Institutional Assessment Report by PACT, Belize

Institutional Assessment Report April 2010

Institutional Assessment Report Published by: The Protected Areas Conservation Trust Design and Layout - Protected Areas Conservation Trust, Belize. Printed in Belize, Central America Printer: BRC Printing Ltd.

PHOTOS Copyright © 2010, The Protected Areas Conservation Trust Front Cover Collage includes: PACT staff at work, Harpy Eagle, First PACT logo, PACT office, Harpy Eagle Mascot, Tropical Storm Author Relief, Scholarship award recipient, Elijio Panti National Park

Institutional Assessment Report APRIL 2010

Prepared by: Noel D. Jacobs, M.Sc, CFRM (Lead Consultant) Colin Young, PhD Vincent Palacio, PhD Benjamin Randolph, MBA, CPA, CFE, CICA

Table of Contents

List of Acronyms

1. Introduction

2. Objectives of the PACT Institutional Assessment

3. Methodology of the PACT Institutional Assessment

4. Institutional Environment i. Legal Arrangements and Governance ii. Regulatory Environment iii. Administration and Finance iv. Technology and Information v. Political vi. Constituency Analysis

5 5 8 9 19 20 20

5. Institutional Identity and Motivation i. Identity of PACT ii. Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles iii. Culture

23 23 23 24

6. Institutional Capacity i. Strategic Leadership ii. Advisory Council/Honorary Board iii. Human Resources iv. Inter-institutional linkages v. Comparative Project Audits

25 25 26 30 34 35

7. Strategic Assessment and Recommendations i. SWOT Analysis ii. Strategic Recommendations

36 36 37

8. Proposed Performance Institutional Monitoring Tool for PACT i. PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Institutional Performance Report Card

40 41

Bibliography

List of Acronyms APAMO BAPPA BACONGO BAS BCC BNTOA BTB BTIA BoD CBO CBS CFA CZMAI DOE EMF FAMRACC FCD FD FOSC FY GEF-SGP IUCN LAC MarFund MTCAC NAVCO NICH NPAS OAK PACT PfB SATlIM SCWS SEA SFA SWOT TDC TIDE TNC UB-ERI UNDP YCT

List of Acronyms

Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations Belize Association of Private Protected Areas Belize Alliance of Conservation Non-Governmental Associations Belize Audubon Society Belize City Council Belize National Tour Operators Association Belize Tourism Board Belize Tourism Industry Association Board of Directors Community Based Organization Community Baboon Sanctuary Conservation Finance Alliance Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute Department of the Environment Environmental Management Fund Caye Caulker Friends for Conservation and Development Forest Department Friends of Swallow Caye Financial Year Global Environmental Facility Small Grants Programme International Union for the Conservation of Nature Latin America and the Caribbean Measoamerican Reef Fund Ministry of Tourism, Civil Aviation and Culture National Association of Village Councils National Institute of Culture and History National Protected Areas System Oak Foundation Protected Areas Conservation Trust Programme for Belize Sarstoon-Temash Institute for Indigenous Management Spanish Creek Wildlife Sanctuary Southern Environmental Alliance Sarteneja Fishermen Association Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats Toledo Development Corporation Toledo Institute for Development and the Environment The Nature Conservancy University of Belize – Environmental Research Institute United Nations Development Programme Ya’axché Conservation Trust

1. Introduction The Protected Areas Conservation Trust (PACT) was established in January 1996 with the passing of the Protected Areas Conservation Trust Act, No. 15 of 1995. As provided for in the Act, the functions of PACT “…shall be to encourage and promote, for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the people of Belize, the provision, protection, conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural resources of Belize”. PACT offers small, medium and large grants to eligible organizations for conservation based projects in or around protected areas. The circumstances surrounding the protection and conservation of Belize’s natural resources through protected areas have substantially changed since the creation of PACT. The organizations and agencies involved in protected areas management, both public and private, have evolved with the changing times and have created new dynamics characterizing access to funding for protected areas management both nationally and internationally. This ever-changing environment presents new challenges that require creativity and reform in order for PACT to continue to be a relevant and necessary player, while delivering its mandate and core purpose. At thirteen years since its creation, an in-depth analysis of the institutional and organizational structures, processes, programs, and standards of the PACT is necessary. Such an assessment must address all aspects of the purpose of PACT, its present stage of institutional development, level and standards of delivery, and most importantly, niche security and institutional relevance. The Minister of Finance and Board of Directors of PACT have commissioned an Institutional Assessment Report of the PACT and preparation of a Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2016. The assessment requested is comprehensive in nature and is beyond the typical descriptive-type assessments. It requires a coordinated and multi-disciplinary approach, must be both qualitative and quantitative, and must ultimately assess PACT in the core parameters that define institutional progression and survival: Efficiency, Effectiveness, and Relevance. In addition, the 2011-2016 Strategic Plan must be ‘strategic and forward thinking’ enough, to address the challenges and opportunities identified in the institutional assessment, and allow PACT to assert its role as a National Trust, as a necessary player in the protection and conservation of Belize’s natural resources, and as a key partner in Belize’s overall economic development.

Introduction

2. Objectives of the PACT Institutional Assessment The objectives of the PACT Institutional Assessment were to:

2.1. Prepare an Institutional Assessment Report that describes the various factors that affect PACT internal and external environments: administrative, legal, political, economic, social, cultural, institutional history, vision, mission, leadership, institutional capacity, human and financial resources, formal and informal management systems, assessment of performance, and inter-institutional linkages; 2.2. Identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of PACT at both the organizational and the institutional levels; 2.3. Develop strategic recommendations to reduce threats, maximize opportunities, and provide a roadmap to re-launch the institution and assert its relevance as a key player in protected areas and natural resources management in Belize; 2.4. Provide the information of the quantity and quality necessary to prepare the PACT Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2016 and, 2.5. Develop an Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool to assess the performance of PACT into the long term, using the new strategic priorities to be identified in the strategic plan.

Objectives

3. Methodology of the PACT Institutional Assessment The Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, on the advice of the PACT Board of Directors, hired a team of four professionals to prepare the PACT Institutional Assessment Report for the period 1999 to 2008 and a new Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2016. The team implemented the following approach to develop and deliver the three primary outputs described in Section 2 above. 1.1. Agreeing on Scope and Indicators - The first activity of the consultancy was a working session with the PACT leadership to define and agree on the scope of the anticipated work, level of depth, details of the deliverables, and timeline. Of particular importance in this session was an agreement with PACT on a set of primary indicators for consideration as part of the Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool. 1.2. Data Gathering (Bibliographic Review) - The team conducted an extensive review of critical information in key documents: historical and evolutionary; legal; financial statements; audit reports; staff job descriptions and/or Terms of Reference; PACT technical reports; Project reports; financial strategies; other strategies and guidelines; plans; governance tools; press releases, etc. 1.3. Data Gathering (Field Surveys and Interviews) - Field survey and interviews to PACT constituents were conducted both nationally and internationally. Constituents included internal, external, local, and foreign, totaling 76 persons. The survey captured the following required information on PACT: Institutional Environment; Institutional Motivation; Institutional Capacity; and Institutional Performance. Surveys and interviews were conducted skillfully to ensure that the information is collected in quality and quantity to appropriately identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT Analysis) facing PACT today. The SWOT analysis was enhanced with the application of a ranking methodology in which constituents assigned relative importance to ‘strengths’ (internal factors) and to ‘threats’ (external factors). This procedure minimizes subjectivity and helps to guide the institution towards those strengths that can really make a difference, and assist in a preliminary identification of strategic priorities and strategic actions. 1.4. Data Processing, Analysis and Interpretation - All data collected from the literature, surveys and interviews were assessed both analytically and descriptively. Surveys were analyzed using the SPSS software where appropriate. Trends, distributions and correlations are presented and discussed in Sections 4 to 7 of this report. 1.5. Stakeholder Consultations - Four stakeholder consultations were held through-out the country to present general trends in findings and to request stakeholder inputs in the recommendation of strategic objectives and actions. Participants included constituents interviewed as well as others that the team did not get the opportunity to survey or interview. Consultations were held in Corozal (Northern Region), Belmopan (Central Region), Punta Gorda (Southern Region), and a consultation specifically targeting CBOs. A total of 52 constituents participated in the public consultations held.

Methodology of the PACT Institutional Assessment

4. Institutional Environment Every institution is affected by the institutional environment in which it operates. The major influences that characterize PACT’s institutional environment are discussed below.

4.1. Legal Arrangements and Governance Aukerman and Hass (1992) recommended the establishment of the PACT as a public trust fund to generate revenue to support the conservation of Belize’s protected areas. Similarly, they recommended that the Trust be managed by an 11 member Board of directors representing the public, private and non-governmental sectors (NGOs) with government representatives filling nine of 11 seats. Three years later, in 1995, the Protected Areas Conservation Trust Act was passed (no. 15 of 1995) and became law on January 2, 2006. The Act established the Protected Areas Conservation Trust as a statutory body “to encourage and promote, for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the people of Belize, the provision, protection, conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural resources of Belize.” Since then, the governance structure of PACT has evolved with three amendments to the PACT Act (Table 1); however, the function and powers of the Act have remained unchanged. Table 1. Evolution of PACT Governance Arrangements Year Board Composition Advisory Council

1992

11 Members (two Ministry of Natural Resources; two Ministry of Tourism; two Ministry of Economic Development and Local communities; two NGOs; one Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries’ one Ministry of Finance, ex-officio

5 member honorary advisory commission (Governor General, Chairman Central Bank of Belize; Deputy Air Commander RAF, distinguished senior citizen, airline official, and WWF/USAID representative were suggested)

1996

9 members (three government; three NGOs; one at-large representative; two ex-officio members – Financial Secretary (no voting rights) and Executive Director)

11 members (five GoB; three NGOs; one town Board; one village council and one academia

2000

9 members (three government; two NGOs; one village council; one member selected by BoD; two ex-officio – Financial Secretary (no voting rights) and Executive Director

11 members (five GoB; three NGOs; one town Board; one village council and one academia

2003

11 members (three government; one NGO (BACONGO); one CBO; one BAS; one BTIA; one BNTOA; one finance expert; Financial Secretary (with voting rights) and Executive Director, both ex-officio)

11 members (three government; one each from CZMAI, BFCA, BTB, ANDA, tertiary institution; one finance expert, and two with science experts

Institutional Environment

Although Aukerman and Hass (1992) recommended that government representatives comprised nine of the proposed 11 member PACT BoD, government representatives have never comprised the majority on the Board since the establishment of the Trust in 1996; nevertheless, the majority of external constituents believe that the Board has too many government representatives. The claim that the current PACT Board is government heavy emanates from a lack of familiarity with previous and current PACT Act that govern the selection and appointment of the Board. Only 26% of constituents were very knowledgeable with the PACT Act, while 40% had little or no knowledge of the PACT Act (Figure 1). When constituents were segregated into internal and external constituents, 50% of the internal constituents had little to no knowledge of the PACT Act while only 43% of the external constituents had little or no knowledge of the Act. Thus, the external constituents had slightly more knowledge of the Act than the internal constituents. Figure 1. Constituents Knowledge of PACT Act

The fact that almost half of PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s internal constituents, which comprise Board and staff of PACT and who should be very knowledge with the Act, had little or no knowledge of the Act is cause for concern considering that the Act prescribes the functions and responsibilities of the Trust and should provide the framework to guide strategic decisions (Figure 2). The fact that two of the BoD are fairly new to the Board may account for the relatively low knowledge of the Act among the Board; nonetheless, it is imperative that a detail and comprehensive orientation of new Board members is implemented to familiarize incoming members of the Act, Board manuals and roles and responsibilities of the Board. Similarly, the general unfamiliarity with the PACT Act resulted in a lack of consensus among respondents that PACT is a Statuary Board. Only 44% of the respondents were fully aware that PACT is a Statutory Board while 56% had little to no knowledge that PACT is a parastatal body. The lack of a clear understanding that PACT is a parastatal body has led to the belief among some constituents that PACT should have even fewer government representatives on its BoD. In general, it appears that most constituents would prefer that PACT governance structure resembles that of private environmental trust funds, despite its parastatal identity. Institutional Environment

Figure 2. Internal Constituent Knowledge of PACT Act

Most constituents seem to regard PACT as a NGO rather than as a public trust. As such, both national and international conservation NGOs, insist on applying a private sector governance structure on a public trust. Indeed, most environmental funds are established as private organizations with mixed Boards representing both private and public sectors (CFA, 2008). Of the 21 environmental trust funds reviewed as part of RedLAC, 15 had a governance structure that was private sector controlled, three were government sector controlled and three were totally private (Figure 4). Figure 4. Governance Structure of Environmental Trust Funds in LAC

Even though PACT was included as one of the three government-controlled funds in the 2003 review of environmental trust funds, the current governance structure of PACT is non-government controlled. Thus, PACT is unique in the region because it is a public trust where government representatives comprise the minority on the Board. A government minority on the Board is considered a best practice for environmental trust funds because it enhances resource mobilization (growing the fund) and minimizes government control.

Consequently, the current governance structure has the potential to substantially mobilize resources to grow the fund. The current PACT Foundation is not structured to raise funds on behalf of the trust, even though the Act envisioned that it would. It is therefore necessary for PACT to urgently identify and implement a suitable Institutional Environment

mechanism through which the Trust can access philanthropic resources that is currently unavailable. Consistent with this recommendation, it may be necessary to examine the name of the current PACT Foundation to eliminate confusion regarding the identity of the proposed foundation. Besides the limited familiarity with the PACT Act by constituents, the survey also indicated that constituents were also unfamiliar with PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional policies. The majority (55%) of constituents had little to no knowledge of the institutional policies that guide PACT. Lack of understanding of institution polices most likely perpetuates some of negative sentiments harbored by a number of external constituents. On the other hand, the majority (55%) of constituents was aware of the institutional and organizational arrangement within PACT; in other words, most recognized that PACT was governed by a BoD who appointed an Executive Director. In summary, the current governance structure of PACT is not inconsistent with that of a Statutory Board; the fact that government representatives comprise the minority on the Board is unique among trust funds in the Latin America and the Caribbean. Nevertheless, PACT must implement the recently completed Communications Strategy to better engage and inform its constituents in order to dispel the notion amongst some constituents that PACT is government controlled. It is also apparent that the unfamiliarity with the PACT Act, the statutory nature of PACT and the institutional policies that guide the institution have caused confusion among external constituents as to the governance structure and purpose of the PACT.

4.2. Regulatory Environment Notwithstanding the limited familiarity with the PACT Act and its institutional policies, most respondents felt that PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s regulatory environment is not optimal (Figure 5). Generally, most constituents (57%) believe that the existing Act has been underutilized and that more targeted regulations are required to improve the effectiveness of the Act. Similarly, 60% believe that existing regulations under the Act have not been enforced. For example, the current Act stipulates a number of income streams to support the Trust; however, some of these income streams have not been initiated or ignored by the Board. For example, 20% of all concessions with protected areas and all recreation-related license fees associated with protected areas should be paid into PACT. Figure 5. Regulatory Environment of PACT

Institutional Environment

As of this report, these income streams have never been collected nor has there been any attempt to collect such fees. PACT’s failure to collect these legally authorized fees reduces the amount of revenue available for financing protected areas. Failure to collect these income streams becomes even more salient when competing regulations under other Acts reduce the effectiveness of the PACT Act. For example, the establishment of the Environment Management Fund (EMF) under the Environmental Protection Act requires that PACT contributes 20% of its gross revenue from the conservation fee to the EMF. Such competing regulations not only reduce the amount of funding available for protected areas but also threaten the stability and integrity of PACT. Interestingly, only 40% of the constituents believe that competing regulations reduce the effectiveness of the PACT Act partly because they were unaware that PACT is obliged to contribute to the Belize City Council and the EMF. Additionally, there is overwhelming constituent support that the PACT Act should be amended where necessary to improve and increase the effectiveness of the Trust but also protect the fund from government appropriation and competing interests.

4.3. Administration and Finance 4.3.1. Knowledge of Financial and Administrative Policies Despite the fact that the majority (55%) of the respondents were aware of the institutional and organizational arrangements in PACT, 61% had little to no knowledge of PACT’s personnel policies while 57% little or no knowledge of its financial policies. Conversely, 70% and 59% of constituents had some to excellent knowledge of PACT’s grant application and administration polices, respectively. However, the majority (57%) of the constituents had little or no knowledge of PACT’s communication guidelines; this strongly indicates that PACT must become more aggressive in engaging its constituents in an effort to better inform of its administrative policies. 4.3.2. Assessment Period For purposes of this assessment, the fiscal year ending 31 March 2004 has been established as the starting point or “base year”. The five year period beginning 31 March 2004 and ending 31 March 2009 is considered the “relevant range” with all appropriate analysis being compared to the base year. PACT financial performance prior to 31 March 2004 was not considered relevant to this assessment due to the age of the data available and the changes in economic conditions that have occurred in recent years. 4.3.3. General Economic and Financial Situation The PACT Act identified a number of income streams to support the Trust. However, only the conservation fee of $7.50/pax, the 20% commission from cruise head tax, and income earned on investment (cash deposits) of PACT revenue are currently being collected; the other income streams such as the 20% of concession arrangement in protected areas and 20% from recreation-related fees have never been collected since PACT’s establishment. Consequently, PACT is operating in a sub-optimal economic environment because of non-enforcement of these income streams stipulated in the Act. Most constituents believe that PACT’s economic environment is unstable because of its undiversified revenue base, governance structure and susceptibility to government appropriation of the fund (Fig. 6).

Institutional Environment

Figure 6. Economic Environment of PACT PACT Economic Environment Sup-optimal economic environment due to non-enforcement Income vulnerable to government appropriation Financially threatened by competing government interest PACT Act allows for fund appropriation Governance structure not conducive to resource mobilization Global economic situation reduce access to philanthropic money Projected income uncertain Growth of PACT endowement uncertain Financially stable with secured sources of income Governance structure allows investment and fund growth 0

100

percent

As Table 2 depicts, total revenue of the Trust has grown at an average annual rate of 5.07% over the relevant range. However, a close examination of the most recent three fiscal year period of 2007, 2008 and 2009 reveals a trend in decreasing revenues. When comparing these three years to 2006, the most recent year producing revenue growth, a total revenue loss of $901,051 or an annual average of $300,350 was realized. The largest downturn in revenue during this period occurred during FY 2007 when revenue declined by $351,220. Table 2. AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH IN REVENUE BY SOURCE 2004-2009 (BZ$ IN MILLIONS) Average Annual Revenue Source

% Growth

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Conserve Fees

1.88

1.864

1.800

1.905

1.849

1.860

1.669

Commissions

5.94

1.664

1.625

1.902

2.073

2.042

1.374

Interest

14.60

0.483

0.451

0.515

0.498

0.374

0.264

Contributions Totals

5.07

4.011

4.056

4.322

4.42

4.276

3.307

It should be noted that Contributions and Other Revenue comprised less than ½ of 1% (.004655) of total revenue of the Trust over the relevant range and therefore was considered insignificant for purposes of this assessment. The total average annual percent growth of 5.07% represents the “weighted average” of all sources of revenue except Contributions. 4.3.4. Trust Fund Growth There are essentially three methods by which any account or fund can grow. First, it can grow through the investment of the fund balance in financial vehicles designed to provide target rates of return; it can grow through obtaining external funding sources that are sustainable over time; and, obviously, a third choice would be a model that combines both of the above options.

Institutional Environment

The PACT Act required the establishment of an Endowment Fund that is grown through the contribution of not less than 5% of total annual revenues received by the Trust. The Act also precludes PACT management from using these funds (other than the interest earned on the corpus) except in emergency situations and only upon unanimous approval of the Board. The stated purpose of this fund is to sustain the overall mission of PACT into perpetuity. PACT also maintains other funds that are not mandated to grow at specified rates. PACT’s funds are segregated between the Endowment Fund and other funds. Due to this segregation and the restrictions imposed on the growth and use of the Endowment Fund, a dual set of strategies should be developed. The Endowment Fund strategy is already substantially in place with the requirement to transfer 5% of total revenues into it annually. Additional growth of the Endowment Fund can be realized by investing the corpus of the fund in financial instruments to maximize return on investment while ensuring the safety of the funds invested. In this instance, management needs to be acutely aware of market risk and adopt a strategy that places more emphasis on preserving the fund versus maximizing returns. In the current market it would be smart to maintain the Endowment Fund investments in secure term deposits at domestic banks. To further minimize risk more than one bank should be used to house these deposits. Management needs to monitor the domestic banking situation and to maintain the term deposits in liquid form. If the interest rate paid by banks begins to decrease substantially then they can be immediately moved to another bank or another investment vehicle can be considered. Finding United States Treasury instruments would be a good “backup” plan for investing a portion of the Endowment Fund once potential liquidity concerns were considered. In order to accomplish the optimum growth and return on these funds and to “deflect” as much public or internal criticism as possible, management should seriously consider obtaining professional financial management from a qualified investment firm or individual. The PACT Act is mute with regard to how management pursues Trust growth. Accordingly, all potential avenues of growth should be investigated with management assuming a more aggressive role in this endeavor. Potential strategies should include formal negotiations with the airline industry to develop a formal understanding or “contract” requiring them to pay to PACT 100% of all taxes and fees collected on PACT’s behalf. The airline industry currently “passes through” all taxes and fees to its passengers during the ticket purchasing process. There is no valid reason why PACT should be required to pay this fee. If this can’t be established through negotiations with the airlines then requesting an amendment to the Act should be considered. Another strategy is to consider simply raising the fees and taxes being charged. Although not popular with the general public, it should be noted that many visitors to Belize will never realize these fees or taxes were increased. A modest 5% across the Board increase would help stabilize the revenue drain experienced over the last three years. This would also require an amendment to the Act

4.3.5. Investments The PACT investment account, consisting of “term deposits”, has earned slightly more than $2.3 million over the relevant range for an average annual return on investment of 10.67%. The Trust investment account maintained an average annual balance of $4,349,345 with an average annual return of $464,274. As the Table 3 shows, the account balance has fluctuated over the relevant range increasing during 2005 and 2006 to a high balance of over $5 million, but decreasing during the recent three year period to a low on 31 March 2008 of $4,120,622. These decreasing account balances were not due to a decline of the earnings rate those years, but rather to a “transfer out” of funds to the General Account for use in meeting operational requirements. It should be noted that at no time were any of these transfers made from the Endowment Fund. Institutional Environment

Table 3. GROWTH IN INVESTMENTS 2004-2009 Transaction

2004

Beg Bal 31/3/04

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

$ 3,500,000

Transfers in <out>

204,826

Interest Earned

373,782

Beg Bal 31/3/05

$ 4,078,608

Transfers in <out>

746,219

Interest Earned

497,823

Beg Bal 31/3/06

$ 5,322,650

Transfers in <out>

<1,112,827>

Interest Earned

515,021

Beg Bal 31/3/07

$ 4,724,844

Transfers in <out>

<1,055,688>

Interest Earned

451,466

Beg Bal 31/3/08

$ 4,120,622

Transfers in <out>

<169,511>

Interest Earned

483,276

Beg Bal 31/3/09

$ 4,434,387

The transfers out to the General Fund correspond with the decline in revenues experienced during FY’S 06-07, 07-08 and 08-09. 4.3.6. Endowment Fund Section 30 of the PACT Act requires the establishment of an Endowment Fund. In addition, the Act requires PACT management to contribute not less than 5% of total Trust revenue to the endowment fund annually. The endowment fund is considered a “restricted fund” and as such may not be used except in financial emergencies, contingencies or other purposes as the Board may deem necessary and only upon unanimous approval of the Board. This restriction does not extend to the interest earned by the endowment fund which may be used by the Trust in its normal operations. It should be noted that PACT management has made no withdraws from the Fund’s corpus and has made annual contributions averaging 9.90% over the relevant range (Table 4). Table 4. ENDOWMENT FUND GROWTH 2004-2009 (BZ$ IN MILLIONS) Transaction

2009

2008

Balance 31/3

$ 3.282

$ 2.995

$ 2.732

$ 2.222

$ 1.713

$ 1.167

0.287

0.262

0.510

0.508

0.546

7.16

6.34

11.75

11.43

12.77

Transfer in Transfer in as a % of Total Revenue

2007

2006

2005

2004

Institutional Environment

4.3.7. Program Expenses PACT currently classifies project grants, environmental and non-environmental donations, capacity building and scholarships, research and information sharing, and PACT promotions and awareness education as program expenses. Prior to FY 2008, PACT also classified some general operating expenses for such things as maintenance of billboards and signs and printing and postage as program expenses. These expenses were properly re-classified as administrative expenses after FY 2008. 4.3.8. Project Grants Project Grants disbursed as a percentage of total revenue has generally declined since 2004. Fiscal Year 2006 saw the largest percentage of total revenue being allocated to this grant category at 58.47% while Fiscal Year 2005 recorded the lowest at 19.01% (Table 5). The annual average allocation to project grants over the relevant range amounted to 35.25%. FY ended 31 March 2009 allocated 29.52% to this activity. It should be noted that PACT has awarded a total of 117 grants in all categories from 31 March 2004 to 31 March 2009. Table 5. PROJECT GRANTS AWARDED AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BZ$ IN MILLIONS) Budget Category Total Revenue

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

$ 4.013

$ 4.101

$ 4.341

$ 4.452

$ 4.279

$ 3.351

Total Grants Disbursed

1.185

1.032

1.914

2.603

0.813

1.215

Total Grants Disbursed as a % of Total Revenue

29.52

25.16

44.19

58.47

19.01

36.25

4.3.9. Other Program Expenses Like project grants, discussed previously, Other Program Expenses (net of the re-classification of administrative expenses) have also seen a decline over the relevant range. The base year of 2004 recorded an expenditure of $685,570 of annual revenue totaling $3,350,534 or 20.46%. The level of disbursements for this category of expense expressed as a percentage of total revenue has fluctuated fairly widely during the five year period measured (Table 6). Spending in this category peaked during FY ended 31 March 2007 at 32.74% and experienced its lowest level of 4.78% at 31 March 2009. The five year average was 18.07%. Table 6. OTHER PROGRAM EXPENSES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE ($ IN MILLIONS) Budget Category Total Revenue Total Other Program Expenses Awarded Total Other Program Expenses Awarded as a % of Total Revenue

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

$ 4.013

$ 4.101

$ 4.341

$ 4.452

$ 4.279

$ 3.351

0.192

0.603

1.421

1.199

0.0478

0.686

4.78

14.71

32.74

26.93

11.17

20.46

The annual average expenditure for program costs as a percentage of total revenue over the relevant range was 53.52%..

Institutional Environment

4.3.10. Administrative and Operational Expenses For the FY’S ended 31 March 2006, 2007 and 2008 a substantial portion of PACT’s administrative expenses were incorrectly presented in the financial statements as program expenses. The re-classification of these expenses resulted in administrative expenses increasing by $283,980 in 2006, $390,944 in 2007 and $411,029 in 2008. These additional expenses were added to the financial statement presentation for each of the respective years and resulted in material increases in total administrative expenses as seen in Table 7. Operational expenses include PACT tickets, collection agent’s administrative expenses and depreciation. Table 7. ADMIN AND OPER EXPENSES AS A % OF TOTAL REVENUE (BZ$ IN MILLIONS) 2009

2008

2007

2006

$ 4.013

$ 4.101

$ 4.341

$ 4.452

$ 4.279

$ 3.351

Total Admin Expense

1.49

1.514

1.408

1.105

0.844

0.766

Total Admin Expense as a % of Total Revenue

3.71

36.9

34.1

24.8

19.7

22.9

0.329

0.315

0.291

0.275

0.243

0.158

7.7

6.7

6.2

5.7

4.7

Total Revenue

Total Oper Expense Total Oper Expense as a % of Total Revenue

2005

2004

A comparison of total project grants awarded to total administrative expenses on an annual basis over the period 2004 to 2009 shows significant fluctuations. For the FY ended 31 March 2004 PACT awarded $1.59 in project grants for every $1.00 in administrative expense. This ratio improved to $2.36 awarded for every dollar in administrative expense at FY ended 2006, but has declined over the most recent three year period to $.79 awarded for every $1.00 expended at 31 March 2009. The five year average is $1.36 to $1.00. When comparing total administrative expense to total program expense the ratios improve significantly to a five year average of $2.34 to $1.00 (Table 8). Table 8. RATIO OF PROGRAM EXPENSES BY CATEGORY TO TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (BZ$ IN MILLIONS)

Project Grants Awarded Total Admin Expense Ratio of Grants Awarded to Total Admin Expense

2009

2008

$ 1.185

$ 1.032

1.4901

2007

2006

2005

2004

$ 1.914

$ 2.603

$ 0.813

$ 1.215

1.514

1.408

1.105

0.844

0.766

79:1

.368:1

1.29:1

2.36:1

.96:1

1.59:1

Other Program Expenses Awarded

0.192

0.603

1.423

1.199

0.478

0.686

Ratio of Other Program Expenses Awarded to Total Admin Expenses

.13:1

.39:1

.96:1

1.06:1

.57:1

.90:1

Ratio of Total Program Expenses to Total Admin Expenses

.92:1

1.08:1

2.25:1

3.44:1

1.53:1

2.48:1

4.3.11. Employee Salaries, Benefits and Social Security For FY ended 31 March 2009 employee salaries, benefits and social security payments amounted to $961,385 or 64.5% of total administrative expenses. Employee salaries grew by slightly more than 100% over the relevant range from 2004 to 2009. During this same period employee benefits grew by 191.18% and employer contributions to social security on behalf of employees grew by 72.42% (Table 9).

Institutional Environment

Table 9. GROWTH IN EMPLOYEE SALARIES, BENEFITS AND SOCIAL SECURITY 2004-2009 2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Salaries

$ 624,830

$ 532,911

$ 470,734

$ 416,860

$ 353,828

$ 311,869

Benefits

322,465

241,494

212,323

150,958

110,657

110,744

Social Security Totals

14,090

15,064

12,991

10,914

10,144

8,172

$ 961,385

$ 789,469

$ 696,048

$ 578,732

$ 474,629

$ 430,785

As indicated in Table 10, total employee salaries increased by an average annual rate of 14.93% while employee benefits grew at a yearly rate of 24.85%, and social security payments by 11.83%. Table 10. ANNUAL % GROWTH IN EMPLOYEE SALARIES, BENEFITS AND SOCIAL SECURITY 2009 Salaries

2008

2007

2006

2005

17.25

13.21

12.92

17.81

13.45

Benefits

33.53

13.74

40.65

3.6.42

<.08>

Social Security

<.06>

15.96

19.03

0.08

24.13

It should be noted that employee benefits have increased over the relevant range by an annual average of 41.90% of total annual salaries and are increasing. At FY ended 31 March 2009, employee benefits totaled 51.61% of total salaries. It should be noted that PACT’s staffing increased from 11 employees at 31 March 2004 to 18 employees as 31 March 2009. 4.3.12. Comparative Analysis (Benchmarking) As Table 11 indicates, PACT’s performance with regard to administrative expenses and return on investments over the relevant range compares very well with the performance reported by the Conservation Finance Alliance (CFA). CFA created a “working group on environmental funds” in 2007 designed to encourage promotion, knowledge transfer and exchange about environmental funds in support of the protection of global biodiversity. This working group is composed of approximately 20 worldwide members including the Latin American and Caribbean Network of Environmental Funds (RedLAC) of which PACT is a member. In 2008 CFA commissioned an evaluation of its performance in several critical areas of which finance was one. The study was conducted for the period 2003 to 2008 which corresponds very closely with this institutional assessment. Although CFA consists of both private and public members, the sheer number of members makes the performance characteristics valuable for comparison with PACT. Hence, the reason this organization is being used for financial bench marking purposes. Table 11. A COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES AND RETURN ON INVESTMENTS

PACT

CONSERV FINANCE ALLIANCE

Avg Admin Expenses as a % of Avg Total Revenue

30.52%

20.%

Avg % Return on Investment

10.67%

10.57%

4.3.13. Accounting System and Procedures Institutional Environment

PACT conducts its accounting operations in accordance with International Accounting Standards through the adoption and implementation of authoritative accounting pronouncements issued by the International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and generally accepted accounting principles in current use by the accounting profession in Belize. PACT derives its authority and guidance for the application of the accounting standards used by Section 31(1) of the PACT Act which states in part “...the Board shall keep a full and correct accounting of all moneys received and expended by the Trust…” In accordance with the provisions of the PACT Act the Financial Statements for all periods relevant to this assessment have been audited by professional chartered accountants and have received unqualified opinions as to their fair presentation. Management letters prepared and issued by the audit firm in the normal course of an annual audit do not reveal any material weaknesses in the accounting system or the internal control structure of the Trust. However, there were some issues discussed in these letters that deserve further examination: 1. Trade Receivables; With respect to agent’s accounts, it is recognized that internal collections of fees from Immigration and Belize Boarder Management will continue to be problematic, but the account involving the USA Airlines carries a 7% fee which is paid to the airlines. Given the standard operating procedures of “passing through” all such fees directly to the passengers it would seem prudent to pursue negotiations to eliminate these fees and require the airlines to remit 100% of all PACT fees collected. This would have the effect of increasing badly needed revenues and eliminate associated collection costs. An amendment to the PACT Act to implement this along with establishing penalties for late payment of these fees would appear to be a desired outcome. 2. Employee Loans and Payroll Advances; Although management has initiated a moratorium on staff loans, due to the past problems with employees leaving PACT employment while still owing the Trust for either loans or payroll advances, in would seem wise to consider completely eliminating this procedure. The Board, as well as senior financial management personnel, are exposed to possible legal action for the loss of these funds should the debtor not repay their obligation. While it is recognized that employees can have monetary difficulties it must be remembered that PACT deals with public funds. 3. Grant Monitoring; The Trust has experienced some issues with its grantees that involve non-completion of funded projects and the potential misuse of grant funds. Many of these problems might be avoided through the acquisition and use of “grant management software”. 4. Compliance with the PACT Act; In the Management Letter dated 06 July 2006 the audit firm documented a “finding” that PACT management had failed to transfer the required 5% of total annual revenue to the Endowment Fund as required by Section 30. Although the audit firm is of the opinion this was a violation of the strict reading of the Act, they failed to understand that management is entitled to use these funds for emergencies, contingencies and other reasons upon the unanimous approval of the Board. Funds in the amount of 5% of total revenue were transferred to the Endowment Fund, but the transfer came from the carry forward of the General Fund. From a procedural viewpoint, this transfer should have taken place from the current annual revenue account which then could have been reimbursed by the General Fund carry forward. It should be noted, as discussed earlier, PACT management has exceeded its obligation under the Act in this regard over the relevant range studied. Institutional Environment

The accounting procedures manual in use is really more of a policy manual. An accounting manual needs to have significantly more detail on the “how” while letting the policy manual explain the “why”. Accounting manuals typically contain detailed position descriptions that outline the duties and responsibilities of the positions, the management reporting structure and a step by step “checklist approach” for the performance of each position. This is needed to ensure that steps aren’t accidently overlooked or internal controls violated. The lack of such detail could cause a significant misstatement in the presentation of the Financial Statements leading to a “qualified” or even an “adverse” opinion from the audit firm performing the annual audit The current budgeting process does not make use of longer term budgets. The budgeting process should begin by identifying the proper fiscal year for operations. Although PACT is a not-for-profit entity it still needs to maximize its revenue and minimize its costs to better perform its mission. Given the “high season” for visitors to Belize begins in November it would seem reasonable to adopt the fiscal year 1 November through 31 October. This would allow for a better “matching” of revenue to operating and administrative expenses plus provide a window of opportunity for the actual construction of the budgets during the “down” period of early Fall. The actual budgets prepared should take into account the short term (1 year), the intermediate term (3 years) and long term (5 to 7 years). In theory, planning for the longer terms will minimize the impact on short term budgets. If the budgets are prepared using a vertical analysis technique calculating each line item and stating them as a percentage of projected revenues, then each line item can be monitored and tracked in dollars expended based on total revenue received. There is currently no method of tracking what the actual costs are of administering programs for other organizations that have partnered with PACT. Determining a cost allocation rate and method of applying the cost would ensure that PACT is recovering its actual costs of management of these programs. Since it is possible to capture total administrative expenses and total program expenses, calculating an administrative overhead rate would be a simple process. This rate could then be used to “invoice” PACT’s partners with a high degree of confidence that proper costs are being recovered.

4.3.14. Key Findings in PACT Administrative and Financial Management 1. No material or significant weaknesses were noted in the overall financial management of PACT. 2. PACT management has complied with all financial management requirements of the PACT Act. 3. Revenue growth is not at an annual rate sufficient to sustain the Trust over the long term without significantly compromising the Trust’s overall mission. 4. Trust investments have grown at an annual rate of 10.67% as compared to 10.57% to other “worldwide” trust funds. 5. The Endowment Fund has grown at an average rate of 9.90% annually over the relevant range. 6. Prior to FY 2008 PACT misclassified a significant amount of administrative expenses as program expenses. This was corrected in 2009. 7. Project grants received average annual funding of 35.25% of total revenue over the relevant range. 8. Other program expenses had an average annual level of funding at 18.07% of total revenue over the five year period 2004 to 2009. 9. Average annual administrative expenses (after reclassification) as a percentage of average total annual revenue over the relevant range was 30.52% compared to an industry average of 20%. 10. Financial statement audits were conducted each year by professional chartered accountants as required by the Act with “unqualified opinions” being issued by each of the firms employed. Institutional Environment

11. PACT is being charged a 7% fee on the departure taxes collected by the airlines servicing Belize. These fees are often paid late by the airlines. 12. PACT has provided employee loans and payroll advances that have not been repaid by the employees involved. 13. PACT does not use “grant tracking” software to assist it in monitoring grantee progress and compliance with PACT Act legal requirements. 14. The accounting procedures manual currently in use does not meet the “generally accepted” standards of the profession. 15. The current budgeting process does not make use of longer term budgets which degrades management’s ability to make accurate “projections” involving it’s program requirements and plans. 16. There is no current methodology used in computing administrative expenses for PACT’s management of other programs for its mission partners. This results in not knowing if PACT is allocating and collecting the proper amount of administrative expenses compared to the resources expended. 17. The current strategy for “growing the Trust” is inadequate to sustain PACT’s mission viability over the long term.

4.4. Technology and Information Access, availability and technical capacity to efficiently and effectively utilize technology are integral to PACT’s institutional environment, performance and capacity to achieve its mandate. Should the institution lack the infrastructure, technological literacy, and information technology, the performance can be severely impacted. In general, most constituents believe that PACT’ is not utilizing technology interact and engage constituents (Figure 7). On note, most (58%) believe that the staff possesses the technical capacity to maximize use of technology. Figure 7. PACT’s Technological Environment

Almost 50% of the constituents believed that the previous website was not dynamic and interactive and did not contain relevant and pertinent information about PACT’s programs, policies and procedures. Constituents opined that because PACT is a public trust, it website should provide access to audited financial reports, list of grantees, PACT Act and other relevant documents. The appropriate use of technology can allow PACT to streamline a number of tasks that are critical for constituent engagement, fundraising and increase efficiency. For example, PACT can maximize its use of its website to better engage constituents by providing relevant and pertinent information (e.g., Q&A) while simultaneously allowing the institution to receive donations. Administratively, PACT can use a grant administrator and tracking Institutional Environment

software that will allow the grants staff and grantees to easily and effectively track pending proposals and active grants online. Such software programs provide reports in formats that will be useable by PACT’s constituents. Similarly, a grant accounting software such as ITWorks will allow PACT to integrate its general ledger accounting system with the grants system.

4.5. Political As stated above, PACT is a parastatal body and as such it receives government support. However, constituents overwhelmingly felt that PACT suffers from too much government influence (44%) and competing or divided political interests (34%) at the expense of PACT’s purpose (Fig. 5). The former suggests that constituents believe that the governance structure of PACT is too political, while competing political interest refers to appropriation of PACT funds for purposes other than those outlined in the Act. Currently, the BoD is chaired by the CEO in the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment (MNREI), which adds to this perception; nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the CEO was elected as chair by the existing BoD in June of 2008. Prior to then, the Board was chaired by an NGO from 2005-2008. The Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds (Conservation Finance Alliance 2008), which reviewed 25 conservation trusts funds within RedLAC, suggested that the chair of the Board should not be a government official in order to increase the independent status and transparency perception of the fund. However, a majority of the Funds reviewed were not parastatal, as in the case of PACT. Figure 8. PACT’s Political Environment Political Environment of PACT 3% 7% 7%

Too much influence from government politics

Competing political interest

44%

Marginal political support Stable with Political Support

34%

Responsive to national political interest Too much influence from NGO and CBO politics

On the contrary, only 7% of constituents believed that PACT was stable with excellent political support. This perception is exacerbated by the overall sentiment among constituents that PACT’s funds can be appropriated by the government for projects outside the purview of the PACT Act. This has led to the belief among some constituents that PACT is a ‘government slush fund.’ However, it is noteworthy to mention that the decision to appropriate PACT funds for EMF and Belize City Council was not sanctioned by the PACT Board but were authorized by the passage of a superseding Act and Cabinet directive, respectively.

Institutional Environment

4.6. Constituency Analysis The continued relevance and survival of any organization is dependent on the size and quality of its constituents - ‘the people involved in or served by an organization.’ The constituency map below identifies constituents with varying relationships to PACT. Essentially, those constituents that have the closest, most visible relationship with the mission and core values of PACT are the internal constituents. Thus, PACT’s Board of directors and staff comprise the internal constituents and should have the strongest and most valuable relationship in institution. As a result, the roles of internal and external constituents should reflect the degree of involvement in the institution (Figures 8 and 9). However, it was apparent from the survey that constituents disagreed in their classification of ‘internal’ versus ‘external’ constituents; many listed donors, government departments and grantees as internal constituents even though these are normally listed under external constituents. This inevitably led to confusion as to the role of internal and external constituents. Nonetheless, Figure 8 summarizes the role of internal constituents of PACT. Figure 9. PACT’s Constituency Distribution Map OtherEconomic Economic Sectors Other Sectors

Community Community

Grantees Grantees

Academia Academia

Primary Donors Primary Donors Tourism Tourism Sector Sector

Government Government Finance Committee Finance Committee

Mission and and Mission Core Values Core Values

Local NGOs Local NGOs

PACT Board PACT Board

Advisory Advisory Council Council

Protected Protected Areas Areas Managers Managers

Staff Staff

International NGOs International NGOs

BufferCommunities Communities Buffer

Secondary Donors Secondary Donors

The observation that only 42% of all constituents believe that one of the primary roles of the internal constituents should be to grow the PACT fund above all things suggest that constituents are not fully aware of the purpose of PACT. Ultimately, the continued relevance and effectiveness of PACT is contingent on its ability to grow the fund so as to increase its financing to protected areas. On the other hand, the majority of constituents believe that internal constituents should be loyal to PACT, ensure institutional efficiency and assist in building the national identity of the Trust. These roles are not only necessary for institutional performance but they also indicate internal institutional strengths that contribute significantly to capacity of PACT. Interestingly, only 50% of the constituents believe that PACT should engage external constituents at all cost. As stated above, the continued relevance of PACT will depend on its ability to forge and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship with its constituents. The strategic recommendations outlined in the PACT Communication Strategy completed in 2009 must be implemented to re-engage constituents. Institutional Environment

Figure 10: Role of Internal Constituents of PACT

Similarly, the majority (58%) of external constituents did not believe that their role should be to assist PACT in growing the fund, despite the fact that a majority of the external constituents were grantees who have varying degree of ‘dependence’ on PACT funds. In other words, these external constituents believe that the effort to grow the fund should be PACT’s responsibility alone and that they should be the beneficiaries rather that partners in growing the fund. Ideally, the ‘win-win’ option would be for external constituents to partner with PACT to identify additional funding opportunities and leverage funds. Ultimately, constituents’ perception of their relationship with PACT will determine the strategies and opportunities for PACT to better engage its constituency. Based on the survey, only 30% of the constituents believe that their relationship with PACT should be one in the best interest of Belize’s protected areas – even though PACT’s primary purpose is to finance protected areas (Fig. 10). This indicates that constituents are divided as to the purpose of PACT; furthermore, it also suggests that the recommendations outlined in the PACT Communications Strategy remain relevant and must be implemented to allow the institution to ‘connect’ with its constituency by engaging constituents as to the mission, vision and ultimately the purpose of PACT. Likewise, 30% of the constituents believe the relationship between PACT and constituents should be a mutually beneficial, non-binding relationship while 12% believe that the relationship should be based on convenience (Fig. 10).

Institutional Environment

Figure 11: Role External Constituents of PACT

The fact that PACT’s constituents are divided as to their perceived relationship with the institution is both an opportunity and a threat to PACT. The opportunity is that PACT can re-connect and re-engage its constituents so as to better understand their needs as part of the new 2011-2016 strategic plan. Once constituents are on Board with PACT’s reason for existence, the institution will be in a position to benefit from unique strategic opportunities available among external constituents. Alternatively, failure to ‘connect’ with constituents threatens the very survival and reason for existence of PACT as well as foster perception that competing financial mechanisms for protected areas are necessary. PACT must continuously reassess its constituency distribution to keep abreast of the changing dynamics and reposition itself to make necessary adjustments when required. Figure 12. PACT’s Relationship with Constituents

PACT's relationship with constituents A mutually beneficial, non binding relationship Facilitating and enabling relationship by PACT

7% 30%

Relationship of dependence on part of PACT

7% 7% 7% 12%

30%

Relationship of economic constituent dependence Convienient relationship Relationship in best interest of Belize's procted areas Relationship of interdependence for mutual growth

Institutional Environment

5. Institutional Identity and Motivation 5.1. Identity of PACT The original concept for the establishment of PACT dates back to 1992 as part of a Revenue Generation Strategy for Protected Areas of Belize with the support of the United States Agency for International Development and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature. The original concept went through an extensive process of consultations with public, private and NGO organizations between 1992 and 1995, and PACT was formally established in January 1996 with the passing of the Protected Areas Conservation Trust Act, No. 15 of 1995, creating the institution as a Statutory Board. PACT officially opened its doors for business in June of 1996. As provided for in the Act, the functions of PACT “…shall be to encourage and promote, for the benefit and enjoyment of the present and future generations of the people of Belize, the provision, protection, conservation and enhancement of the natural and cultural resources of Belize”. 5.2. Vision, Mission and Guiding Principles The Vision and Mission of an institution describe the philosophical drivers that define the institution’s purpose and reason for existence; they are assertive reminders of the philosophical boundaries, strategic direction, and principles of the institution in reaching its long-term goals and objectives. For this to be achieved effectively by PACT, the Vision and Mission must be free of all ambiguities and redundancies, and must allow for all of PACT’s constituents to be unmistakably clear about PACT’s purpose and reason for existence; i.e., why PACT exists and thus, why it does what it does. The PACT’s Vision and Mission as they existed at the time of the preparation of the PACT 2005-2010 Strategic Plan were too long, repetitive, redundant and ambiguous. While they sought to communicate what PACT does, they were lacking in communicating the philosophical principles that led to the creation of PACT and that have kept the organization in business to date. The PACT Board of Directors, in a strategic planning retreat held in February 2009, identified the following vision, mission and guiding principles as the new set of philosophical values that will identify and drive the development of PACT into the future. Vision of PACT: ‘PACT is a strategic partner in the funding, management, and sustainable development of Belize’s natural and cultural resources for the benefit of Belizeans and the global community’ Mission of PACT: ‘To contribute to the sustainable management and development of Belize’s natural and cultural heritage by providing effective funding support to protected areas’

Institutional Identity and Motivation

Guiding Principles of PACT • Equity, transparency, accountability, and good governance are hallmarks of PACT • The success of PACT as a National Trust Fund is dependent on its ability to continuously grow the fund • Being responsive to protected areas and constituents’ needs is a permanent campaign of PACT • Networking and engagement with constituents on a local, national and global scale is indispensable for PACT to deliver its mission • PACT continuously sets new standards of efficiency in grant-making and delivery • Effective communications is a key function of the day to day operations of PACT In the survey conducted as part of this institutional assessment, all constituents expressed satisfaction with the above vision and mission of PACT as acceptable expressions of the purpose of PACT. 5.3. Culture The institutional culture at PACT seems to be characterized by a high willingness to serve (88% of all constituents), but with an environment in which turf protection (67.7%) and limited freedom of expression (62.5%) appear to be a problem. Constituents (56%) believed that even though there is no structured program for staff training, 70% believed that PACT presents opportunities for professional growth and 72% believed that there are accessible scholarship opportunities for staff. On average, 72% of all internal constituents believed that PACT has a fair system for determining staff compensation, that staff compensation packages were similar or better at PACT than at other organizations, and that the institutional prestige of working at PACT was a powerful motivation of staff. It is important to note, however, that 47% of constituents believe a culture of shared values does not exist at PACT, and 45% believe that responsible and transparent management does not exist at PACT. With respect to the hierarchy within PACT, 20% of constituents believed that disrespect to hierarchy exists.

Institutional Identity and Motivation

6. Institutional Capacity 6.1. Strategic Leadership The BoD of the Trust should provide strategic leadership to attain the vision and direction for the success and growth of the organization. As such, the Board is ultimately responsible for the Trustâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effective and efficient administration including the protection of the public interest of PACT. The composition of the BoD is mandated by the Act, which also stipulates that the Chairperson of the Board is selected from its membership. As per the Board Manual Policy, the BoD must meet at least four times a year to attend to all the business of the Trust. These meetings are presided upon by the Chairperson of the Board who should ensure that the institution is in compliance with the Act. The role of the Board and the organization, headed by the Executive Director should be one of complementarity as indicated in Table 12. For effective management, there must be dialogue, mutual respect and trust between the Board and the Executive Director. Ultimately, the success of PACT requires strong strategic leadership from the Board. Table 12. Difference of Roles of the Board and the Executive Director

Board of Directors

Executive Director

Governs

Manages

Has fiduciary responsibilities to PACT

Responsible for day-to-day management of the Trust.

Monitors the progress and performance of annual work-plans, strategic plans and other plans approved by the Board.

Develop and implement approved annual work-plans, strategic plans and other plans.

Through committees assist ED and Management team with policy formulation, strategic planning, fundraising and forecasting.

Responsible for the policy formulation, strategic planning, fundraising and forecasting.

Review all relevant materials before Board meetings.

Provides all relevant materials before Board meetings to facilitate focused discussion.

Be familiar with agenda items as they relate to mission, workplan and/or strategic plans etc.

Communicates the link between agenda items and the organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s mission, work-plan and/or strategic plan objectives as well as communicate the specific action required of the Board.

Board members willingly participate in Board Committees.

Participates in Board Committees as much as is possible to ensure committees remain focused on its objective

Liaises with staff through the ED on formal and official issues of the Trust.

The ED communicates with Board of Directors to ensure that all directors are clear on matters being discussed and on the objectives and purpose of the organization

Forward all media interviews and other queries to the ED

Is the official voice and point of contact for organization.

Institutional Capacity

the

6.2.The Advisory Council/Honorary Board The Advisory Council should also provide guidance to the Board. In accordance with Part IV of the PACT Act, an 11 member Advisory Council was appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources. Because the Advisory Council should be a technical body, the composition must be revisited to increase its effectiveness. Given its role, it is important that the Advisory Council consist of members with technical knowledge to carry out its responsibilities as stipulated by the Act. It is important that the BoD always utilizes the Advisory Council and allow for the establishment of mechanisms which facilitate its smooth and effective functioning. Based on a review of the grant process, it was evident that the BoD chose to circumvent this process on at least two occasions when awarding large grants. Such actions are contrary to established policies and guidelines and should be discontinued. Section 15 of the PACT Act calls for the establishment of a Honorary Board to increase the image and functions of PACT to the general public in addition to assisting the Trust with fundraising; however this body was never constituted by the BoD. Such a body can improve PACT’s relationships with external constituents and should be considered. As mentioned above, strategic leadership is paramount to the survival, growth and continued relevance of PACT. However, the PACT’s constituents, as indicated in the survey, felt that the Board of PACT does not provide the required strategic leadership and direction to the institution (Table 13). This sentiment was expressed by the majority of both internal (63%) and external constituents (68%) (Figure 13). This trend was consistent across the number of years of involvement with PACT. In other words, constituents with longer institutional memory with PACT also shared this view. Table 13. Perceptions of Strategic Leadership by the Board Parameter

Does not Agree (%)

Agree (%)

The Board provides clear strategic leadership

Strategic Leadership at PACT is dynamic and responsive to needs, threats and opportunities

The Board Adopts and implements an investment policy intentionally skewed towards the delivery of PACT core purpose

Operations at PACT are generally characterized by an over-arching strategy to grow the fund

Operations at PACT are generally characterized by an overarching strategy to protect the fund

The current strategic direction at PACT ensures the institution’s relevance and survival

The governance structure at PACT guarantees the strategic development of the institutions

The legal framework at PACT I appropriate to support the strategic development of the institution

Amendments to the PACT Act are required to support the strategic development of the institution

Institutional Capacity

Figure 13. Perception of Strategic Leadership Provided by Board

Similarly, 46% of the internal constituents and 61% of the external constituents did not feel that leadership at PACT is dynamic and responsive to needs, threats and opportunities (Figure 14). Worth mentioning is that 72% of those persons who have known PACT for more than six years share this same perception about the leadership at PACT. This perception by both the external and internal constituents is a cause for concern and must be addressed via the strengthening of the BoD and the implementation of the Communications Strategy. Constituents believed that one of the primary functions of the BoD is grow the fund. However, both internal (64%) and external (73%) constituents questioned the investment policy adopted by the Board (Figure 15). There was no difference in how this was viewed by those who have known the organization over a longer period of time. They all overwhelmingly feel that the Board has not adopted and implemented an effective investment policy. Figure 14. Leadership Dynamic and Responsive to Needs, Threats and Opportunities

Institutional Capacity

Figure 15. Investment Policy Delivers PACT Core Purpose

Likewise, most of the external constituents (65%) did not feel that the Board has an overarching strategy to grow the fund (Figure 16). This view was also supported by 61% of the internal constituents as well. Those who have known PACT for under five years feel stronger about this than those who have know the organization over a longer period of time (75% to 50% respectively). Figure 16. Perception of the Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Performance in Growing the Fund

When it comes to protecting the fund, 68% of the internal constituents agreed that operations at PACT are generally characterized by an overarching strategy to protect the fund. This view was not supported by the external constituents (72%) who felt that there was no strategy to protect the fund (Figure 17). It is important to consider the response of those with longer institutional memory. All respondents who have known PACT for less than a year feels that the current strategic direction of PACT does not ensure the institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relevance and survival. This was also the view of 75% of the external constituents. With this perception, there is cause for serious concern for the strategic direction of the organization. This also highlights the need to better engage constituents as per the Communication Strategy. Institutional Capacity

Figure 17. Perception of the Boardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Performance in Protecting the Fund

Constituents also perceived that the governance structure of PACT does not guarantee the strategic development of the institution. This is the view of 61% of the internal and 70% of the external constituents (Figure 18). There is not much support for the governance structure of PACT primarily because most constituents believe that the governance structure is political (Figure 8). Regarding the legal framework, 75% of those who have known PACT for under a year feel that this framework does not support strategic development. On the other hand, 85% of those who have known PACT for over six years feel that the legal framework supports the strategic development of the institution. Amendments to the PACT Act are required to support the strategic development of the institution. This sentiment was strongly expressed by 92% of the internal constituents and 78% of the external constituents (Figure 19). This information coming from the internal constituents tells that there is really a call amend the Act. All respondents who have known PACT for under a year support the need to amend the Act and 90% of those who have known PACT for over six years and more. Figure 18. Governance Structure Guarantees Strategic Development

Institutional Capacity

Figure 19. Need for Amending the PACT Act

6.3. Human Resource PACT employs 14 persons to carry out the activities of the Trust. The team comprises an Executive Director, a Director of Finance and Administration, a Grants Programme Director, a Technical Programme Officer, Project Officers and other support staff. Human resources issues are handled with the guidance of a comprehensive staff handbook that was adopted by the Board of Directors. This manual includes the system of performance evaluation, a complaints and arbitration system, termination procedures among other relevant topics. The recruitment process is standard for an organization of its size and type. Vacancies are advertised for at least two weeks and an interview is conducted with qualified applicants. Once a candidate is identified and an offer is given and accepted, the person starts with a three months probationary period. There is a comprehensive orientation session and each employee is given a handbook (e.g., personnel manual) and other relevant information for their review. After the probationary period, the person is evaluated and is recommended to stay or to be released. All positions have job descriptions and employees are evaluated yearly based on the activities. Increments are issued to deserving employees after successful performance evaluations. Majority of the internal constituents (83%) stated that the administrative staff of PACT is competent and suitable for the job (Figure 20). Figure 20. Constituents Perception of Administrative Staff Competence

Institutional Capacity

This sentiment was shared by the external constituents for 54% felt that the administrative staff is competent. Those constituents who have known PACT for over 10 years feel that the administrative staff is competent. The institutional memory of these persons adds value to the perception that the administrative staff is competent. This is consistent with the review of the evaluations of the current administrative staff, where most staff members scored as competent on their evaluation. Similar to the administrative team, the internal constituents (82%) viewed the technical staff as having the ability and skills necessary to ensure the highest level of performance. This perception was not shared among the external constituents where 54% did not feel that the technical team is competent (Figure 21). This pose serious concern for the organization for the technical team is constantly interacting with the external constituents. Figure 21. Ability and Skills of Technical Staff

Constituents expressed similar perceptions of the senior management staff at PACT where 58% of the sample felt that the senior management staff possesses the ability and skills to set direction, lead and oversee the delivery of goals and objectives with effectiveness and efficiency (Figure 22). From this amount, 74% of the staff and Board members felt that senior management is competent. This poses serious concerns about the perception of all constituents about the senior management teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competence. Figure 22. Ability and Skills of Senior Management

Institutional Capacity

The internal constituents (53%) do not feel that a fair and transparent process for staff evaluation exists at PACT (Figure 23). This concern was raised more from the employees who have been with the organization for five years or less. This situation needs to be addressed urgently because of its potential impact on staff motivation. Figure 23. Transparency in Staff Evaluations

External constituents (69%) do not agree that all hiring and contracting follow a transparent procedure. This may have resulted from lack of familiarity with PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operational procedures. Based on this assessment, a transparent process seems to exist at PACT. Majority of internal constituents (64%) responded that hiring and contracting are done fairly (Figure 24). Steps are to be made to ensure that all hiring and contracting are done in a transparent manner and that new staff is adequately oriented with PACTâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s operational and personnel policies. Thirty nine percent of the internal constituents are not aware that all employees sign employment contracts. Based on this assessment, only the senior management team members are required to sign employment contracts. The BoD should reassess the contracting arrangements to ensure that all staff has employment contracts; these contracts should always seek to protect the institution. Additionally, a transparent contract system may improve staff motivation and morale. Indeed, the majority of the respondents (68%) had the view that compensation is fair or equal for staff on same hierarchical level (Figure 24). Figure 24. Hiring and Contracting Follow Transparent Procedure

Institutional Capacity

Staff training has always been high on the priority list for the organization. As a result, several long term and short term trainings have been sponsored for staff. With this documented in work plans and annual reports, there is still the perception by the employees (53%) that adequate training was unavailable. Figure 24. Staff Compensation

This sentiment may have been expressed by entry-level employees and by staff members who have traditionally received training that is inconsistent with their jobs term of reference. On the contrary, the majority (77%) of the external constituents are aware that training opportunities exist for the staff of PACT. From observation, the open floor plan office arrangement is not conducive to high productivity. Nonetheless, the close proximity of staff may cause unnecessary distractions. This theory was not supported by the employees for 60% of the internal constituents felt that the work environment is conducive to staff productivity. Overall, the general publicâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s perception is that PACT is over-staffed for its size and when compared to the amount of funds actually generated and disbursed. This is inconsistent with suggestions during stakeholder consultations that the staff is overwhelmed with the level of work being performed at PACT. The sensation of staff being overwhelmed stems from inappropriate processes for managing grant application and implementation, an unnecessarily burdensome project monitoring and evaluation practice, and an unjustified â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;one size fits allâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; approach to the oversight of all grant implementation, independent of size of grant. The grant oversight process at PACT in many cases seems to suggest that the cost of the oversight may be larger than the size of the grant itself, and is characterized by an overkill of supervision and reporting requirements. This situation has inevitably led to the need for more staff, with a tremendous amount of similarities and overlaps in job descriptions of project and administrative staff, apparent staff redundancies, increased administrative costs, and a noticeable operational inefficiency. Coupled to the above is the observation that in the current organizational structure, the administrative staff is assigned to the Finance Director instead of to a Human Resources Manager or Administrative Officer that is not associated with finance and accounts. In addition, it is difficult to justify the need for a Finance Director, an Accountant, and an Accounts Clerk for an organization the size of PACT.

Institutional Capacity

6.4. Inter-institutional linkages The strength of PACT is determined by the number and type of linkages that are established and fostered. It was realized from the inception of the Trust that there would be need for linkage with local, regional and international partners if it is to accomplish its mission. PACT must continue to identify and partner with relevant local and international institutions to achieve its mission. These linkages have the potential to provide PACT with strategic opportunities to grow the fund and increase the institutions relevance. Currently, PACT partners with regional institutions such the Network of Latin American and Caribbean Trust Funds (RedLAC). PACT benefits from its involvement by learning and sharing best practices from other entities with similar mandates. This group assists through training and institutional development for all its members. Such partnerships can significantly assist PACT in delivering its mission and improving its capacity if they are fully utilized. Locally, PACT has partnered with other locally based funding agencies (e.g. GEF Small Grant Programme) to ensure complementarity and reduce duplication of efforts. These kind of initiatives allows PACT to leverage its funding effectively, which allows to the institution to have greater funding impact. More than half of the respondents said that PACT permanently implements a policy of alliance building and cooperation. The internal constituents were more knowledgeable about this for they are more involved in the fostering and maintaining these relationships. The external constituents scored this lower (45%) for they feel that PACT needs to be more pro-active in seeking out and fostering strategic partnerships and linkages. Though there are different alliances and partnerships, both the internal and external constituents felt that the alliance building policy is not visible (Figure 25). This means that PACT needs to publicize its alliance building policy and strategy. Figure 25. Alliance Building Policy of PACT

When looking at the productivity of the alliances that have been established, the staff and Board responded that the alliances are not productive but the external constituents felt otherwise. This tells two things, either the external constituents know the value of forming alliances or the staff and Board have high expectations for the established alliances. Institutional Capacity

There was support from all for the PACT exchange and Mentorship Programs (63% of the internal constituents and 60% of the external constituents). The constituents feel that this program gives more visibility to PACT. Many branded the program as helpful and would like for more assistance via this program. A primary purpose for the institutional linkages should be to grow the fund. This has not been the case. The section that deals with financials will inform that the fund has not grown because of linkages. This will be a major recommendation for PACT. All stakeholders are of the view that the current alliances and partnerships are not the most viable to grow the fund. A small number of options were suggested for strategic partnerships. 6.5. Comparative Project Audits As part of the assessment, the team proposed to conduct a detailed review of a selected list of projects covering a representative sample of PACT grants. These were to include: two large grants, two CBO grants, one marine grant, and one terrestrial grant. The following specific factors were to be reviewed: Adequacy of Project Design (process and format), Adequacy of project Performance Indicators, Technical capacity for project implementation by grantee, Institutional capacity for project supervision by grantee, Organizational capacity of PACT to supervise project delivery and compliance, Assessment of demonstrable linkages between project design and outputs delivered, Articulation and Usefulness of lessons learned, Perceived project impact on protected areas, and Project execution efficiency (resources and time). In the process of acquiring the required documentation to conduct the comparative audit, it was discovered that final individual evaluation reports exists for only two of the six projects selected for review, i.e., ‘Enhancing the University of Belize Natural Resource Management Program’ and Towards the Sustainability of Belize Audubon Society’s Managed Protected Areas’. This amount of project would not be sufficient to identify trends and tendencies in the parameters described above. However, the team did proceed to the review of multiple project evaluations conducted in 2002 and 2007 of PACT Small Grants, the two individual evaluations mentioned above, and an annual evaluation report of a large grant awarded to the Forest Department in 2004. While a comprehensive comparative analysis was not possible, the following consistency in findings in all of the evaluations mentioned above is worth mentioning:

• • • •

The perception of over-reporting requirements by PACT The lack of a proper Logical Framework Matrix for projects Inappropriate reporting by projects A one size fits all approach for reporting to PACT, independent of size of grant

• • • • • •

No measure of impact beyond project life Though mentioned in all projects, sustainability is not appropriately addressed Project design incompatible with activities and outputs in some cases The apparent erratic project oversight by PACT, leading to confusion of grantee Grants Program Manual inconsistent in requirements among different size grants The best use of lessons learned and the pursuance of project replication not seem to be priority of PACT

Institutional Capacity

7. Strategic Assessment and Recommendations 7.1. SWOT Analysis Consistent with the methodology for the SWOT Analysis described in Section 3 above, below are the results for the said analysis. Ranks indicating relative importance were assigned to internal and external factors by constituents during the surveys conducted. Weights were assigned by the team based on an informed professional judgment, using the findings of the surveys, interviews, and literature review. The sum of all weights is 1.0, where each individual rank is expressed as a fraction of the total. In addition to identifying the ten most important factors affecting PACT, the matrix below can assist us in better understanding the dynamics of the institution. The very similar total weighted rank for ‘strengths’ and ‘weaknesses’ (3.467 and 3.424, respectively) suggests a stagnant institution in which the potential benefits of the strengths of the institution are being neutralized or cancelled out by its internal weaknesses, leaving very little room for those strengths to be invested in developing the institution. The net weight and importance of the strengths (0.043) is insignificant and only represents 4.3% of the overall importance of the internal factors affecting PACT. This suggestion is of critical importance since, a stagnant institution that does not breaks out of the monotony and regain momentum is inevitably going to become irrelevant. As with the internal factors below, Table 15 below illustrates the relationship between the ten most important external factors affecting PACT. The total weighted rank of ‘opportunities’ clearly out-weighs that of the ‘threats’. Table 14. Analysis of Internal Factors Affecting PACT Internal Factor STRENGTHS Endowment Guaranteed source of income Legal backing Sound principles National in scope Governance Structure Experience Physical assets Political Support Potential to attract funding Total WEAKNESSES Capacity Organizational structure Planning Strategic focus Efficiency Leadership Political interference Distractions Effectiveness Total

Rank

Weight

Weighted Rank

2.88 3.5 3.5 3 4 3.5 3 3.5 3 4

0.15 0.1 0.05 0.1 0.17 0.05 0.1 0.03 0.05 0.2 1.0

0.432 0.35 0.175 0.3 0.68 0.175 0.3 0.105 0.15 0.8 3.467

4 3.5 3 3 4 3 4 2 3

0.2 0.05 0.1 0.049 0.15 0.2 0.05 0.001 0.2 1.0

0.8 0.175 0.3 0.147 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.002 0.6 3.424 Strategic Assessment and Recommendations

This suggests that the external environment of PACT is favorable for its development, and even though there are clearly identified threats, the opportunities available to PACT are important and powerful enough to support the development of the institution. A simple comparison of both the internal and the external factors suggests very clearly that addressing PACT internal environment must take priority if it is to benefit from the opportunities that are available to it. Table 15. Analysis of External Factors Affecting PACT External Factors OPPORTUNITIES International recognition Large constituent base Resource mobilization Institutional relevance Institutional linkages International partners Total THREATS External pressures Competing interests Sole source of income Limited effectiveness NGO perception Government Interest Total

Rank

Weight

Weighted Rank

3 3.67 3.5 3.33 4 4

0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.15 0.05 1.0

0.3 0.367 1.05 0.999 0.6 0.2 3.516

3.86 2.5 3.54 3.21 3.5 3.3

0.1 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.05 0.1 1.0

0.386 0.5 0.885 0.963 0.175 0.33 3.239

7.2. Strategic Recommendations Using the findings of the assessment described and discussed above, the following strategic recommendations are being provided. It is clear that some of these will be important for informing the PACT Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2016, while others may be applicable to PACT operations immediately.

1. Limit administrative expenses to a set percentage of annual revenue: The average annual total administrative expenses expressed as a percentage of average annual revenue for PACT is at 30.52% as compared to the average of all other conservation trust funds of 20%. PACT management should endeavor to begin finding ways to reduce these annual expenses to a target rate of not more than 25% of total revenue in the short term. This combined with increasing revenues will provide a mechanism for management to reduce administrative expenses as a percentage of revenue while allowing for â&#x20AC;&#x153;real dollarâ&#x20AC;? growth and maintaining operational flexibility within the organization; 2. PACT management should repeal its practice of making employee loans. This practice is contrary to good financial management of public trusts and can result in legal action against Board members and senior financial managers by the Government if these funds are not repaid by the employee 3. PACT should consider obtaining and using some type of grant management software to assist in the tracking of grantee progress and compliance with the PACT Act; 4. The current accounting procedures manual should be re-written and updated to include current accounting principles and procedures in a checklist format. This should align with the Quick Books procedures manual; 5. The budgeting process should include a review of the fiscal year being used to ensure a proper matching Strategic Assessment and Recommendations

of the high revenue season with mission capabilities. Management should consider adopting the fiscal year 1 November through 31 October to take advantage of the high revenue season and to provide a “down period” for preparing budgets. In addition, management should ensure a continuous budget planning process is used to make required “mid-course” corrections when revenue projections aren’t being realized and to prepare longer term budgets that connect with projected mission goals; 6. PACT should develop a “cost driver” for the allocation and recovery of the administrative expenses realized by the management and oversight of the programs of PACT’s mission partners. This allocation rate should be based on the ratio of administrative expenses to program dollars managed and would ensure that PACT collects the appropriate amount of administrative costs; 7. In order to address perceived imbalances on the PACT Board, and in order to create a structure that is more consistent with the purpose of PACT, the following three re-structuring options for the Board are being recommended (Table 16): Governance Structure 1: 2 GoB representatives; 1 NGO; 1 CBO; 1 Academia; 4 “private sector”) • Two (2) Government representatives (MNRE and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) • One (1) Conservation NGO involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) Community-Based Organization involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) natural resource management expert from Academia • One (1) legal expert • One (1) expert in resource mobilization/fundraising • One (1) expert in financial investments and asset management • One (1) retired independent citizen (no sector or organizational interest) Governance Structure 2: 4 GoB representatives; 1 NGO; 1 CBO; 1 Academia; 3 “private sector” • Four (4) Government representatives (MNRE, Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and Financial Secretary) • One (1) Conservation NGO involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) Community-Based Organization involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) natural resource management expert from Academia • One (1) Private Sector Tourism Representative • One (1) expert in resource mobilization/fundraising • One (1) expert in financial investments and asset management Governance Structure 3: 2 GoB representatives; 1 NGO; 1 CBO; 1 Academia; 4 “private sector” • Two (2) Government representatives (MNRE and Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries) • One (1) conservation NGO involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) Community-Based Organization involved in protected areas and natural resources management • One (1) natural resource management expert from Academia • One (1) legal expert • One (1) expert in resource mobilization/fundraising • One (1) expert in financial investments and asset management • One (1) tourism sector representative

Strategic Assessment and Recommendations

Table 16. Proposed Governance Structure Options for PACT Governance Structure Governance Structure #1 (9-Member Board with Government Minority)

1. Sectoral and thematic representation consistent with purpose of PACT 2. One (1) NGO and one (1) CBO representative 3. Include marine representation 4. Academic representation (brings research knowledge and objectivity; broadens perspective 5. Includes legal expertise 6. Two (2) government representative 7. Retired person brings objectivity, neutrality and independence

Governance Structure #2 (10-Member Board with Government Minority)

1. Same as #1-4 above 2. Four (4) government representative (Financial Secretary replaces retired citizen because of PACT public revenue base; Ministry of Tourism added as a primary policy support ministry for PACT; and tourism private sector as the primary source of PACT funds) 3. Government still minority on BoD

Governance Structure #3 (9-Member Board with Government

1. Same as # 1-6 in Governance Structure 1 2. Includes Tourism sector representative - an important external constituent; source of most of PACT’s revenue; replaces Financial Secretary)

Minority)

Justification

8. Implement a policy which limits organizations serving on the Board to access grants during their term of service; 9. Limit service on the Board to a period of three consecutive years; 10. Develop Board Member Profiles for each individual member of the Board; 11. Develop and adopt a Board Development Training program; 12. Establish a Development Office within PACT to be tasked with meeting fundraising targets, including strategic positioning of PACT for fund growth and alliance building; 13. Consider the establishment of a micro-grant program for sustainable income generating activities in buffer communities with a pre-determined cap on how much of available grant funds will be assigned to this program; 14. Establish a PACT Foundation to be the philanthropic fundraising arm of PACT, with its own Board and to work extensively with the Development Office of PACT; the composition of the Board of the Foundation should include at least two (3) Belizean and three (2) international philanthropists. 15. Develop legal mechanisms to protect the fund from uses that are outside the scope of the PACT Act; 16. Develop legal mechanisms to expand revenue streams of PACT from potential public sources; 17. Modify the PACT Act where necessary to accommodate all of the above recommendations. 18. Enhance capacity and competency of the internal constituents to meet the dynamic needs of the institution. Relevant competencies: fundraising, fund management; investments and asset management. 19. Develop and implement a tiered grant award system that is responsive to the divergent institutional capacity of the constituents. 20. Prioritize PACT investments to ensure relevance with established and emerging needs. 21. Maintain PACT effective and relevant contributions to Belize’s protected areas and natural resources in order to secure its niche as an essential player in the development of the country. 22. Develop and implement a monitoring and evaluation system to determine the impact of PACT grants. 23. Revise the current scholarship program to include a system of awarding one or two high-profile environmental scholarships awards per year; 24. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis of protected areas management with a clear focus on developing a Belizean definition of ‘core cost’, the economic efficiency of protected areas management at individual and regional scales within Belize, an evaluation of the administrative as opposed to the actual on-the-ground investments in protected areas, and the determination of true necessary core costs for protected areas management based on the most economically efficient model. 25. Develop a streamlined organizational structure to achieve operational and cost efficiency at PACT. Strategic Assessment and Recommendations

8. Proposed Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool for PACT A performance indicator is a policy relevant statistic, number or qualitative description that provides an indication that the institution, some aspect of it, or the institution system is performing as it should. Institutional performance may have many levels of monitoring, and thus many levels of indicators. The primary level indicators or category for measuring institutional performance are Effectiveness, Efficiency and Relevance. These are defined as follows: EFFECTIVENESS – The degree to which objectives are achieved and the extent to which targeted problems are resolved, without reference to the amount of resources needed. EFFICIENCY – The maximization of targeted results with the optimum use of available resources (human, financial, technological; physical). RELEVANCE – The criteria that measure performance in terms of importance, significance and pertinence. These primary indicators are each evaluated for a set of common Secondary Indicators to produce an ‘Institutional Performance Report Card’ as illustrated below in Table 16. In order to evaluate the secondary indicators, a series of applicable and measurable parameters must be identified for each secondary indicator, and ranked against a previously identified performance target in the institution’s Strategic Plan. The complete instrument consisting of the primary indicators, secondary indicators and measurable parameters make up the Performance Monitoring Tool. The data collected the first time the tool is applied constitutes the performance baseline, and will be used to validate the results of subsequent performance evaluations. The indicators presented in Table 17 were identified in conjunction with the PACT Board, and will thus be used as the indicators to be presented in the PACT Institutional Performance Report Card. The targets and performance indicators being identified for the PACT 2011-2016 Strategic Plan will assist in identifying the measurable parameters to accompany each secondary indicator, and this approach will ensure relevance between the new strategic plan and the Performance Monitoring Tool being developed. It is important to indicate that the usefulness of the monitoring tool will intentionally outlive the strategic plan, however, it can be modified or tweaked as necessary to accommodate new needs. Modifications to the tool however, must give due consideration to those indicators constituting the baseline, where the baseline exists. The PACT Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool is included as an annex to the PACT 2011-2016 Strategic Plan.

Proposed Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool for PACT

Table 17. PACT Institutional Performance Report Card Indicator

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Relevance

(Average rank between 1 and 4)

Average Grade (Mean Rank and % Equivalent)

___ (__%)

Growth and Sustainability of the Fund Grant Allocation Grant Application & Management Grant Impact Institutional Capacity Stakeholder Confidence Inter-Institutional Linkages Governance

Proposed Institutional Performance Monitoring Tool for PACT

9. Bibliography Aukerman, R. and G. Haas. 1992. Revenue Generation Strategy for Protected areas of Belize. Colorado State University, 35pp DFID. 2003. Promoting Institutional and Organizational Development. U.K., 32pp INSIGHT. 2006. Board Manual for the Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Tabs A-P + 5 Tables INSIGHT. 2008. Communications Strategy 2008. Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations (APAMO), Belize City, Belize, 24pp Institute for Conservation Leadership (ICL). 1999. Four Stages and Four Challenges of Organizational Development. Maryland, U.S.A. 7pp Jacobs, N.D. 2008. Institutional Development Plan. Belize Association of Private Protected Areas (BAPPA), Belmopan City, Belize, 37pp + Vl Jacobs, N.D. 2008. Fundraising Strategy and Plan. Association of Protected Areas Management Organizations (APAMO), Belize City, Belize, 50pp + IX Jacobs, N.D. 2008. Coastal and Marine Strategy for IUCN-Mesoamerica 2009-2013. IUCN Regional Office for Mesoamerica, San Jose, Costa 31pp Jacobs, N.D. 2009. Communications Strategy 2009-2013. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 30p + Vl Jacobs, N.D. 2009. Preliminary Institutional Audit of the Forest Department. Forest Department, Ministry of Natural Resources and the Environment, Belmopan City, Belize, 35p Jacobs, N.D. 2009. Reporte de Análisis Institucional. Corporación Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegación Aérea (COCESNA), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 38p + ll Jacobs, N.D. 2009. Plan Estratégico Regional 2010-2014. Corporación Centroamericana de Servicios de Navegación Aérea (COCESNA), Tegucigalpa, Honduras, 35p + lll Lakey, B.M. 2007. The Board Building Cycle. Second Edition. BoardSource, Washington, D.C., U.S., 78p New South Wales Audit Office. 2009. Performance Reports 2009. Executive Summary.; Environmental Grants Administration, Australia, 7pp Ogiogio, G. 2004. Measuring Performance of Interventions in Capacity Building: Some Fundamentals. The African Capacity Building Foundation, Zimbabwe, 25pp Bibliography

PACT. 2001. 2000 Annual Report. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 31pp PACT. 2002. Annual Report 2001-2002. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 27pp PACT. 2004. Annual Report 03-04. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 30pp PACT. 2005. Annual Report 04-05. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 29pp PACT. 2005. Personnel Policy Manual. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 18pp PACT. 2006. Annual Report 05-06. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 36pp PACT. 2007. Annual Report 06-07. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 48pp PACT. 2007. Grants Programme Manual. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belze, 33p PACT. 2008. Annual Report 07-08. Protected Areas Conservation Trust. Belmopan City, Belize, 46pp Ponce Talancón, H. 2006. “La Matriz FODA: una alternativa para realizar diagnósticos y determinar estrategias de intervención en las organizaciones productivas y sociales” en Contribuciones a la Economía. 16pp Spergel, B. and B. Teul. 2007. An Evaluation of the Belize Tropical Forest Conservation Act Accounts. Management and Engineering Technologies International, Inc. (METI), El Paso, Texas, U.S.A., Spergel, B. and P. TaÏeb. 2008. Rapid Review of Conservation Trust Funds. Conservation Finance Alliance, Working Group on Environmental Funds, 173pp Task Force on Belize’s Protected Areas Policy and Systems Plan. 2005. The Belize National Protected Areas System Plan. Ministry of Natural resources and the Environment, Belmopan, Belize, 60pp Williams, K. and D. Audinette. 2008. Small Grants Program Grantee Forum Report. Capacity Building Program, PACT, Belmopan City, 13pp + ll Young, R. and L. Longsworth. 2004. Strategic Plan 2005-2010: Protected Areas Conservation Trust. PACT, Belmopan, Belize, 55pp Zummach, N. 2002. Image Matters: The importance of branding in the non-profit sector. Charityville, Ontario, Canada, 3pp

Bibliography

3 Mango Street City of Belmopan Cayo District, Belize Tel: +501 822 3637 Fax: +501 822 3759 Email: info@pactbelize.org Website: www.pactbelize.org