cost categories

3. To ask for an indirect cost rate (usually under 10%) if they are in start-up mode

to help them manage unforseen expenses and issues required in nonprofit or

business startups

Given that the biggest line item in most budgets is salaries, the importance of setting

appropriate salary rates and valuing fellows’ time is the next item covered. Before getting

into financial projections, we revisit the work plan and have a discussion about time

management. The time management discussion gives fellows an opportunity to set priorities

and think about strategies for managing distractions and interruptions.

Prior to coming to the third workshop, fellows are asked to bring:

1. A calculator

2. Their work plan divided into activities and a timeline

3. If they work for an NGO or government agency, the indirect cost rate (overhead)

the will agency apply on the fellow’s proposals

4. If they pay taxes for expenses such as equipment, the percentage that they need

to add to certain line items

5. If they receive benefits with their salary (like medical benefits or paid vacation),

the percentage of what those benefits are worth over and above their salary



With this information in hand, we can then move into the financial side of determining

fellows’ current salary rates. We ask them each to confidentially work out a daily and/or

hourly unit rate for their salaries that can then be the basis for determining what their time

investment in different activities will cost.

Yearly salary: _________________________

Divide yearly salary by 220: _________________________ =

Daily salary

(365 days per year - 96 days for weekends – 21 vacation days – 20 holidays – 8 sick days

= 220 working days)

Divide daily salary by 8 (work hours per day): _______________________ =

Hourly rate

Multiply hourly rate by any organizational benefits you receive:

Hourly rate x ___1.#__________ (sick leave/vacation leave etc.)

_____________________

(for example in Mexico, there is social security, a savings fund and a pension fund – a large

organization can pay up to 35% above an employee salary on these benefits).

______________ = Fellow hourly rate for budgets (or x 8 = your daily rate)

Once fellows have this unit cost, they can use it to determine how much to budget for their

salary.

We covered the Program Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT) in Step 5, but as fellows

try to estimate the time they will dedicate to a project they are reminded that the PERT

process is a useful way to consider their time investment.

Finally, given that personnel costs often include consultants and community member

payments, we also review anticipated prices and extra costs (such as per diem) of these

items.



The next step in budgeting is to review donor formats and teach fellows how to put

expenses into appropriate categories and line items. By itemizing each expense, fellows

learn to ensure that they have estimated costs well and have thought about other costs,

such as computer technical support or training and development, which they may have

omitted. Fellows use zero-based budgeting, as few of them have prior project budgets to

build from and a full justification is needed. For all expenses, fellows are encouraged to

justify the expense, include estimates, and describe the assumptions used when developing

their figures. This must be mirrored in the narrative.

Identify Line Items for Each Category

Category Line Items 2012 2013 2014 Total (MX Pesos)

Personnel

Fellow 1

Consultant 1

Training

Workshop 1

Workshop 2

Equipment Purchase

Rental

As fellows review different line items, they are encouraged to reflect on their country’s tax

policies and what additional expenses may be incurred. For example, the Mexican IVA

(value added tax) of 16% must be applied to all equipment purchased in Mexico, as well as

to local contracts.

Fellows are also exposed to a number of budget formats so they see that different donors

use different formats. We also cover the issue of currency conversion. All budgets must

specify the currency in which they are written, and if budgets are in a foreign currency,

fellows must specify the exchange rate they used.



Fellows conclude by setting out all of their line items and associated costs. They then share

this with a partner to ensure that the budget is:

Reasonable

Thorough and clear

Easy to understand

Mathematically correct

Budgets reflect not only expenses but also anticipated revenues. Most donors require a

matching donation to ensure that they are not alone in supporting the project. For example,

the 2012 format for the MAR Fund open proposal process has four different columns to

cover other contributions, both in-kind and cash.

Budget

Item

Unit Unit

cost

No. of

units

(total)

Amount

Requested

to MAR

Fund

Other

Sources

(Cash)

Other

Sources

(In-kind)

Amount

contributed by

the

organization

TOTAL

SALARIES

Coordinator days

MATERIALS & EQUIPMENT

Hardware

OFFICE EXPENSES

Office

supplies

TOTAL

Incorporate Match in Budgets (MAR Fund example)

Fellows have to realistically assess where funds might come from and how well they can

quantify and document in-kind contributions. One of the 2012 fellows, Mariela Ochoa, was

able to secure substantial in-kind contributions for mangrove reforestation from local

volunteers as well as securing gas and boats as in-kind donations.



Examples of the work of previous fellows are provided to show how others detailed

equipment expenses or explained their matching funds. For example, the work of Angeline

Valentine (2011 cohort) shows how her budget and in-kind support will strengthen the

capacity of the Belize Coalition to Save Our Natural Heritage.

*All figures are expressed in USD

Photo: Javier Ochoa

Consultants and Other Contracted Services

Description Cost Year 1 Cost Year 2 Total Cost

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Total

Cost

Funds

Required

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Governance

structure reform

consultancy

20,000 20,000 - - 20,000 20,000

Communication/

Negotiation

Workshop

14,000 14,000 - - 14,000 14,000

Media and Outreach

Planning Training 4,000 4,000 - - 4,000 4,000

External Project

Evaluation 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500

Total 40,500 40,500 - - 40,500 40,500



Travel and Conferences


Total

Project

Funds

Required

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Consultant’s Travel

(x3 Consultancies) 6,500 6,500 - - 6,500 6,500

Consultant’s

Accommodations (x3

Consultancies)

2,850 2,850 - - 2,850 2,850

Consultant’s Meals

(x3 Consultancies) 950 950 950 950

Training/Workshop

Venue (x3

Consultancies)

825 825 - - 825 825

Training/Workshop

Meals (x2

Consultancies)

4,300 4,300 - - 4,300 4,300

Total 15,425 15,425 - - 15,425 15,425

In-kind Contributions


Staff Salaries Total

Project

Funds

Required

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Total

Project

Funds

Required

Coalition

Coordinator (25% of

time in Year 1 and

12.5% in Year 2)

3,552 - 1,776 - 5,328 -

Research Assistant

(25% of time in Year

1 and 12.5% in Year

2)

2,634 - 1,317 - 3,951 -

Utilities

Rent,

Communications, and

Material (15% of

annual total in Year 1

and 7.5% in Year 2)

2,175 - 1,088 - 3,263 -

Total 8,361 - 4,181 - 12,542 -



Total Project Cost

Categories Cost (USD)

Consultants and Other Contracted Services 40,500

Travel and Conferences 15,425

In-kind Contribution USD 12,542

Total 55,925

*No overhead fees will be affixed to the administration of this project.



Photo: Pamela Ortega

Two-year budget (figures expressed in USD)

Category Line Item Unit Unit

cost

# of

units

Amt.

requested

Matching

donations

(cash)

Matching

donations (in-

kind)

Amount

contributed by

the

organization

TOTAL

Staff

Project

coordinator

(25% of time)

1 40 72 2,880 2,880

Financial

expert

(consultancy)

1 2,000 1 2,000 2,000

Credit

Advisor

1 20 192 3,840 3,840

Accountant 1 50 12 600 600

Materials and

services

Printing

forms and

copies of

manual

1 500 500

Phone and

internet

cards

1 10 24 240 240

Field and

travel

expenses

Coordinator

trips to los

Cayitos

1 50 48 1,200 1,200 (BICA)

boat rental

2,400

Committee

trips to los

Cayitos

1 50 14 350 350 (BICA)

boat rental

700

Room and

board

1 60 60 3,600 3,600

Infrastructure

for meetings

in central

Utila

1 25 12 300 (BICA) 300

Loans Amount to

give loans

1 2,000 20 40,000 40,000

Risk

management

Amount for

beneficiary

assessment

and risk

reduction

1 500 20 10,000 10,000

Sub-Total 67,060



Indirect

costs (10%)

6,706 6,706

TOTAL 71,916 0 1,850 0 73,766

To finalize fellows’ budgets, all fellows share their budgets with a new partner who checks

that:

1. The currency used is labeled

2. If US$ are used, a clear exchange rate is noted

3. Appropriate taxes are included

4. Overhead is included if applicable

5. Categories and line items are clear

6. Inflation is incorporated if multi-year

7. Match and other donor funding is clearly labeled

Most importantly:

Does this budget tell a story?

Does this budget look realistic for achieving the goals?

At the conclusion of the third workshop fellows can now complete a full budget for their

projects.

What is the estimated 3-year cost (with annual

breakouts) of implementing this project?

What are current sources of funding?

What is the estimated funding gap?



This manual, and the corresponding training program, emphasize the two major planning

methodologies used by donors and conservation organizations this decade, which recognize

the changing nature of conservation and the challenges conservationists face: the Logical

Framework Approach and the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation 19 (also

known as Conservation Action Planning, CAP). The training program for the MAR Fellows

familiarizes them with both approaches. The MAR Leadership process explicitly builds on

planning tools such as the CAP methodology,20 but adapts these tools for smaller scale

projects.

The basic training program and homework activities of the MAR Fellows during their first

year are tailored to ensure effective project design. This design is then the basis for a

proposal to secure funding so that project implementation can begin in Year 2. The following

diagram shows the overall MAR Leadership process.

19 www.conservationmeasures.org reflecting the work of the Conservation Measures Partnership. 20http://www.conservationgateway.org/ConservationPlanning/ActionPlanning/Pages/conservation-action-plann.aspx

with the CAP Coaches’ Network that helps all organizations implementing the Open Standards process to continually improve their capacity.

http://www.conservationmeasures.org/




Step 1: Define Project Scope

Draw up a brief text description and basic map of your project area.

Identify clear conservation target(s) and a general statement of direction to start

crafting a future goal statement.

Define your situation analysis: What important threat affecting the Mesoamerican

Reef does this project address? What’s the current status of this threat?

Step 2: Identify Project Strategy

Reflect on your strengths and passions and identify the areas where you have the

perseverance and commitment to implement the project. Define which threats you

can truly impact.

Draw a schematic of your “theory of change.”

Develop your logical framework.

Define a measurable goal. The goal should be challenging but attainable.

Define a SMART outcome.

Identify general inputs and outputs to get a sense of the overall strategy for the

project.

Build your results chain.

Step 3: Engage Key Partners

Identify people involved in your project.

Assess the diversity of stakeholders.

Undertake a stakeholder analysis.

Prioritize stakeholders.

Choose appropriate engagement strategies.

Step 4: Develop M&E

Develop long-term plans for monitoring and evaluation.

Identify a number of clear indicators and methods to assess those indicators.

Complete results chains with indicators.

Step 5: Develop a Work Plan

List major action steps and monitoring tasks.

Develop a work flow diagram.

Identify the “critical path” of sequential activities and prepare a Gantt chart.

Budget your time.

Incorporate efficiency measures in the monitoring plan.



Step 6: Build a Budget

Establish fixed and variable costs.

Establish direct and indirect costs.

Set appropriate salary rates: time is money.

Put expenses into appropriate categories and line items.

Assess potential revenue streams and matching funds.

At the conclusion of their third workshop, the MAR Fellows have worked through the six

project planning steps. Consistent with their commitment to produce a quality project at the

end of this training, a final proposal or project design must be submitted to the MAR

Leadership team within a month of the final workshop.

The proposals can be of three types:

1. A proposal that follows the generic format displayed in the Introduction and can

serve as a template for future proposals to donors

2. An actual proposal that follows the format of a donor agency

3. A business plan that uses the same steps but doesn’t require philanthropic funding to

move forward

Fellows all share their final proposals online and receive feedback from staff and peer

reviewers from their cohort. The feedback is designed to provide any additional

programmatic input and encourage well-written final proposals. The goal is for all fellows to

feel confident with their project design, to be motivated to launch the project as soon as

possible, and to recognize that this is the start of a life’s work in support of the

Mesoamerican Reef and the well-being of its people.

At the end of the first nine months of the cohort cycle, program staff and the Executive

Committee review the final project proposals and select the best projects to advance to a

second phase. The MAR Leadership Program’s Executive Committee is made up of three

visionary individuals whose participation guides the overall strategy of the program, as well

as its decision-making processes. The program benefits from the Committee’s experience in

and knowledge of the MAR region, marine and coastal issues, and project design.

Proposals are evaluated based on criteria such as: innovation, financial sustainability,

community participation, and potential for replication. Fellows with solid project proposals

receive additional support during the program’s second phase, which lasts nine months.

During this second phase, fellows receive support in fundraising and are connected to



foundations, NGOs, and other potential donors or business partners for their projects. After

the second phase of the program, the cohort cycle comes to a close.

However, the close of the cohort cycle is not the end of the program. An explicit objective of

the MAR Leadership Program is to generate and maintain a strong alumni network. The

program works to ensure that all fellows remain engaged in the program and maintain

strong ties with their peers. There are different strategies to ensure that they continue to

receive support for their conservation efforts, including:

1. An active group intranet 21 with a library and regular updates on funding

opportunities, courses of interest, etc.

2. Ongoing interaction on social networks such as Facebook and Twitter

3. Webinars, regular emails, and invitations to serve as mentors or trainers, all of

which keep fellows up-to-date on the program’s progress

Fellows are also proving to be the best source for nominating future fellows, as they can

speak to the value of the program and recognize other committed individuals in their

communities who would benefit from this program. Our motto is: “Once a MAR Fellow,

always a MAR Fellow,” in recognition of the enormous support a network of peers can

provide for fellows as they embark on long careers as agents of change and leaders for a

sustainable future for the Mesoamerican Reef.

Annex 1: List of fellows by cohort

Annex 2: List of experts who have worked with fellows

21 The MAR Leadership Program uses Groupsite, www.groupsite.com.

http://www.groupsite.com/



2010 cohort

2011 cohort

2012 cohort



Yashin Dujon, Belize City, Belize. Project: National Interpretative Strategy on Impacts on

Belize’s Barrier Reef.

Karen Aguilar, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: La Garza – Sentry and Educational

Boat.

Esvin Chacón, Puerto Barrios, Guatemala. Project: Alliance for Sustainable Tourism

Development in Protected Areas of the Izabal Region of the MAR (ATSAM).

Ada Pinelo, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: Geotourism as a Regional Strategy to

Reduce the Impact of Climate Change and Increase Local Development

Opportunities.

Ian Drysdale, Honduras. Project: Earthworms to the Rescue of the Coral Reef.

Jenny Myton, Roatán, Honduras. Project: Conservation Fund for the Bay Islands.

Yanú Ramírez, Roatán, Honduras. Project: Sustainable Construction in the MAR.

Pablo Besquin, Cancun, Mexico. Project: Implementation of Artificial Modular Reefs (AMA®)

in Quintana Roo and the Mesoamerican Reef System.

Vicente Ferreyra, Cancun, Mexico. Project: Agency to Integrate Responsible Tourism

Activities in the Mesoamerican Reef Region.

Maricarmen García, Chetumal, Mexico. Project: Recreational Tourism for the Conservation of

Banco Chinchorro.

Javier Rojas, Cozumel, Mexico. Project: Consultancy for Sustainable Tourism Business

Development (CODESUET).

Celso Cawich, Belmopan, Belize. Project: Identification of areas of biological importance for

commercial fish for the establishment of a marine protected area within the Turneffe

Atoll.

Kirah Forman, San Pedro, Belize: Project: Management of commercial species and

promotion of fishermen empowerment to adopt sustainable fishing methods in the

Hol Chan Marine Reserve.

Nicanor Requena, Punta Gorda, Belize. Project: Establishment of access rights for fishing in

Belizean marine reserves to promote sustainable fishing and the wellbeing of

involved communities.

Angeline Valentine, Belize City, Belize. Project: Media campaign to raise awareness about oil

exploration and exploitation in Belize.

Blanca García, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: Identification of priority ecosystems for

the conservation and sustainable use of the Mesoamerican Reef System in the

Guatemalan Caribbean.

Ana Giro, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: Identification of priority ecosystems for the

conservation and sustainable use of the Mesoamerican Reef System in the




Pilar Velásquez, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: Identification of priority ecosystems

for the conservation and sustainable use of the Mesoamerican Reef System in the


Yimy Chirinos, La Ceiba, Honduras. Project: Strengthening of the capacities of prosecutors

of the Coastal Atlantic in Honduras with a special focus on making the region’s

fishing laws and stipulations more effective.

Kim Ley Cooper, Playa del Carmen, Mexico. Project: Implementation of artificial fish refuges

and lots for marine zoning, the promotion of economic incentives and the restoration

of the Mesoamerican Reef System (MAR) – Banco Chinchorro.

Joaquín De la Torre, Playa del Carmen, Mexico. Project: Let’s talk about the MAR.

Gabriela Nava, Chetumal, Mexico. Project: Restoration of Acropora palmata as an essential

habitat for the establishment of fish refuges in Xcalak Reefs National Park.

Constanza Ribot, Cancun, Mexico. Project: Control of invasive lionfish populations to

minimize their impact on the Puerto Morelos fishing refuge in Quintana Roo, Mexico.

Adriel Castañeda, Belize City, Belize. Project: Empowering Fishermen to Achieve Sustainable

Fisheries Management in Belize.

Joel Verde, Sarteneja, Belize. Project: System-Level Planning and Collaboration for

Improved Resource Management.

Leonel Requena, Belmopan, Belize. Project: Private Protected Areas as a Climate Change

Adaptation Strategy and Potential Tool for Mitigating the Impacts of Climate Change

in Coastal and Marine Protected Areas.

Seleem Chan, Punta Gorda, Belize. Project: Evaluation & Implementation of No-Take Zone

Amplification in Port Honduras Marine Reserve.

Angela Mojica, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Project: Economic valuation of carbon retention

and payments for environmental services, vulnerability, and climate change

adaptation of mangroves as a sustainable conservation strategy in the Guatemalan

Caribbean.

Cleopatra Méndez, Livingston, Guatemala. Project: Inclusively Designing a Community-

Based Fishery Replenishment Zone in Cocolí Bay.

Giacomo Palavicini, Roatán, Honduras. Project: Sharks: Flagship Species of a Healthy Reef.

Mariela Ochoa, Guanaja, Honduras. Project: Strengthening Local Participation for the

Restoration of Mangrove Forests on the Island of Guanaja.

Pamela Ortega, Utila, Honduras. Project: Economic Alternatives in the Community of los

Cayitos, Utila, Bay Islands, Honduras: A window to micro-credit.

Carlos Ponce, Playa del Carmen, Mexico. Project: Private Network of Nature Reserves on the

Coast of Quintana Roo.

Yuself Cala, Chetumal, Mexico. Project: Design and validation of practical tools and

integration of key stakeholders for the management of the queen conch as a flagship

species in the MAR region.



Octavio Aburto Scripps Institution of Oceanography Tundi Agardy Forest Trends Marine Ecosystem Services Program Elito Arceo Ambergris Caye Citizens for Sustainable Development Alejandro Arrivillaga Rare Conservation Paquita Bath Aligning Visions Luis Bourillón Community and Biodiversity Juan Pablo Buchert EcoGoals/Nahua Chocolate Lisa Carne M.Sc. student, UB/UWI Costas Christ National Geographic Traveler Céline Cousteau CauseCentric Productions Fay Crevoshay WiLDCOAST Robert Cudney México Silvestre Emma Doyle CaMPAM

Exequiel Ezcurra The Institute for Mexico and the United States Jimena Ferraez Consultants in Strategic Business Hugo Galeano UNDP/SGP Honduras Norissa Giangola Spitfire Strategies Janet Gibson Wildlife Conservation Society Eugenio Gobbato Hacienda Tijax

Martin Goebel Sustainable Northwest Ricardo Gómez Cozumel Reefs National Park Rachel Graham Wildlife Conservation Society Will Heyman Texas A&M University Roberto Iglesias Institute of Oceanic and Limnology Studies-UNAM Steve Knaebel Independent consultant Isaias Majil Belize Fisheries Department Abner Marin GoFish Belize Ángel Martínez INVOCA/dignidad Guillermina Martínez Consultants in Strategic Business Grazzia Matamoros Roatan Marine Park Anne McEnany International Community Foundation Melanie McField Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Thomas Meller Mesoamerican Reef Tourism Initiative Loren Monterroso Association of Fishermen of Roatan Carlos Morales SIMM & QA Consultants Imani Morrison Oak Foundation Wallace J. Nichols LiVBLUE Omar Ortiz Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve

Eduardo Rolón Community and Biodiversity Amy Rosenthal Natural Capital Project, Stanford Eda Roth Actress and communications consultant Krishna Roy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Paul Sánchez-Navarro Akumal Ecological Center Gonzalo Sanjurjo Eolic People Brigitte Seumenicht Merkatua

Carlos Terzano Personal Development Analysis International Joaquín De La Torre IFAW Mexico Gregg Verutes Natural Capital Project, Stanford Amy Hudson Weaver Niparajá Calina Zepeda The Nature Conservancy – Honduras (TNC)



Adame, M. F., Kauffman, J. B., Medina, I., Gamboa, J. N., Torres, O., et al. (2013). Carbon

Stocks of Tropical Coastal Wetlands within the Karstic Landscape of the Mexican Caribbean. PLoS ONE, 8(2): e56569. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056569.

Basurto, X. (2005). How Locally Designed Access and Use Controls Can Prevent the Tragedy

of the Commons in a Mexican Small-Scale Fishing Community. Society and Natural Resources, 18, 643-659.

Chavez, C. & Viteri, C. (2004). Legitimacy, Local Participation, and Compliance in the Galapagos Marine Reserve. Econometric Society 2004 Latin American Meetings,168. http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ecmlatm04/168.htm.

Fujita, R., Lynham, J., Micheli, F., Feinberg, P. G., Bourillón, L., et al. (2012). Ecomarkets for conservation and sustainable development in the coastal zone. Cambridge Philosphical Society, 88(2), 273-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-185X.2012.00251.x.

Halpern, B. S. (2003). The impact of marine reserves: do reserves work and does reserve size matter? Ecol. Appl., 13, S117–S137.

Healthy Reefs for Healthy People. (2012). 2012 Report Card for the Mesoamerican Reef. http://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-Report-Card.pdf.

Healthy Reefs for Healthy People. (2011). 2011 Eco-Audit of the Mesoamerican Reef Countries. http://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/latest-reports/.

Leisher, C., van Beukering, P., & Scherl, L. M. (2007). Nature’s Investment Bank: How Marine Protected Areas Contribute to Poverty Reduction. Arlington: The Nature Conservancy.

Lubchenco, J. et al. (2007). The Science of Marine Reserves. PISCO Consortium.

http://www.piscoweb.org/publications/outreach-materials/science-of-marine-reserves.

Lucas, B., Lau, W., & Rolón, E. (2012). Feasibility study for a Marine Payment for Ecosystem Services in the Mesoamerican reef of Mexico. Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico: Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C.

Micheli, F., Saenz-Arroyo, A., Greenley, A., Vazquez, L., Espinoza Montes, J. A., et al. (2012). Evidence That Marine Reserves Enhance Resilience to Climatic Impacts. PLoS ONE, 7(7): e40832. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040832.

Morris, J. A., Jr. (Ed.). (2012). Invasive Lionfish: A Guide to Control and Management. Marathon, Florida: Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute.

Roberts, C. M., Hawkins, J. P., Gell, F. R. (2005). The role of marine reserves in achieving sustainable fisheries. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B., 360(1453), 123–132.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/ecmlatm04/168.htm

http://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-Report-Card.pdf

http://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-Report-Card.pdf

http://www.healthyreefs.org/cms/latest-reports/

http://www.piscoweb.org/publications/outreach-materials/science-of-marine-reserves

http://www.piscoweb.org/publications/outreach-materials/science-of-marine-reserves


Paquita Bath and María Eugenia Arreola

What MAR Leadership means to participants

“I feel very fortunate to be a part of the MAR Leadership Program

and I thank the program for its support. …It is a wonderful

program, and it has helped me have a wider vision of what the

[Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System] is. …It has made me feel

more optimistic and passionate because I know that I’m not

alone.”

-Cleopatra Méndez, 2012 MAR Fellow

mar leadership resource book

Documents

project scope

mara eugenia arreola

maru arreola

innovative projects

project strategy

project design

mesoamerican reef paquita

leadership program