participatory conservation for protected areas · participatory conservation for protected areas an...

B I O D I V E R S I T Y S E R I E S

ParticipatoryConservation forProtected AreasAn Annotated Bibliographyof Selected Sources (1996–2001)

PAPER NO. 95

January 2004

Nancy DiamondElisabeth NkrumahAlan Isaac

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Administrator

29350

Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. They are circulated to encourage thought and discussion. The useand citation of this paper should take this into account. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed tothe World Bank. Copies are available from the Environment Department, The World Bank, Room MC-5-126.

ParticipatoryConservation forProtected AreasAn Annotated Bibliographyof Selected Sources (1996–2001)

Nancy DiamondElisabeth NkrumahAlan Isaac

January 2004

THE WORLD BANK ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT

The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

Manufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing January 2004

This report was part of an initiative led by Gunars Platais of the Environment Department of the World Bank. The teamcomprised of Nancy Diamond (social scientist, consultant), Nyane Nkrnmah (Young Professional), Alan Isaac (Intern),and Sharon Esumei (Assistant). Funding was generously provided by the ENVGC, the GEF coordinating unit of thedepartment and is part of their Knowledge Management program.

iiiBiodiversity Series

Contents

FOREWORD v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix

PART ARecent World Bank & Global Environment Facility Documents 1

PART BA Review of External Documents 33

ANNEX 1Acronym List 77

ANNEX 2Keyword Search 79

vBiodiversity Series

Foreword

This annotated abstract document is part of aseries of assessments on how best tomainstream and improve participation in WorldBank/GEF protected area projects. We initiatedthe series in response to feedback from WorldBank and GEF Secretariat staff. The groupsuggested two approaches: First, beforeundertaking further reviews of participationprogress for biodiversity projects, staffsuggested a closer look at current internal andexternal documentation of participation andbiodiversity conservation. Specifically, theysuggested a focus on protected areamanagement. Second, staff also suggested thatwe focus on topics in participation andprotected area management that were ofparticular concern to operational work,ensuring that the output was of practical use,such as a tool-kit.

This report provides annotated summaries ofrecent publications on participatoryconservation for protected areas. We focusedour attention on lessons learned and good

practices for donor-funded projects. Oursummaries include study objectives,methodology (when available) and findings. Toensure its practical use, a keyword search list isalso available at the end of the report. Inaddition, to facilitate its wider distribution andaccessibility, this publication is also available asa searchable database on the biodiversitywebsite (<<www.worldbank.org/biodiversity>> under Themes).

A practical tool-kit on selected topics inparticipatory conservation in protected areamanagement has also been developed. It wasdeveloped using a highly participatory processinvolving input from task managers and a seriesof interactive list-serve and roundtablediscussions. Approximately 600 participants,representing over 60 countries, were involved inthe list-serve discussions. 110 participantsrepresenting NGOs, multilaterals, bilaterals andBank staff, attended the roundtable discussionsat the Bank’s Headquarters in Washington D.C.

viiBiodiversity Series

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the invaluablecontribution of Chona Cruz and AugustaMolnar, who provided guidance and criticalcomments throughout the project. We also wishto thank Kathy McKinnon of the World Bank’sBiodiversity Team and Nancy Bell Gelman ofthe African Biodiversity Conservation Group

for their generosity with their personallibraries. Finally, we wish to acknowledgeMichael Kane, ESDIS, who prepared theelectronic searchable abstract database andSabine Kassis, who worked to get thedocument on the website.

ixBiodiversity Series

Background

During the past decade, conservationists anddevelopment practitioners have begun torecognize the importance of stakeholderparticipation in project planning,implementation and management.Development policy makers and plannersrecognized the detriments of top-downautocratic approaches to development. Theyargue for greater societal political participationand strategies for the inclusion of the poor indevelopment decisions. Historically, this trendtoward more participatory development has itsroots in community development,empowerment and social justice work in LatinAmerica and Francophone Africa during the1960s and from research on the root causes ofpoverty in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Donors, including the World Bank and theGlobal Environment Facility, are now makinggreater efforts to incorporate participation intotheir development projects. For example, in1994, the Board of Executive Directors of theWorld Bank endorsed the report “The WorldBank and Participation.” This document put inplace a working definition of participation andan action plan to facilitate participation on aBank-wide level. The World Bank still has notadopted an operational directive (OD) onparticipation. However, there are several WorldBank policies and ODs, particularly on the issueof social safeguards, which address social issuesand emphasize the need to engage stakeholdersin decision-making. In addition, the

Instrument for the Establishment of theRestructured Global Environment Facility (GEF)explicitly addresses the need for publicinvolvement, including informationdissemination, consultation, and stakeholderparticipation.

What exactly is meant by the term,“participation”? Participation is largelyaccepted as an integral part of development butdefinitions of what constitutes participationvary. There are two main approaches tounderstanding and promoting participation –participation as a means and participation as anend. Under the first approach (participation asa means), participation is seen as a processwhereby local people cooperate or collaboratewith externally introduced developmentprograms or projects. Thus, participationbecomes the means to effective implementation.People’s participation is sponsored by anexternal agency and it is seen as a technique tosupport the progress of the program or projectand ensure a successful outcome. The term“participatory development” is more commonlyused to describe this widespread approach. Itimplies externally designed developmentactivities that are implemented in aparticipatory manner. The second approachviews “participation as an end.” Participation isthe goal and specifically refers to empoweringpeople with the skills, knowledge andexperience needed to take greater responsibilityfor their own development. These approachesfall along a continuum between nominalparticipation (i.e., little direct involvement of

Executive Summary

x Environment Department Papers

Participatory Conservation for Protected Areas — An Annotated Bibliography of Selected Sources (1996 – 2001)

people) and transformative participationswhereby local people are empowered to directtheir futures, for the duration of the project andbeyond.

Similarly, participatory methodologies existalong a continuum. This continuum rangesfrom information sharing and consultation (lowlevel participation) to partnerships and self-management (high level participation). Ininformation sharing, stakeholders are invited tomeetings and informed about the project, itsbenefits and their responsibilities and options.Consultations entail two-way communicationand stakeholders can voice their opinions andobjections. However, stakeholders have littlesay over the type of project, the agenda, or whathappens after the meeting is over and there isno assurance that their input will redirect theproject. Partnerships involve a relationship ofshared responsibility and risk sharing andstakeholders have an equal right to voice theiropinions and redirect the course of the project.

Methodology

Our sample of literature included World Bank,Global Environment Facility and other(external) documents and, due to timelimitations, we focused on recent documents.For the most part, we emphasized documentspublished after 1995 but we also included ahandful of “classics” from the early 1990s. Intotal, we reviewed 75 documents. The 27 WorldBank or the Global Environment Facility (GEF)documents included Operations and EvaluationDepartment reports, surveys of task managers,handbooks, analytical assessments, best practicenotes and books. We focused on general GEFdocuments on biodiversity and on publicationslooking at GEF activities managed by the WorldBank but did not review GEF documentspublished by the other two implementingagencies, the United Nations DevelopmentProgram and the United Nations EnvironmentProgram. The 56 documents published by other

sources include academic books, handbooks,conference proceedings and articles. Theabstracts of internal documents are inalphabetical order, followed by the abstracts ofexternal documents in alphabetical order. `

Overview of Findings

The World Bank and the GEF have begun totake stock of its participatory protected areaactivities, including the application of specificparticipatory methods, assessments of progresswith incorporating participation into protectedarea projects and more detailed analyses ofconstraints to participation. The documentsprovide general information on themethodology of participation and specificinformation on the concepts and models inparticipatory research. This internal literaturealso addresses: a) the extent to which the WorldBank/GEF projects have achieved theirparticipation goals; b) the extent thatparticipation has been mainstreamed into thepractices of the World Bank and the GEF; c) thecontribution of participation to project success,and d) the key lessons learned fromparticipatory projects. While early generationprotected area programs were more focused onthe application of participatory methods, latergeneration projects focus more on the systemicissues related to participation (e.g., insecureland tenure and conflict).

The World Bank and GEF literature suggeststhat significant strides have been made inincreasing the level of participation in WorldBank and GEF projects. Participation wasgreatest in GEF projects with community-levelactivities and least for infrastructure activities.A 2001 GEF discussion note, based on a longerstudy by Singh and Volonte (2001), found thatstakeholder participation within thebiodiversity portfolio was comprehensive inapproximately 30 percent of projects andsatisfactory in 25 percent of projects. For WorldBank projects, social assessments were the most

xiBiodiversity Series

Executive Summary

likely method to be used to gather informationon stakeholders. GEF projects were more likelyto use stakeholder consultations to involvecommunities.

While the incidence and quantity ofparticipation at the Bank has improved, theliterature indicates that the quality andeffectiveness of participation has not kept pace.Participation practices are not alwaysempowering local communities or enhancingsustainability. Participation has become toorushed, superficial and largely restricted to thepreparation phase of the project cycle (OED2001). It is more common to apply forms oflower participation, such as information sharingand consultations with beneficiaries. However,many projects do not seek to collaborate with orempower local populations (Vedeld 2001, OED2001). Singh and Volonte (2001) found littledifference in the achievements and impacts ofcompleted (older) projects versus on-going(newer) projects and this suggests that therehas not been much impact of lessons learned.

These studies suggest several reasons for thepoor quality of participation in World Bank andGEF projects (e.g., Cruz and Davis 1997, Aycrigg1998, GEF 2001). The project cycle is influencedby a tight time-line and financial constraints. Asa result, the project design is already relativelyadvanced by the time any stakeholderconsultations take place. Even when socialanalysis is done, projects often fail toincorporate the results of these analyses intoproject design. There is often a lack of flexibilitywith funding mechanisms. In addition, somecountry directors and managers are notsupportive of participatory activities.

In-country constraints relate to governments,NGOs and communities. There are sometimesproblems with NGO capacity to assist withparticipatory processes. Governments have notalways had the capacity for, and commitment to

participatory protected area management.Governments are often reluctant to spend loanmoney on participation or to allocate funds toNGOs with experience in participatoryprocesses.

Collaboration with buffer zone communities hassometimes been more difficult because of thetension between conservation planners,managers and local communities. It can bedifficult for task managers of GEF-fundedbiodiversity projects to ensure effectiveparticipation in places with real and potentialpark-community conflicts(e.g., uncertaintenure).

While the quality of participation has been lessthan expected for many World Bank and GEFprojects, some of the protected area projects havemade great strides related to participation.Their participatory efforts have been effectiveand empowered communities. They haveovercome some of the barriers to effectiveparticipation. The literature suggests that thebest projects:

• Effectively incorporated a variety ofparticipatory tools and methods such associal analysis, gender analysis,Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs),focus groups, etc.

• Used participatory processes to obtainfeedback throughout the projects cycle andbeyond (including design, implementation,management plans and beneficiarymonitoring (Cruz and Davis, 1997)

• Incorporated data from participatory toolsand methods into the project design and atother times in the project cycle (Bettencourtet al. 2001; Kirmise et al. 1998, Mott 1996)

• Invested in local capacity building to ensurethat the participatory processes weresustained over the long-term

xii Environment Department Papers


• Enhanced the policy and legal frameworkto create an enabling environment forconservation and sustainable use (GEF 2001,Badola 1999)

• Utilized flexibility to ensure that theproject evolved continuously and, wherenecessary, adapted the project toincorporate lessons learned from earlierphases (GEF 2001)

• Effectively used participatory methods toreduce conflict and build consensusbetween disparate groups, and particularlyin PA management (Beltran 2000, Banarjeeet al. 1997, Mott 1996, Turyaho et al. 1996).

Within the past five to seven years, the literatureindicates that the World Bank and GEF havemade some positive institutional changes tobetter enable the use of participation in projects.For example, social funds are rapid demand-driven funding mechanisms that funnelresources to community-level developmentprojects. These funds are now available tosupport participatory activities (Aycrigg, 1998).Increasingly, the GEF and the World Bank arefocused on creating and building partnershipswith stakeholders including academia, NGOs,local communities and government and theprivate sector. In addition, the use of NGOs forpolicy and advisory services has greatlyincreased with the use of Trust Funds.

The external literature provides a broaderpicture of how participation is beingincorporated into biodiversity/PA managementactivities that have been funded by otherinstitutions (bilaterals, multilaterals and NGOs).It provides a deeper understanding of howparticipation can best be used to enhanceproject sustainability and empowerment. Mostimportantly, the external literature allows for abetter synthesis of lessons learned from aroundthe globe and fosters reciprocal learningbetween agencies.

Participation lessons can be found in externalhandbooks that offer principles and guidelinesfor when to use participatory approaches andhow to improve participation. The DFID-IUCNpublication, “Biodiversity in Development,Guiding Principles for Biodiversity inDevelopment, Lessons from the Field” (2001)captures the lessons learned from biodiversityfield projects funded by EC or EU membercountries. It highlights what works (and whatdoes not) in participatory biodiversitymanagement. This document also detailstechniques, such as how to adapt tenuresystems to suit local and national priorities, fordealing with problems with land tenure inparticipatory protected area management.World Wildlife Fund’s handbook (2000) on“Stakeholder Collaboration” aims forcollaboration that leads to empowerment.“Evaluating Effectiveness” by Hockings et al(2000) provides the tools for evaluating themanagement effectiveness of all types ofprotected areas.

The internal and external literature reinforcemany of the key lessons above and provideinformation on how to improve the quality,effectiveness and success of protected areaprojects:

• Social methodologies (including socialassessment, surveys, PRAs, consultations,mapping, interviews, focus groups andgender analysis) and participation play animportant role in simplifying complexprojects, generating NGO commitment,integrating community concerns,identifying vulnerable groups, dissipatingconflict and developing links between theresults of the assessment and project design,planning and monitoring (Mott 1996).

• For participatory methods to be relevant toproject design, they must first be country-driven. The project executing agencies and

xiiiBiodiversity Series

Executive Summary

local stakeholders need to be committed tothe process (Cruz and Davis 1997).

• Tools and methods need to be integratedinto the project cycle and reflect a processthat continuously provides feedbackthroughout the life of the project (Cruz andDavis 1997).

• Participatory processes must providerelevant recommendations on how to adaptthe project design to respond tounpredictable social situations (Cruz andDavis 1997).

• Participatory processes can address existingand potential conflicts (WWF 2000) andpromote the community-governmentcommunication, trust and collaboration thatare needed for co-management schemes(Beltran 2000, Banarjee 1997, Turyaho 1996,IUCN 1998).

• To be effective, co-management must beintegrated with capacity building (e.g.,training and awareness-raising),particularly at the local level and the NGOlevel.

• Capacity building was important inensuring that the conservation-developmentlinkages remained strong and helpedcontrol land-use on the fringes of the PA.Capacity building efforts at the local levelalso improved the ability of communities toparticipate in ecosystem analysis, form localPA management committees andmaintenance plans (Turyaho, 1996) anddrummed up local support for conservation(MacKinnon, 2001; Bettencourt, 2001;Badola, 1999).

• Effective, transparent, accountable,inclusive and supportive legal andinstitutional frameworks are needed tosupport participatory conservation (DFIDand IUCN, 2001). Metcalfe’s (1996) analysisof the Zimbabwe CAMPFIRE’s projectsuggests that community-basedconservation must have a firm footing innational legislation and resolve differencesbetween the traditional and statutoryauthority at the local government level.

1Biodiversity Series

Part A

1. Aycrigg, Maria. 1998. “Participation and theWorld Bank: Successes, Constraints andResponses.” Prepared for the InternationalConference on Upscaling and MainstreamingParticipation of Primary Stakeholders: LessonsLearned and Ways Forward. SocialDevelopment Paper No. 29. World Bank,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Networks/ESSD/icdb.nsf/D4856F112E805DF4852566C9007 C27A6/7752CD32ED8575308525676D006 9A68C/$FILE/sdp-29.pdf

Keywords: Africa, Africa Region, Asia,Caribbean, Central Asia, community,community-based projects, control, Europe,executing agencies, joint management, LatinAmerica, local consultation, mainstreamingparticipation, Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) (capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry), ownership, Pacific and Pacific Region,participation, participation barriers andconstraints, project, project design, projectformulation, project planning, projectpreparation, social, social funds, trust funds,water user associations, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Intended as asubmission to a 1998 World Bank conference on

participation, this paper takes stock of theBank’s experience in mainstreamingparticipation and lays the groundwork for thenext phase of participatory approaches in WorldBank activities. This article was a preliminarydesk review and a precursor to the more in-depth study of participation in the Bankconducted by OED from 1999 to 2001 (seeabove). The author researched the Bank’sachievements in mainstreaming participationsince 1994, reasons for not reaching objectives,supporting and constraining factors,identification of issues and opportunities forfuture considerations and recommendations tosupport mainstreaming participation. Theauthor used focus group meetings with bankstaff from the Africa, East Asia and Pacific,Europe and Central Asia, Latin America andCaribbean and South Asia regions. In addition,she conducted a desk review of operations andanalyzed survey responses from World Bankfield offices. Staff informants included task teamleaders, country operations officers, sectorleaders and social scientists.

Findings. While the Bank has made goodprogress (e.g., more participatory projects,country assistance strategies and analyticalwork) and achieved success beyond initialexpectations, it has fallen short of some of itsoriginal participation goals. Staff suggested thatthese shortfalls are a result of constraints related

Recent World Bank and GlobalEnvironment Facility Documents

Environment Department Papers2


to the Bank institutional issues (i.e., the projectcycle, lack of management support and resourcelimitations). They also mentioned a number ofhost country issues (i.e., NGO capacity andgovernment commitment).

Staff elaborated Bank-related constraints toparticipation. There were regional differences insupport for participation (e.g., South Asia wasmore supportive than other regions) anddifferences among country director, manager orother upper-level management staff. Although itwas helpful for staff to have senior managementsupport for participation, finding funds forparticipation could be time-consuming for staff.Staff are under pressure to meet lending targetsand for some, heavy workloads detracted fromthe time and money that they were able todevote to participation. It could be very time-consuming for staff to pursue and manage trustfund money to pay for input from participationspecialists, particularly for the multiple projectsthat they are managing. Further, trust fundswere usually restricted to activities duringproject preparation and this helps to explainwhy most primary stakeholder consultation andparticipation occurs during project preparation.Some staff noted that the basic framework of theproject has already been decided by the time theproject is in the preparation stage andparticipation is often just “tinkering around theedges of an already defined project when it istoo late for primary stakeholder views andconcerns to be factored into project design.”Although staff reported that consultation andparticipation do take place in some form afterproject preparation, these results are not alwaysfactored into the project design orimplementation in a meaningful way.

Staff reported that the most significant in-country constraint was the level of governmentcommitment to participation, followed byproblems with NGO capacity. Governments arenot sufficiently committed to participation

because they do not have the requisite skills. Inaddition, governments are reluctant to spendloan money on participation because the Bankrarely insists that participation be included inproject budgets or that it be paid underrecurrent cost financing from the government.Commitment to participation is also an issuewith governments that are not interested in, orwho actively discourage the existence of NGOsand other civil society organizations. Some staffbelieved that projects have also sufferedbecause of a lack of capacity within civil society,particularly NGOs. Although many projects(half) include some NGO involvement, staffindicated that NGOs are not a homogeneousgroup and they differ in their capacities andabilities.

Staff responded to these constraints by usingsocial funds and focusing on community-basedprojects and institutions. Social funds are rapiddemand-driven funding mechanisms thatchannel resources to community-leveldevelopment projects. They have the advantageof contributing at the community level.Accordingly, communities are given the chanceto have more control and have authority overhandling funds, procuring materials, hiring andfiring contractors and deciding upon resourceallocations. With respect to community-basedprojects and community institutions, a newgeneration of Bank projects has focused oncreating and building partnerships, building thecapacity of local institutions and creatingsynergies across sectors. These projects promotelocal ownership and local partners. They alsohelp to create the enabling environmentsneeded for transparent and accountablemechanisms to deliver goods and services at thecommunity level. Using water user associations,joint forest management associations andwomen’s self-help groups, these projects havebuilt partnerships for conservation and the jointmanagement of natural resources.

2. Aycrigg, Maria. 1997. “A Review ofParticipation in the World Bank’s GEFPortfolio.” Environmental Department


Recent World Bank and Global Environment Facility Documents

Dissemination Notes No. 52. World Bank,Washington, DC.

Available from: www-wds.worldbank.org(external access) or Imagebank (internal access)

Keywords: biodiversity, climate change, GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), internationalwaters, participation, participation barriers andconstraints, project, project cycle, resettlement,World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Aycrigg conductedthis review of participation in the World Bank’sGEF portfolio in 1997. One objective was toassess the treatment of stakeholderidentification and participation issues in theportfolio over time. She also cataloguedconstraints to, and opportunities forparticipation. Finally, the study was designed toidentify lessons that could be applied in futureBank project work. The review covered 72 GEF-financed projects including 41 biodiversityprojects, 22 climate change projects, 6international waters projects and 3 ozoneprotection projects. The methodology includeddocument reviews and interviews with taskmanagers and consultants. To rank projectdocuments, Aycrigg used a subjective, two-partrating system derived from staff interviews.One rating system focused on whetherstakeholder identification and participationwere systematically and adequately addressedthroughout the project cycle. A second ratingsystem indicated the overall complexity ofstakeholder identification and participationissues, as well as the degree to which attentionto these issues were critical to project success.The study also investigated the percentage ofprojects addressing five specific issues related toparticipation: indigenous people, resettlement,gender, alternative livelihoods and adaptivemanagement. The author did not define thelatter issue.

Findings. Aycrigg reports that stakeholderidentification and participation in projects isbecoming increasingly complex but alsoincreasingly systematic and effective.Biodiversity projects had highest ratings forcomplexity and for the systematic inclusion ofparticipation. In comparison, internationalwater projects were less successful atsystematically identifying stakeholders orencouraging broader participation of relevantstakeholders. In terms of specific issues, 29percent of the projects addressed indigenouspeople issues, 15 percent of projects had plansto address gender-related issues and 41percentincluded alternative livelihoods activities.Aycrigg reported that 44 percent of thereviewed projects were adaptive and flexibleenough to cope with changing needs andconditions at the local or national levels.Resettlement was only an issue for five percentof projects reviewed.

The report lists a number of constraints toparticipation. Bank-related constraints include alack of management support, tight project cyclesand delivery times, lack of flexibility withfunding mechanisms, procurement guidelinesand inconsistent task management due to staffturnover. In client countries, constraints includeweak government institutions, new andinexperienced NGOs and lack of familiaritywith participation.

3. Banarjee, Ajit, Gabriel Campbell, Maria C.J. Cruz, Shelton Davis, and Augusta Molnar.1997. “Participation in Forest Management andConservation. Social Development Paper No.19.” World Bank, Washington, DC.


Keywords: beneficiaries, beneficiariesassessments, biodiversity conservation andprotection, conflict (management, resolution,mapping, risk assessments), consensus building,



executing agencies, extension, forestry projects,forests, gender (analysis and considerations),Global Environment Facility (GEF), incentives(economic, other), India, joint forestmanagement, Malawi, monitoring, monitoringand evaluation, Niger, Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) (capacity, roles,executing agencies, host country), participation,Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), publicawareness, roles, security, social, socialassessment, tenure (rights, security, community-based, devolution, land and resource, landrights, use rights), World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper focuseson the lessons learned from incorporatingparticipation into forest management andconservation projects. The review covers Bank-financed forestry projects and biodiversityconservation projects in forest areas that are co-financed by the Global Environment Facility(GEF) and the World Bank. Biodiversityconservation projects in non-forests sites, suchas marine and coastal environments, are notdiscussed. For this paper, participation inforestry and conservation management refers tothe active involvement of various stakeholdersin defining forest sector and conservationobjectives, determining beneficiaries, managingforest resources, resolving conflicts over forestuses and monitoring and evaluating theperformance of forestry and biodiversityconservation projects.

Findings. The authors discuss lessons learnedrelated to stakeholder identification andinvolvement, flexible institutionalarrangements, the role of NGOs and incentivesfor sustaining participation:

• First, the success of community-basedforestry and biodiversity conservationprojects depends upon stakeholderidentification and involvement. By

incorporating stakeholders at the projectpreparation stage, projects then have asystematic way to include stakeholdersduring later stages of project design andoperations.

• Second, forestry projects require flexibilityin the design of appropriate institutionalarrangements to ensure equitableparticipation and distribution of forest andconservation benefits, costs andmanagement responsibilities. Theinstitutional arrangements used by WorldBank projects range from less participatorymodels where the government continues tocontrol decision- making and managementto joint public-private partnerships withshared management responsibilities amonggovernment, local households and NGOs(e.g., joint forest management).

• Third, NGOs have played important projectroles in forest management and training.These roles include training service staffmembers and local leaders and assistingcommunities in developing organizationaland management skills. NGOs have alsocarried out village-level publicity andextension, developed micro-planning tool,facilitated planning and monitored village-based conservation networks. They havealso improved forest marketing informationnetworks. In addition, NGOs have helped toform women’s groups and farm forestryassociations.

• Fourth, projects must find appropriateincentives to sustain stakeholderparticipation. Tenure is one incentive thatcompensates community stakeholders forinvesting their time and resources insustainable forest use. Secure land and treetenure improve community participation.There are problems when these rights arenot in place before benefits are shared. Forexample, in Honduras and India, there were



laws that prevented farmers from felling orselling trees without governmentpermission.

The paper also discusses ways of facilitatinglocal participation in project design,implementation and evaluation. At preparationand implementation stages, project managersshould use social assessments, beneficiaryassessments, gender analysis, consensusbuilding and conflict resolution methods.Consensus-building techniques can includeopinion surveys, focus group meetings, as wellas agreements among stakeholders that involvenegotiation and contracts. Participatorymonitoring and evaluation allows stakeholdersto provide feedback related to project changes.To detect changes in forest project performance,Participatory Rural Appraisal techniques can beused to engage the community in gathering newdata to compare with baseline data. In Niger,India and Malawi, forestry and biodiversityconservation projects formed joint government-stakeholder monitoring and evaluation groups.The government could measure technicalindicators (i.e., rates related to seedlings andtree plantation rates and financialmanagement). Stakeholder groups can be incharge of the social and participatory aspects offorest management.

The authors also discuss the important role ofparticipation for conflict resolution, particularlywhere the livelihood objectives of resource userscompete with other objectives such asbiodiversity protection. To developparticipatory conflict resolution strategies, taskmanagers need a thorough understanding of thesocial structure and power relations causingconflicts. Task managers should involve allaffected stakeholders in resolving the conflictand focus on solutions of underlying interest tousers, such as their livelihood. Conflictresolution methods include group consultationsand village meetings, negotiations with

community leaders and negotiations onacceptable land uses and boundaries.

4. Belle, Arati. 2000. “Proceedings ofBiodiversity Conservation and Use: A Seminarvia the Internet.” World Bank Institute,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/wbien/nrrp/biodivesity.htm

Keywords: biodiversity, community, communitydevelopment, community participation,entitlements, market mechanisms, tradeagreements, World Bank Institute (WBI)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. These proceedingssummarize 30 contributions from list-servesubscribers who participated in a month-longelectronic discussion about biodiversityconservation. Participants came fromindividuals, inside and outside the World Bank,who represented project managers, universityand non-governmental organization (NGO)staff. The discussion was part of the World BankInstitute’s Internet-based Development Forum.The discussion was divided into three parallellist-serve sessions: community participation,market mechanisms to address biodiversityrelated problems, and the role of internationalconventions and trade agreements.

Findings. Participants supported localcommunity involvement in biodiversityconservation. These types of biodiversityactivities often have the highest stakes and mosttime available to devote to conservationobjectives and resource management.Participation allows biodiversity managers to bein the best position to identify local constraints.However, linking biodiversity conservationwith participation has often not worked becauseinternational agencies have focused almostexclusively on the technical aspects of



biodiversity protection. Interventions that focusmore on the social elements of communitydevelopment than the technical aspects ofbiodiversity may be more successful.Discussants observed that participation canraise local expectations. Sometimescommunities are disappointed whenconservation does not yield sufficient benefits oryield them quickly enough. To make up for thisshortfall, projects may make development“gifts.” However, locals sometimes view thesegifts as entitlements. Some of the gifts may be ofgreater value than the biodiversity benefits thatare intended to be the long-term advantages ofthe conservation. Another participant stressedthe need to get money more directly tocommunities to bypass inefficient bureaucracies.

5. Bettencourt, Sofia, and Kathleen Kuehnast.2001. “Protection, Participation and PublicAwareness: Indonesia Coral ReefRehabilitation and Management Project.”Social Development Notes No. 57 World Bank,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/Networks/ESSD/icdb.nsf/D4856F112E805DF4852566C9007C27A6/12BD6FFE6F35211585256A2C0073CB28/$FILE/57-+Indonesia+Coral.pdf

Keywords: community, community involvement,community support groups, community-based,approaches, Coral Reef Rehabilitation andManagement Project (COREMAP), councils(inter-village), culturally appropriate plans,Indonesia, inter-village councils, participation,participation evaluations and participatorymonitoring, participation management plans,Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), project,project design (formulation, planning,preparation), public awareness, social, socialassessment, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This four-pagesummary summarizes the best practices relatedto social development in the Coral ReefRehabilitation and Management Project(COREMAP) in Indonesia. COREMAP aims toestablish a viable framework for a national coralreef management system via four components:program strategy and management, publicawareness, surveillance and enforcement andcommunity-based management. It is beingimplemented in 10 Indonesian provinces over15 years.

Findings. COREMAP has focused on ensuringparticipation using several approaches. Theproject has extensively involved NGOs,particularly for conducting social assessments.It has placed NGO-hired field managers onislands to interact with communities, createawareness and support for the program, as wellas to form groups to assist in projectimplementation. COREMAP has formedcommunity support groups around projectcomponents such as project management andmonitoring. It has enabled communities topropose their own approaches to coral reefrehabilitation, monitoring and infrastructureimprovements. The project has also utilizedparticipatory monitoring to involve the localcommunity in the COREMAP project. Forexample, in the Taka Bone Rate Park Preserve, ithas set up a system whereby reef watchers fromthe local communities monitored and patrolledcoastal areas. In addition, a conflict resolutionmechanisms was set up to address possibleconflicts between local users and outsiders.

The project was designed so that a participatoryprocess would continue throughout projectimplementation. Participation would bereinforced through: a) a public awarenesscomponent, b) the establishment of localcommittees to enable feedback information fromstakeholders on project implementation, c)



strengthened traditional inter-village councils,d) participatory development of managementplans, and e) participatory monitoring bybeneficiaries. To develop culturally appropriatemanagement plans for the reefs, socialassessments were conducted usingconsultations (with provincial and district leveltask forces and with village developmentcouncils), interviews, focus groups,Participatory Rural Appraisals and surveys.Because a community-based managementapproach cannot be successful without asupporting legal and administrative framework,the project helped establish a national strategyon coral reef preservation and the Governmentof Indonesia created a Ministry of Maritime andFisheries to champion coral reef management.To enhance community management of the reef,the project created a coral reef informationnetwork to provide public information andguidelines on the status of the coral reef. Inaddition, the project supported theestablishment of a public surveillance systemthat coordinated its efforts with reef watchers/monitors who report any violations. Through aprogram for enforcement officers, the project isenhancing the capacity of the government.

There are several key participation lessons fromCOREMAP. Participation of local communitiesin project design builds sustainability and leadsto greater ownership. Partnerships betweenlocal universities and NGOs supports projectimplementation. Also, capacity building on thelocal level enables communities to participate inecosystem analysis.

6. Carter, J. (undated). “Recent Experience inCollaborative Forest ManagementApproaches: A Review of the Key Issues.”Issues paper on Collaborative ForestManagement for the World Bank Forest PolicyImplementation Review Strategy Discussion.Intercooperation, Bern, Switzerland.

Available from: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/forestpol-e.nsf/hiddendocview/2a739220d0007b6c852567530060d924?opendocument

Keywords: biodiversity costs and benefits,collaborative forest management (CFM), forestpolicy, government, local, local resource use andrights, social cohesion, social diversity,stakeholders, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The author preparedthis summary of key issues as part of thedevelopment of the Bank’s new forest policydevelopment process. It provides a generaldescription of collaborative forest management(CFM) and discusses its application andimplementation issues.

Findings. The paper defines CFM as “a workingpartnership between the key stakeholders in themanagement of a given forest.” This definitionbroadens the range of possible managementpartnerships beyond only local actors andincludes NGOs, donors, companies, migrantsand others. CFM management structures caninclude handing control over to user groups andjoint forestry management. The authorconsiders limiting access to buffer zones, leasingforestland, and local collaboration withconcessions to be “borderline” CFMarrangements. CFM, from a government’s pointof view, can be a means of supportingbiodiversity conservation but success isdependent on how it is applied in specificcircumstances. Too little attention has been paidto whether local communities or governmentshould bear the costs of biodiversityconservation.

CFM is most appropriate when there are certainpolitical, social and forest characteristics.Favorable political elements include thewillingness to experiment, support from key



people, a commitment to decentralization andrespect for rights by government institutions.Social circumstances relate to common propertyresource theory. Favorable elements includeclearly identifiable users, dependence uponforest resources, trust, a common communityunderstanding of the resource and user-definedrules of use. Favorable forest characteristicsinclude the perception that forest resources areunder threat; resources that are small enough tobe identified by users and the forest can providebenefits in a relatively short timeframe. Inaddition, it is important to tolerate divergentviews since collaboration does not alwaystranslate to consensus. CFM success is aided byaccess to information and informationexchange. In addition, it is helpful to payattention to supportive larger institutionsincluding everything from national policy towidespread acceptance of the CFM concept.

There are a number of common problems thatarise in CFM approaches. There are issuesrelated to excluding some stakeholders anddetermining who has what rights. Elites oftendominate forest committees, some points ofview are suppressed and transparency is notalways maintained. There are problems withdetermining how to divide benefits betweenbusinesses and communities. Government doesnot always recognize local rights andsometimes, communities are only allowedaccess only to degraded forest. One majorchallenge for CFM is the social diversity withinmany local communities near forests. Thesegroups sometimes have conflicting interests,needs, institutions, and rights to the forest andcutting edge CFMs have been able toacknowledge and work with all of these diversegroups. To promote effective participation inCFM, several barriers must be addressed:differences in attitudes, visions and valuesrelated to participation by donors, governmentand communities, government resistance to theparticipation of some stakeholders; failure to

acknowledge the great diversity of local actors;introducing non-participatory practices andskewed power relationships when buildingupon local or indigenous institutions andsituations where community representativesbecome proxies of the organizations that areestablishing CFMs. In addition, if CFMs are setup using loans, the author points out,repayment funds are difficult to generatedirectly from CFM.

7. Castilleja, Guillermo. 1993. “GEFOpportunities for Collaboration between theGlobal Environmental Facility and Non-Governmental Organizations.” In: Davis,Shelton, ed., The Social Challenge ofBiodiversity Conservation. World Bank,Washington, DC.


Keywords: Global Environment Facility (GEF),Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)(capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry),project, project cycle, WorldConservation Union (IUCN), World WildlifeFund (WWF)

AbstractObjectives and Methodology. Castilleja’s paperexamines the role of NGOs in biodiversityprotection. It appears along with papers byPeter Poole and Charles Geisler in an editedcollection on the “sociology of biodiversityconservation,” as it pertains to the work of theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF).

Findings. Castilleja argues that national andinternational NGOs are particularly well suitedfor the tasks being financed by the GEF in thebiodiversity area. Government agencies forparks and natural resources are generally weak.NGOs are strongly committed to conservation.Many are able to mobilize and work with localcommunities.



For GEF biodiversity work, NGOs may beinvolved in a number of activities. Vis-à-vis theproject cycle, NGOs have the potential to beinvolved in project identification, design,implementation, monitoring and evaluation.They can be applicants for freestanding projects;trustees in trust funds. Internationalenvironment NGOs (e.g., WWF, IUCN,Conservation International) have currentlyplayed a considerable role in projectidentification and design, The internationalNGOs have been involved in data collection onthe geographic distribution of biodiversity andthreats to biodiversity; development of globaland regional strategies; building andstrengthening local conservation institutions,etc.

Castilleja believes that the GEF has notsufficiently involved national and local NGOs inhost countries. National and local NGOs mayhave less technical expertise but they haveexperience in local rural initiatives and otherapproaches to social development. Therefore,the author suggests that national NGOs andgrassroots groups are particularly effective infive areas of activities. First, host-country NGOsare well suited to be involved in the design andimplementation of management plans for theconservation of protected areas because they arelocated in the country and integral tosustainability. Second, these NGOs should beinvolved in the identification of localconservation needs. Host-country NGOs areimportant sources of information on the state offlora and fauna of specific regions, threats, localland use related to biodiversity and legislativeimpacts. The third area for host-country NGOinvolvement is rural development initiatives.Experience shows that some initiatives are bestcommunicated through local NGOs. Fourth,host-country NGOs should be involved ineducation programs. National NGOs are wellplaced for educating the urban population onthe importance of biodiversity. They can alsoprovide rural populations with information on

official initiatives and policies affecting theirnatural resource use. Fifth, host-country NGOsare better able to get involved in advocacy onbehalf of vulnerable communities.

The author contends that in all phases of theproject cycle, NGOs would be particularlyuseful. For example, in project design, NGOscould assess the compatibility of conservationwith the welfare of local communities and thefeasibility of productive activities aimed atreplacing unsustainable use of the protectedarea. Other NGO inputs could includesuggestions for the designation of criticalhabitat areas to be strictly protected and thedifferent level of protection need for each.NGOs could be involved in analysis of theincentives and constraints to sustainability.Further, they can help to prepare conservationand rural development proposals that supportgrassroots initiatives. During projectimplementation, the author suggests that NGOscould help administer the communitydevelopment fund, provide support forproductive activities in the buffer zone,reconcile local interests and resolve conflicts.They could play an instrumental role incontinues monitoring of project progress.

There are also limits to the capacities of NGOsand makes recommendations. The authordiscussed weakness in NGO capacity to handleand administer large sums of money. SomeNGOs have difficulties working jointly withgovernments, regional power-holders and localcommunities. Therefore, much more attentionshould be given to this capacity-buildingprocess within NGOs. This capacity buildingcan take place when NGOs become an integralpart of the GEF project cycle, from identificationand preparation to appraisal, implementationand evaluation.

8. Clay, J., J. Alcorn, and J. Butler. 2000.“Indigenous Peoples, Forestry Managementand Biodiversity Conservation: An Analytical



Study for the World Bank’s Forestry PolicyImplementation Review and StrategyDevelopment Framework.” World Bank,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/forestpol-e.nsf/hiddendocview/933a91cc782f210085256889005bfc47?opendocument

Keywords: biodiversity, collaborativemanagement, co-management, Colombia,consultation (consultative workshops), culturalsurvival, evaluation, forestry, GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), implementingagency, Indigenous (communities, groups,peoples), Indonesia, Mexico, monitoring,monitoring and evaluation, Papua New Guinea,Participation, Russia, small businessdevelopment, tenure (rights, security,community-based, devolution, land rights, userights), transparency, World BankAbstractObjectives and Methodology. This World Bankcommissioned this review to assess how theBank has integrated indigenous peoples inWorld Bank and the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF)-funded forestry and biodiversityprojects in Colombia, Indonesia, Mexico, PapuaNew Guinea, and Russia. The paper is intendedto assess the adequacy of Bank policies forincluding indigenous peoples, the ways inwhich the World Bank is incorporating theconcerns of indigenous peoples, as well asidentifying and understanding the trendsrelated to indigenous peoples in the biodiversityand conservation portfolio of the World Bankand the GEF. The review methodology is notdiscussed in the paper.

Findings. Indigenous groups and the peoplewho work with them identified five key issuesin the effectiveness of Bank projects: land andresource tenure, participation and consultation,cultural survival, small business developmentand co-management.

Based on a review of Bank projects and those ofother organizations including the WorldWildlife Fund (WWF) and the WorldConservation Union (IUCN), the authors listsseveral principles for participation in theparticipation section of the paper. It is importantto find common ground between theimplementing agency and indigenous peoples.It is necessary to allow sufficient time forparticipation, which includes time forindigenous groups to discuss, digest, andcommunicate concerns about project design andimplementation.

Donors should obtain informed consent.However, there are a number of difficulties andpitfalls in determining who is qualified to giveinformed consent. Therefore, the Bank shouldset standards for determining what can beconsidered informed consent. The problem canbe partly addressed by providing data andinformation to various stakeholders and makingsure that they understand the issues. The paperlists elders, women, and young men as thosewho should be consulted at the very least. Inaddition, donors must accept the right ofindigenous peoples to say “no” even when theyare well informed. It is important to ensuretransparency. Decision-making should bedevolved and stakeholders should be informedof decisions in a timely way. The authorsrecommend the use of agreements that areexplicit and formal should be used. In thisregard, the paper states that non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) often do not legitimatelyrepresent indigenous groups.

World Bank-required, state-run accountabilitymechanisms do not ensure that states areactually monitoring project impacts onindigenous peoples. Bank staff are alsoconstrained in monitoring impacts. Budgetconstraints force Task Teams to spend little timein-country and provide little time forsystematic, site-specific investigations andmonitoring. Open communication is important



because goals change with the changingenvironments and circumstances of indigenouspeoples.

The authors have a number of World Bank-specific lessons and recommendations.The World Bank should improve participationthrough changes in the project design,implementation, and accountability processes.Project timetables and budgets should providethe resources to encourage effectiveparticipation. Projects should be examinedprojects to identify obstacles to indigenouspeople’s participation (e.g., as done with theWorld Bank’s Oaxaca, Mexico forestry project).It is important to shift ownership tobeneficiaries and act as an “investment advisor”that can provide technical assistance,monitoring, and advice for achieving goals. TheWorld Banks should provide mechanisms forindigenous peoples to provide constantfeedback on project process. In addition, it iscrucial to strengthen the capacity of indigenousorganizations so that they can run businessesand “work as equals” with governments andcorporations. Finally, it is also important toinvolve indigenous peoples in the design ofincome generation projects, discussions onproperty rights, bio-prospecting negotiations.

9. Cruz, C. J. Maria, and Shelton Davis. 1997.“Social Assessment in World Bank and GEF-Funded Biodiversity Conservation Projects:Case Studies from India, Ecuador, andGhana.” Social Development Paper No. 15.World Bank, Washington, DC.


Keywords: conflict (management, resolution,mapping, risk assessments), consultation(consultative workshops), eco-development(committees, policies), Ecuador BiodiversityProtection Project , Ghana Coastal WetlandsManagement Project, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), India Eco-Development Project,

mapping, ownership, Participatory RuralAppraisal (PRA), social, social assessment,socioeconomic surveys, stakeholderinvolvement, participation, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This report analyzesthe use of the social assessment (SA) in threeareas of the world and looks at key social andparticipation issues that are relevant acrossregions. The three cases are the India Eco-Development Project, Ecuador BiodiversityProtection Project and Ghana Coastal WetlandManagement Project. In this paper, socialassessment is defined as a process thatcontributes to the design and implementation ofbiodiversity activities by identifyingstakeholders, describing activities that threatenbiodiversity, defining potential conflicts amongstakeholders, facilitating stakeholderparticipation and determining appropriateinstitutional arrangements.

Findings. The three case study projects hadseveral commonalities, as well as differences.For the three cases, commonalities includedadequate institutional and financialarrangements, the role of NGOs, similar choicesof sociological field methods and participatorytools, linkages between the SA findings and theoverall project design and concept. In all threeprojects, NGOs designed and carried out theSAs and became active partners in theseprojects aspects. The case studies differed in theduration of their social assessments, theinstitutional arrangements and the integrationof the SA with other types of data collection. InIndia, national NGOs were very involved in atwo-year social assessment that included sitesurveys, PRA training and joint state forestry-parks-NGO teams for PRAs. In Ecuador, fiveNGOs conducted socioeconomic surveysincluding PRAs, site surveys, mapping andconsultations. In Ghana, the SA lasted one year.



Methods included socioeconomic surveys usingkey informants interviews, direct observationsand analysis in ethnographies, extensive use ofhistorical photographs and mapping, as well asNGO-organized bird and habitat surveys withvillage participation.

To ensure that the SA was an integral part of theproject design and implementation and not justa stand-alone or academic exercise, the threecase projects used different methods to link theSA with the central project concept, projectactivities and participatory approaches duringimplementation. The India project conductedjoint government-NGO-community PRAs andmicro planning, as well as consultative nationalworkshops that provided the opportunity for abroad stakeholder discussions of social issuessuch as land tenure reform. A series of eco-development management interventionsemerged out of these local micro-planningexercises. The Ecuadorian project also usednational level coordination meetings for allstakeholders and they planned to incorporatethe SA findings into protected area trainingcourses on conflict management. Finally,researchers from the University of Ghana-Legonpresented the results from their social surveysto the planning committees (LSMCs), who, inturn, identified project activities to be financedthrough the village development fund. SAlinkages have also been made when thecommunity officers, who are based at theproject site, conducted follow-up surveys andmeetings with stakeholder groups.

For SAs to be relevant to project design, threefactors are necessary. First, they must becountry-driven. The project executing agenciesand local stakeholders must take ownership.Second, SAs must start early and continue to beintegrated throughout the project cycle. Third,SAs must provide project-relevantrecommendations about how to adapt theproject design to highly dynamic and sometimesunpredictable social situations.

The authors make several recommendations tosignificantly improve biodiversity projectdesign and performance. They recommendgreater recognition of the changing humandemographics and social diversity of thepopulations who are dependent upon protectedarea resources. Conservation planning can alsobe improved through greater incorporation ofcultural factors. Biodiversity projects can benefitfrom the careful design of institutionalmechanisms for effective participation andproject approaches that emphasize capacitystrengthening and conflict management (e.g.,resolving or reducing persistent conflicts overland tenure and resource access by traditionaluser communities by clarifying the relationshipbetween national conservation laws andancestral or customary property rights). Withregard to the innovative institutional structurescreated for conservation purposes, biodiversityprojects need to assess, during implementationand monitoring and evaluation, whether thesenew participatory and decentralized local sitemanagement committees have greater success inconserving threatened biological resources thanthe centralized and custodial PA managementforms of the past (e.g., Ghana).

The report suggests that project performance ofWorld Bank/Global Environmental Facility(GEF) biodiversity projects can be improvedthrough the more systematic incorporation andoperationalization of SAs and participation. TheWorld Bank and the GEF should focus moreattention on improving the SA and stakeholderparticipation-related skills of task managers andproject executing agency staff skills. Both theWorld Bank and GEF should devote moreattention to documenting and analyzing thedecision-making process in biodiversityprojects. Most project documents have verylimited information on how decisions are made,who makes them and the implications of thesechoices for project design and performance.Finally, projects would benefit from the



systematic use of sociological recordingtechniques as process documentation, PRA,beneficiary assessments and the use of popularmedia.

10. Davis, Gloria, and Ken Newcombe. GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF). 1994.Incorporating Social Assessment andParticipation into Biodiversity ConservationProjects. Washington, DC, World Bank.

Available from: Request from World Bank-GEFKnowledge Bank at http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/geo.nsf/knowledge+base+view/publications?opendocument

Keywords: capacity, capacity building,demographic factors, gender (analysis andconsiderations), Global Environment Facility(GEF), land use, livelihood (strategies, systems),organizational (roles and structures), politicalstructures, project, project cycle, project design(formulation, planning, preparation), resources(sharing, use), risks, social, social assessment,social controls, social issues, social threats,stakeholder consultation, tenure (rights,security, community-based, devolution, landrights, use rights), threatsAbstractObjectives and Methodology. This Best PracticeNote, aimed primarily at GEF and World BankBiodiversity Task Managers, provides anoverview of some key considerations in thedesign of social assessment (SA) during theproject cycle and incorporating the SA resultsinto project management plans. The authorsconsulted with GEF and World Bankpractitioners, as well as NGOs and governmentcounterparts. Future plans included field-testing of participatory approaches and SAmethodologies in at least six GEF biodiversityconservation projects.

Findings. SA designs should include fourelements: determination of key stakeholders

and their involvement in project formulation,identification of key social issues and riskslikely to affect project design and performance,determining relevant project boundaries andidentifying conflicts. Once identified,stakeholder can participate in conservationactivities in a variety of ways and at differentlevels (e.g., consultation and negotiationregarding area selection, boundary demarcationand project design; management of protectedareas, trust funds and endowments). The SAshould consider what is socially feasible in agiven setting and what is feasible in the widersocial and political context. Key social issuesinclude demographic factors, capacity forparticipation, gender considerations, tenurerights and security, livelihood systems, socialcontrols and political and organizationalstructures. As part of the SA, a holisticunderstanding of both immediate and policy-related threats, by locals and non-locals, helpsproject managers determine project boundaries.Immediate threats may include large-scaledevelopment or infrastructure projects,expanding agricultural frontiers, illegal hunting,logging, fuelwood collection, controlledburning, land settlement and cattle grazing.Land use is fraught with local, regional andnational conflicts and new biodiversitymanagement systems are often institutedwithout adequate stakeholder consultation andagreement. The authors found that the SA andparticipatory strategies can be the first stepstoward instituting processes that help to resolvenumerous short-and long-term conflicts overresource use.

The three main outputs from the SA feed intoproject management plans: a) strategies forongoing stakeholder participation (i.e., whowould be involved, how often, resourcesrequired, etc.); b) strategies for project delivery(i.e., improving projects by identifyingstakeholders and effectively working with them(e.g., hiring, joint management, devolution of



management responsibilities, etc.); c) assessingsocial impacts and proposing mitigating actions,where necessary.

SA can be effectively incorporated throughoutthe project cycle:

• At the project identification stage, the SAshould review project options, discuss thenature of support requested, projectobjectives, anticipated resources and timeframe, potential conflicts and risks withpolicy makers. Besides identifyingstakeholders, the SA at project identificationcan begin to clarify unresolved social andcultural issue and establish the frameworkfor stakeholder consultation andparticipation. The SA lays the groundworkfor other research activities needed duringpreparation (e.g., socio-cultural surveys,institutional analysis). It helps to identifythe organizations, research organizationsand NGOs, preferably in-country, that cancarry out some of the SA. Specific toconservation, the SA can gather informationon the legal context for conservationmanagement.

• During the preparation stage, the SA shouldbe carried out as an integral activity thatlinks social components to biodiversityconservation objectives.

• At the appraisal stage, task managersdiscuss the results of the technical studiesand the SA with government counterparts.Field visits should be made to evaluate theSA and the preparation process anddetermine whether an adequate number ofstakeholders were involved. The SA at thisstage should discuss the key social issuesand relevant strategies. It should lay thegroundwork for the monitoring andevaluation indicators and plans for use ofSAs for part of the feedback and responsesystems.

• For ongoing monitoring of conservationprojects, the authors propose thatstakeholders continue to be informed about,or participate in these activities.

11. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 2001.“Participation Means Learning ThroughDoing: GEF’s Experience in BiodiversityConservation and Sustainable Use.” GEFLessons Notes 12. Global EnvironmentFacility, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring___Evaluation/GEF_Lessons_Notes/gef_lessons_notes.html

Keywords: Argentina, behavioral change,bureaucratic reform, conflict (management,resolution, mapping, risk assessments), CongoWildlands Protection and Management Project,decentralization and devolution, decentralizedmanagement, Dominican Republic BiodiversityConservation and Management in the CoastalZone Project, Ghana Coastal WetlandsManagement Project, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), legislation, livelihood (strategies,systems), Madagascar Environment ProgramSupport, Nepal Biodiversity Protection Project,Panama, Philippines Conservation of PriorityProtected Area Project, stakeholderinvolvement, participation, user groups, village-based project committees, Yemen SocotraArchipelago ProjectAbstractObjectives and Methodology. As part of a largerBiodiversity Program Study for the Monitoringand Evaluation Unit of the GEF, a team studiedstakeholder participation and social issues,including science and technology. This GEFLessons Note is a short 4-page summary of thelonger study by Singh and Volonte (2001) (seebelow). The study team reviewed availableproject documentation for 30 GEF-financedbiodiversity conservation and sustainable use



projects that had been or were nearcompletion. Excluding enabling activities, theseprojects represented 30 percent of the total GEFallocation.

Findings. The findings indicate that the degreeof stakeholder participation varies by countryand by project, but the most effectiveapproaches were those designed at the local orcommunity levels. Document review indicatedthat stakeholder participation wascomprehensive in 30 percent of the projects,satisfactory in 25 percent and partial in 20percent. Local and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) andscientific institutions are engaged in over 75percent of the projects; village groupsparticipate in more than 60 percent and onlyabout 25 percent involve the private sector.

The review documents how projects have useda “learning through doing” approach thatadjusts project design to respond to changingfield realities and applies adaptive management(also known as learning and innovation orprocess dynamics. Mistakes have led toconstructive learning: a) stakeholderparticipation, especially by affectedcommunities, is essential if behavioral change isexpected (e.g., introducing new farmingalternatives such as agroforestry under theMadagascar Environment Program Support), b)reducing conflicts by using participatoryappraisals to identify and address rural needsduring activity design (e.g., working with localPanamanian NGOs on participatory appraisalswith indigenous communities to reduce parkboundary conflicts, develop co-managementplans, set up micro-credit schemes and tribalrepresentative for project committees), and c)risk assessments are critical in areas underpolitical and socioeconomic instability (e.g.,despite unrest, working with international andlocal NGOs, using a community-basedconservation approach with decentralized

project funding and disbursements under theCongo Wildlands Protection and ManagementProject).

Several projects built community-basedstakeholder participatory systems into theirimplementation structure to sustain biodiversityconservation activities: user groups, village-based project committees, legislation fordecentralized management and bureaucraticreform and devolution of authority.Community-managed forest areas increased bymore than 40 percent when the NepalBiodiversity Conservation Project establishedCommunity Forest User Groups and GrazingUser Groups with the legal authority to enforcetheir own rules and manage their own funds.The coastal and inter-coastal committees of theArgentina Patagonia Project became self-sufficient through income earned from smalllivelihood projects and decreased theirdependence on government. The Village SiteManagement Committees of the Ghana CoastalWetlands Management Project generate greaterconsensus and support for coastal resourceconservation because village elders and localgovernment officials were involved. By buildingupon the National Integrated Protected AreasLaw, the Philippines Conservation of PriorityProtected Areas Project was able to mainstreama sustainable, government-funded multi-stakeholder structure (Protected AreaManagement Boards) into park management. Inboth the Dominican Republic (BiodiversityConservation and Management in the CoastalZone Project) and in Yemen (SocotraArchipelago Project), project staff are beinghired as civil servants – including communitydevelop specialists in the Dominican Republicand extension agents who are villagers inYemen.

In the final analysis, the review makes thefollowing recommendations: a) incorporateresults from social analysis into project design;



b) use participatory approaches to address rootcauses of biodiversity loss, and c) recognize thedifficult livelihood choices of communities andtheir trade-offs.

12. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1998.“Lessons from an Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Experiment” in Papua NewGuinea.” GEF Lessons Notes No. 3. GlobalEnvironment Facility, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring___Evaluation/GEF_Lessons_Notes/English3PLN.pdf

Keywords: environmental awareness, GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), Lak IntegratedConservation and Development Project, lessonslearned and learning, logging, Papua NewGuinea, project, project site choices, social,social cohesion, social diversity, social feasibilitystudy

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This GEF LessonsNote briefly describes the context and activitiesfor the Lak Integrated Conservation andDevelopment (ICAD) Project and thensummarizes the lessons learned. The project islocated in New Ireland Province, which is anisland in the Papua New Guinea (PNG)archipelago. It began in 1994 and ended in 1996.

Findings. The United Nations DevelopmentProgramme (UNDP) helped the Government ofPNG to establish a conservation area in thesouthern part of New Ireland Province underPNG’s GEF-funded Biodiversity Programme.The Lak ICAD Project was intended to addresssevere logging threats to biodiversity byaddressing both conservation goals and meetinglocal development needs in a sustainablemanner. However, the project had difficultymeeting these goals because of already activelogging operations and PNG’s particular social,

political and economic environment. The socialand economic environment was unsupportive.Among stakeholders, there was no basicconservation philosophy or environmentalawareness, communication was poor and socialcohesion and cooperation was inadequate.Consequently, UNDP and the PNG governmentterminated the Lak ICAD project in 1996.

Several Lak experiences have contributed to thegreater success of other projects. For example,although biological criteria may be used toidentify broad areas of interest for conservation,socioeconomic criteria must dictate the actualchoice of a project site. To identify importantpreconditions for the success of an integratedconservation and development project, it iscrucial to conduct an initial social feasibilitystudy. To develop realistic and productivecommunity attitudes towards the project,projects must pay more attention to the styleand substance of their initial contact with acommunity. Furthermore, the level of a project’son-site presence should match the community’scommitment to the project.

13. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1998.“Study of GEF Project Lessons: SummaryReport.” Global Environment Facility,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring___Evaluation/Evaluationstudies/evaluationstudies.html

Keywords: disseminating lessons, East AsianSeas Projects, feedback, feedback mechanisms,Global Environment Facility (GEF), Jordan, LakIntegrated Conservation and DevelopmentProject, lessons learned and learning, PapuaNew Guinea, participation, participationprocesses, Philippines, Slovakia BiodiversityProject, stakeholder involvement, participation



Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This summary reporthighlights the principal findings andimplications of a Global Environment Facility(GEF)-commissioned study of lessons learnedfrom GEF’s pilot phase. The GlobalEnvironment Facility’s (GEF) Senior Monitoringand Evaluation Coordinator commissioned thestudy in April 1997 and Resources FuturesInternational conducted the study and preparedthis report. The intended audience was projectand task managers of GEF projects.

Findings. The study comes to similar conclusionsfor participation by the private sector, differentlevels of government and communities.Stakeholder involvement is a main feature ofthe GEF. This emphasis has brought a widerange of new players into GEF-funded projects.Although GEF projects have been designed tohave global environmental impacts, they willsucceed on a sustained basis only if they meetthe needs of their participants. Participation ofstakeholders at all levels has to be full andgenuine. Project staff need to understand theperspective of stakeholders and how they cameto have their attitudes and practices. They needto deal effectively, but neutrally, in a politicalenvironment. Participation must be acontinuous, long-term process to involvestakeholders in making decisions about mattersthat affect them rather than by intermittentlyinforming participants of what the projectintends to do, or even by periodic consultationswith them. To bring stakeholders together andgive them a voice, projects often require avehicle or specific focus. These participatoryprocesses take time but are all too often rushed,at the expense of project success andsustainability. Project staff and organizationsneed social, political and managerial skills, asmuch as technical knowledge, and they requiretraining and continuous support. Attention tothese matters is a central feature of projects that

have succeeded and these approaches andactivities need to be explicitly built into currentand future GEF activities.

The study looked at successful projects, and thestaff associated with these projects (e.g.,workshops for experience sharing among theSlovakia Biodiversity Project and others inCentral and Eastern Europe, cross-projectsharing within Jordan about income-generatingalternatives for pastoral communities, site visitsby Batangas Bay staff from the Philippines tothe Xiamen, China site of the East Asian SeasProject, cross-project learning about integratedconservation and development projects by theLak Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentProject in Papua New Guinea as well asdocumentation of lessons learned fromobstacles and adaptations made for a new site).The authors found that these projects and staffconsistently learn and benefit from both theirown experience as well as the experiences ofothers. Even well designed projects evolvecontinuously and their managers need to beable to deal with a variety of technical, socialand political issues at the same time. Successfulmanagers pay careful attention to feedbackfrom project staff and participants and inresponse, they promptly modify and improveprojects. These staff also regularly look beyondtheir own four walls for ideas and solutions andthey make it a priority, although it is sometimesdifficult to obtain this information and usuallydifficult to find time to read and digest it.

To reinforce project and staff learning, theauthors have a number of recommendations.GEF projects should budget sufficient time andresources for learning and disseminatinglessons. Staff incentives should help staff tolearn from their experience and that of others.In addition, the GEF should seek outopportunities for comparison, cross-fertilizationand sharing of experiences, both within andamong its four focal areas. The study



recommends that GEF systematically documentlessons learned and good practices. It is alsoimportant to experiment with different types ofmentoring programs. GEF needs to providerelevant and timely information to project andtask managers through a variety of print andelectronic media, as well as workshops andtraining opportunities.

14. GEF (Global Environment Facility). 1996.“Public Involvement in GEF-FinancedProjects.” Global Environment Facility,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/Operational_Policies/Public_Involvement/public_involvement.html

Keywords: accountability, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), ownership, public involvementpolicy, stakeholder involvement, participation

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This document onthe public involvement policy of the GlobalEnvironment Facility addresses stakeholderparticipation issues. It provides the definitionsand rationale for participation (Part 1) and thebasic principles for incorporating participationin GEF projects (Part 2).

Findings. The policy offers useful definitions anda rationale for including stakeholders in GEFactivities. Stakeholder participation is definedas collaborative engagement in identifyingproject concepts, objectives, site selection,activity design, and monitoring and evaluation.Stakeholders are “the individuals, groups, orinstitutions that have an interest or stake in theoutcome of a GEF-financed project.”Stakeholder participation is seen as a means toenhance country ownership and accountability,address the needs of those affected, buildpartnership between implementers and

stakeholders and make use of skills, experience,and knowledge.

The policy specifically mentions thatbiodiversity projects affecting local populationsshould include extensive stakeholderparticipation and lays out basic principles thatcover responsibility for participation, timingand documentation of participation andfunding for all projects. The responsibility forassuring public involvement rests with thecountry government and the agency or agenciesexecuting the project. Stakeholders should beinvolved early in project identification andthroughout design, implementation, andevaluation. All projects should fully documentparticipation. Furthermore, the policy states thatthe GEF will include funding for technical andfinancial assistance that enable governmentsand executing agencies to carry out effectivestakeholder participation.

15. Kirmse, Robert, and Estanislao Gacitua-Mario. 1998. “Social Assessment Builds aProject for People and Parks in Argentina.”Social Development Notes No. 38. WorldBank, Washington, DC.

Available from: Social Development, The WorldBank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Room MC5-232,Washington, D.C. 20433 USA; Fax: 202-522-3247; E-mail: [email protected]: Argentina Biodiversity ConservationProject, biodiversity, collaboration, community,community participation, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs) (capacity, roles,executing agencies, host country), private sector,protected areas, social, social assessment,stakeholder identification, sustainability,sustainable land-use, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This SocialDevelopment Note provides a brief description



of the use of social assessment (SA)methodology in the Argentina BiodiversityConservation Project and summarizes thelessons learned.

Findings. The project utilized several SAmethods: a census, surveys, interviews andworkshops. The project found that an effectiveSA required several elements. It was helpful tohire a social assessment specialist. In eachprotected area, a consultative commission wascreated to institutionalize participation. Inaddition, it was useful to develop a socialassessment program to collect data, monitor theimplementation of the mitigation plan andprovide participatory management skills.

There were several positive results from usingSA methodology in the Argentina BiodiversityConservation Project. The SA helped theGovernment of Argentina/World Bank team todevelop a cooperative approach to protectedareas management. By doing the SA, the projectwas able to identify key stakeholders,understand their priorities and find localsupport for the creation of protected areas. TheSA and the participatory research helped thetask team understand the range of potentialsocial impacts and risks to the project, includingthe risks for the people who were living in theproposed protected areas. The project was ableto prepare for the social and economic impactsof creating PAs and learn about the expectedimpacts of resettlement. The resultingrecommendations were put forth in a projectmitigation plan and a public participation/training plan. Both plans promote collaborationamong the public sector, private sector, andnon-governmental organizations (NGOs) andincreased community participation in protectedareas management. They also recommendsustainable land use practices to reduce thethreats to protected areas.

16. Geisler, Charles. 1993. “Adapting SocialImpact Assessment to Protected Area

Development.” In: Davis, Shelton, ed., TheSocial Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation.World Bank, Washington, DC.

Available from: World Bank Imagebank

Keywords: Global Environment Facility (GEF),protected areas, social, Social ImpactAssessment, social impacts

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Geisler reviews theliterature on Protected Areas Social ImpactAssessment (PASIA). His contribution appearsalong with papers by Guillermo Castilleja andPeter Poole in an edited collection on the“sociology of biodiversity conservation,” as itpertains to Global Environment Facility (GEF)work.

Findings. Over the last few years, socialscientists have adapted Social ImpactAssessment (SIA) methodology to protectedarea projects. SIAs are designed to address thepotential, probable or unintended social effectsof a proposed development project. They haveprovided project managers with a betterunderstanding of the complex social andnatural system interactions resulting fromprotected area projects.

SIA has been faulted for limitations on anumber of fronts. In practice, SIA clings to thedesign stage and largely ignores theopportunity to establish an extended, multi-stage process approach to impact assessment.Single-stage social assessments are likely tooverlook surprise, accident or cumulativeeffects. For example, federal policy towardsprotected areas can change in abrupt andunexpected ways (e.g., Uganda’s 1972 militarycoup that led to poaching by the army). Thereare often changes in land ownership due to theestablishment of parks and reserves and someprotected areas protect aboriginal rights



whereas others extinguish these rights,particularly those in pastoral or seasonal useareas. Other overlooked effects may includechanges in land values, social stratification,power structures and the values andperceptions of local resident population.

Given these critiques, the author recommendsincorporating SIAs throughout the project.Human efforts to manage complex ecosystemsare often fraught with difficulties and occasionalfolly. In some cases, SIA is problematic andparadoxical because the diversity of species thatare subject to human control may actuallydecline and trigger ecosystem setbacks.Therefore, Geisler argues that it is vital that apost hoc or adaptive management approach betaken when SIA is factored into protected areaprojects. Such an approach, which the authorargues is well adapted to the World Bankproject cycle. It provides the opportunity forcontinuously monitoring and evaluating thepeople/protected area equation during the lifecycle of a project and beyond.

17. Molnar, Augusta. 1996. “Mexico ResourceConservation and Forest Sector Review:Incorporating Social Assessment intoEconomic and Sector Work.” SocialDevelopment Notes No. 23. World Bank,Washington, DC.

Available from: www-wds.worldbank. org(external access) or Imagebank (internal access)

Keywords: customary law, forest communities,forest enterprises, Mexico ResourceConservation and Forestry Sector Review,policy recommendations, social, socialassessment, tenure (rights, security, community-based, devolution, land rights, use rights),workshops (including multi-state workshops),World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This short reportsummarizes how a joint Government of Mexico-World Bank team incorporated socialassessment (SA) into their analytical work for acomprehensive review of the Mexico ResourceConservation and Forestry sector work and theoutcomes of the SA. The SA investigated thepotential of the communities and ejido forestowners to develop and assess six issues: a)viable forest enterprises, b) regional, culturaland gender differences, c) the influence of thepopulations’ relationship with its forest andwildlands, d) the internal and externalconstraints to community organization, e) thepressures on environmentally important areas,and f) the potential for income-generatingstrategies that would not degrade the resourcebase. Data collection included multi-stateworkshops that were led by an field-experienced team of local NGO staff andincluded representatives of indigenous groupswho were managing forest lands. The SA alsoincluded gender analysis by gender specialistsand focus groups that used drawings,photographs and other interactive diagnosismaterials to elicit stakeholders’ attitudes aboutgovernment employees.

Findings. The SA process had several positiveresults. It allowed forest communities toarticulate their interests. It raised the awarenessof policymakers regarding the potential fordevelopment in the sector. The process provideda forum to indigenous forest communities toanalyze their own problems and deviseappropriate development options. The use of aparticipatory approach for a sector reviewallowed the Bank team and government toreach consensus on key sector issues. They wereable to draft a document that reflected localrealities and smoothed the way for identifyingand designing a participatory project. Theapproach also facilitated the process of turning



review recommendations into policy such asderegulating productive forest activities. Ithelped the government to shift their practicetowards decentralization and greaterparticipation in resource conservation and forestdevelopment.

The SA revealed several policy recommenda-tions related to resource conservation and forestsector work in Mexico. The tenure rights forprivate, communal and public forests andwildlands need clarification, through boundarydemarcation and adjudication. Laws andprocedures should be reviewed to improve theability of communities to enter into jointpartnership with private partners. The forestregulatory frameworks should take into accountcustomary law and cultural values. The SA alsohelped to underscore how the potential povertyreductions possible from making communalforest enterprises commercially viable andsustainable.

18. Mott, Jessica. 1996. “India: Using SocialAssessment to Foster Participation inProtected Areas.” Social Development NoteNo. 21. World Bank, Washington, DC..


Keywords: conflict (management, resolution,mapping, risk assessments), eco-development(committees, policies), Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), India Eco-Development Project,protected areas, social, social assessment, WorldBank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This short papersummarizes the use and value of socialassessment in the India Eco-DevelopmentProject. This project used the following SAmethods: stakeholder workshops, consultationsand PRA.

Findings. To conserve biodiversity, the stategovernments and India’s Forest Departmentdeveloped an extensive network of protectedareas over the last 20 years. . When IndianGovernment, the World Bank and the GlobalEnvironment Facility launched the Eco-Development Project, project teams wereinterested in the promise of participatoryresource management programs. Theparticipatory approach to project designincluded collaborating NGOs. To avoid a rigidblueprint design, the project focused instead onan indicative planning approach that sought tobuild stakeholder consensus around an iterativeEco-Development Action Plan that could beadapted over the life of the project.

The social assessment (SA) had many positiveresults. The SA made a complex project lessdifficult to prepare for task managers. It was agood starting place to encourage the on-goingparticipation and commitment of stakeholdersand nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) inthe project. The concerns of communities andthe other socioeconomic and biophysicalinformation collected during the SA were fedinto project implementation and monitoring.The SA helped to create synergies betweenproject planning and monitoring (e.g., legal andusufruct rights and status concerns wereintegrated into site-specific planning andmonitoring). The SA also identified vulnerablegroups. The SA also enabled stakeholders toidentify interactions between parks and peopleand map out potential and actual conflicts. Ifleft undetected and unresolved, these conflictswould jeopardize implementation. Commu-nities and park officials found a mutuallyagreeable framework for on-going participationduring project implementation. They identifiedecologically appropriate development activitiesand livelihoods for both groups and the SAhelped to develop site-specific strategies. Inaddition, the project designers were able tobuild upon other Indian experiences with



people’s involvement in forestry, conservation,and rural development projects.

19. Poole, Peter. 1993. “Indigenous Peoples andBiodiversity Protection.” In: Davis, Shelton, ed.,The Social Challenge of Biodiversity Conservation.World Bank, Washington, DC.


Keywords: biodiversity conservation andprotection, Ecuador, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), indigenous conservation areas,Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)(capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry), participation

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Poole’s paper looksat the role of indigenous people in biodiversityprotection. It appears along with papers byGuillermo Castilleja and Charles Geisler in anedited collection on the “sociology ofbiodiversity conservation,” as it pertains toGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) work.

Findings. The participation of indigenouspeoples in biodiversity protection is critical.Indigenous peoples inhabit many of theremaining areas of high biodiversity. Theypossess traditional knowledge and practicesthat have been proven historically to besustainable in such environments. Indigenouspeople possess rights to relatively largeamounts of land that either overlap or arecontiguous with protected areas. They haveclose attachments to their ancestral lands andoften hold advantage over other rural socialsectors because they have the possibility,through ancestral land claims, of regainingsome measure of control over lands andresources.

The author notes that there are several newexperiments where indigenous people arecooperating with government agencies andNGOs in the protection of wildlife, forest andfisheries. In many cases, the protection ofbiodiversity by indigenous peoples is a directresult of their subsistence-oriented domesticeconomies. However, where indigenous peoplesmove towards a market-oriented relations suchas commercial wildlife hunting or wild plantextraction, it is necessary to introduce moresystematic environmental research andmanagement to ensure the sustainability ofbiological resources.

At present, there are a few examples ofdedicated indigenous conservation areas,because indigenous land claim areas or reservesare seen to fulfill this function. There are someexperiments with innovations that expresssustainable use principles in conservation (i.e.,extractive reserves) or through the use of “forestbelts” to protect natural areas. One indigenousprotected area is the Awa Ethnic Forest Reservein Ecuador. The Awa people in Ecuador stoppedlogging activities in their community bysurrounding their forest reserve by a 200 kmboundary of planted gardens and orchards andannouncing that the land is under activecultivation. A few other indigenous groups inLatin America have spontaneously decided toestablish conservation areas.In Canada, the Department of Fisheries andOceans (DFO) spent 10 million Canadian dollarsin 1991 to support 120 community-based,fisheries co-management projects in BritishColumbia. These fisheries are in crisis, bothecologically and in terms of competing interestgroups. From their participation in land claimnegotiations elsewhere, the DFO officialsrecognized that agreements over resource accessand management was essential for settlement.Therefore, in negotiations, all project proposalswere required to originate within communitiesand tribal councils.



Poole suggests that the types of indigenousenvironmental research and managementprograms being pursued by Canadianindigenous groups and other groups haveimplications for other areas, such as theAmazon region of South America. Herecommends the creation of a pilot program,perhaps under GEF auspices. This programcould allow representatives from indigenousgroups that are experimenting with innovativemodels to serve as technical assistancespecialists to other indigenous communities.

20. Porter, G., R. Clemencon, W. Ofosu-Amaah,and M. Philips. 1997. “Study of GEF’s OverallPerformance.” Global Environment Facility,Washington, DC.

Available from : http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring___Evaluation/Overall_Performance_Studies/ops.pdf

Keywords: biodiversity, biodiversityconservation ethic, Global Environment Facility(GEF), portfolio performance review,stakeholder involvement, participation, UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP),United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Sections D and E ofthis Global Environment Facility (GEF) portfolioperformance review provide an overview of theGEF’s policies on stakeholder participation,participation performance by the GEFimplementing agencies (World Bank, UNDP,and UNEP) and trends in participation in GEFprojects. Section E of this review lists therecommendations from an evaluation of reformsmade since a 1994 GEF Pilot Phase evaluation.The team conducted a document review of thefirst round of GEF projects. For this study,

stakeholders included academia, international,national, and local NGOs, and the privatesector.

Findings. For all GEF projects, the studyprovides some generic observations aboutparticipation. Although the GEF’s participationpolicy requires projects to provide informationto stakeholders and document stakeholderconsultations, project documents use varyinginterpretations of what constitutes a“consultation.“ In addition, it is common forconsultations to be viewed as an end and forprojects to fail to follow-up with participantsafter the consultations. However, in general, it ismore common for GEF project documents todocument the use of participation in discussionsand provide specific plans for projectparticipation. To bring governmental and non-governmental stakeholders together, projectshave used a variety of institutional mechanismssuch as stakeholder councils and advisorycommittees. GEF projects have relied on NGOsto execute projects and to provide policy andadvisory services and it is more common forTrust Fund projects than other types of GEFprojects to use NGOs for implementation.In general, GEF projects seem to be paying moreattention to making “adequate” budgetallocations for the participation components ofprojects. However, the authors point out that, insome cases, “it is difficult to separateconsultation activities from the public educationand awareness components.” Some projectallocate as much as 50 percent of their budgetsfor local-level activities but the study did notdocument the percentage of GEF projects thatinclude allocations at this level.

In reviewing progress since the 1994 evaluation,the authors expressed concern about the lack ofadequate governmental and broad-basedcommunity participation in the pilot phase ofGEF projects. In some countries, governmenthas prevented the participation of key



ministries. The evaluators pointed out thatparticipation is a required element of all GEFproposals but that it is not always carried out inpractice. The GEF Secretariat is in the process ofdeveloping indicators of stakeholderparticipation.

The study team makes several specificobservations about participation in biodiversityprojects. There are a number of difficultiesassociated with biodiversity projects. GEFbiodiversity projects sometimes have areputation for being overly long and complex.There is often tension between conservationplanners, managers and local communities.Biodiversity projects must secure thecollaboration of communities in buffer zonesand promote a “biodiversity conservation ethic”among stakeholders. Implementing agenciesgenerally have limited multidisciplinaryexperience and capacity in the mainstreaming ofsocial and gender concerns. However, theauthors note that those projects that have takenthe time to implement broad-based stakeholderparticipation have had positive impacts.

21. Singh, Shekhar, and Claudio Volonte. 2001.“Biodiversity Program Study.” GlobalEnvironment Facility, Monitoring andEvaluation Unit, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/ResultsandImpact/Monitoring___Evaluation/Evaluationstudies/Biodiv_Program_Study.pdf

Keywords: benefits, benefit sharing, biodiversityprojects, feedback, feedback mechanisms,Global Environment Facility (GEF), lessonslearned and learning, project, project design(formulation, planning, preparation), protectedareas, root causes, stakeholder involvement,participation, sustainability, sustainable land-use, workshops (including multi-stateworkshops)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study focusedon Global Environment Facility (GEF)biodiversity projects and had three mainobjectives. First, it was structured to highlightand assess the achievements, initial impacts andlessons learned from the GEF biodiversityportfolio. Second, the study conducted ananalysis of the area covered by GEF-assistedprojects and third, it assessed the mechanismsfor incorporating lessons learned into morerecently approved projects. The GlobalEnvironment Facility Secretariat sponsored thestudy, in collaboration with the United NationsEnvironment Program, the United NationsDevelopment Program, the World Bank and theGEF Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel.Research was conducted between September2000 and March 2001. Projects for analysis weredivided into two groups. The first group of 82projects included all full and mid-sized projectsunder implementation and also those completedas of June 30, 1998. The second group,composed of 128 projects, included all full andmid-sized projects that started implementationor entered GEF Work Program between July 1,1998 and June 30, 2000. The methodology wascomprised of a quantitative evaluation of theportfolio and a qualitative assessment of theachievements, initial impacts and lessonslearned from the GEF biodiversity projects.

Findings. The study found that mostbiodiversity projects had either planned and/orimplemented participatory approaches.Stakeholder participation was comprehensive inaround 30 percent of the projects reviewed,partial in more than 20 percent and at leastplanned in another nearly 25 percent of theprojects (although data was unavailable as toimplementation and extent of participation). Forthe remaining projects, participation was eitherpoor (9 percent), absent (12 percent) or data wasunavailable (4 percent). For protected areaprojects (a sample that included a large



proportion of the biodiversity projects), thestudy found that more than half of these wereassessed to have fully or mostly met theirparticipation objectives. Approximately half ofall PA had comprehensive or partial stakeholderparticipation, some benefit sharing activitiesand some measures for ensuring sustainability.

The authors made a number of recommenda-tions. After looking for differences betweencompleted and newer on-going projects, theauthors suggest that better feedbackmechanisms are needed to transmit lessonslearned. Although approximately half of theprojects reported incorporating some lessonsfrom past projects into their design, a third ofthe projects had not considered lessons learned.The authors found minimal differences betweenthe achievements and impacts of completed andnewer on-going projects. The studyrecommends the first step in any projectplanning or design process must be theidentification of root causes that have led to thedegradation or decline of biodiversity. Allproduction areas projects should include relatedproduction landscapes that are available forcommunities. All projects should conduct acapacity assessment exercise prior to projectinitiation since the projects were working withinstitutions without much previous experiencein stakeholder participation. Where appropriate,project preparation should include a projectdesign workshop. These workshops shouldinvolve critical stakeholders, in the country orregion, to get initial ideas about designing theproject. Projects should appropriately involvethe private sector in project activities andsupport, when appropriate. Finally, fundingpatterns during the project must be compatiblewith the economic realities of the host country.

22. Smith, Scott, and Alejandra Martin. 2000.“Achieving Sustainability of BiodiversityConservation. Report of a Global EnvironmentFacility Thematic Review.” Monitoring and

Evaluation Working Paper 1. GlobalEnvironment Facility, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.gefweb.org/1_Biodiversity-nocov.pdf

Keywords: biodiversity awareness, biodiversityconservation and protection, capacity, capacitybuilding, Conservation of the Dana Wildlandsand the Azraq Oasis Project, financing, GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF), incentives(economic, other), institutional capacity,strengthening, institutions, Jordan, MexicanNature Conservation Fund, Mexico, policyframework, political will, project, ProjectImplementation Review, resources (sharing,use), sustainability, sustainable land-use, WorldBank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. As part of the 1998GEF Project Implementation Review, the Boarddecided on a thematic review agenda to becarried out by the GEF Monitoring andEvaluation (M&E) team in 1999. GEF’simplementing agencies and Secretariatencouraged the M&E team to expand the themereview on the financial sustainability ofbiodiversity project to include other factors thatinfluence the overall sustainability ofbiodiversity conservation. The reviewmethodology involved four components: a) aliterature review of World Bank and non-WorldBank sources; b) examination of NGOperspectives on sustainability using an IUCN-supported survey study, c) NGO reviews ofpolicy papers and internal practices; c) a surveyof multilateral and bilateral donor agenciescarried out by the M&E team, and d) GEFproject experience.

Findings. Although the study did not find muchempirically based analysis of the sustainabilityof biodiversity conservation in the four data



components, there was information availableon the five main factors influencingsustainability – political will, awareness andunderstanding of biodiversity, capableinstitutions and people, the policy and legalframework and resources uses and financialresources.

First, political will is a function of ownershipand commitment at every level. Political leadersand institutions at all levels (local, national andinternational) determine policies, the degree towhich they are implemented or enforced andthe resource allocations that affect whetherbiodiversity was sustained or not. Ownershipand commitment to the sustainability ofbiodiversity conservation needs to occur at alllevels. This process can be helped by openingup political processes to give voice to allstakeholders, particularly those directly affectedby the condition of the biological resources.

Second, the sustainability of biodiversity canalso be improved by increasing awareness andunderstanding of biodiversity.

Third, sustainability is dependent upon capableinstitutions and people. Reliable institutionshave helped to enforce the rule of law, establishpartnerships of diverse groups and createpolitical space for a multi-sector and multi-levelforum in which biodiversity strategies could bedebated. Organizations can build constituenciesand become more effective when they canprovide the type and quality of services thatpeople are willing to support.

Fourth, conservation and sustainable use aresupported by an enabling policy and legalframework. Policies and regulations, as well asthe extent to which they are enforced, wereimportant factors for alleviating the root causesof biodiversity loss.

Fifth, biodiversity sustainability is dependentupon resource uses and financial resources. Forexample, the establishment and managementof protected areas required some expenditureto finance the incentives for conservation andpromotion of the sustainable use ofbiodiversity. Other associated costs include thecost of monitoring the protected area.

To foster sustainability, the review suggestsseveral approaches. It is important to focus onstrengthening the capacity and position of theconservation community as well asmarginalized stakeholders. This approach wasused in the Conservation of the Dana Wildlandsand the Azraq Oasis Project in Jordan and in theMexican Nature Conservation Fund. As a resultof increased public awareness of the value ofconservation, the Royal Society for theConservation of Nature (RSCN) in Jordan wasable to expand its own influence, and that ofcommunities, on the policy process. Using itsrole as a funding mechanism for GEF support toten protected areas, The Mexican NatureConservation Fund was able to insist on greatercommunity involvement in park management.Other sustainability strategies include linkingproject activities with national action plans andexploring innovative financial arrangements(e.g., park entrance fees, licensing fees, touristtaxes and biodiversity-friendly privateenterprises).

23. Vedeld, T. 2001. “Participation in ProjectPreparation: Lessons from World Bank-Assisted Projects in India.” World BankDiscussion Paper 423. World Bank,Washington, DC.


Keywords: beneficiaries, beneficiaryparticipation, capacity, capacity building,



consultation (consultative workshops),decentralized capacity building, forestry, India,institutional capacity, strengthening,institutions, mainstreaming participation,participation, private sector, stakeholders,tribals (and scheduled castes), water resourcesdevelopment, watershed development andprotection, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study assessesthe extent to which the World Bank projects inIndia are meeting the Bank’s objective ofmainstreaming participatory approaches inproject preparation and design. Vedeld lookscritically at the use of participation and thebarriers to its effective use in government,localities, NGOs, and the Bank. The studyincludes ten projects covering a variety ofsectors and includes one each on watersheddevelopment, forestry, and water resourcesdevelopment. Information was gathered viadocument review, interviews with key playersand project managers, NGO focus groups, andtwo field visits to project sites.

Findings. Vedeld begins by noting the trendtoward more support for participation and agreater emphasis on decentralized capacitybuilding. The study found that the mostimportant impact of the direct participation ofprimary stakeholders has been an improvedunderstanding of the local context, the diversityof stakeholders and the nature of stakeholderinteractions. There were also a number ofshortcomings related to the use of participation.These issues included the quality of beneficiaryparticipation (consultation rather thancollaboration or empowerment), the scope ofconsultation (no gender analysis, failure toconsult with scheduled castes and tribes andlimited private sector involvement), a lack ofinstitutional capacity to sustain projects and thedifficulty of maintaining stakeholder interest

over long planning periods. In-countryconstraints to participation included thehierarchical structures in India, the lack ofgovernment commitment to participation, thelack of NGOs available to manage participationand the lack of local capacity to take overprojects. The study includes list of specificproblems that Bank staff face (p. 34) and specificrecommendations on how to operationalizebetter participation for Bank projects.

24. Vedeld, T. 2000. “Participation in theHimalayan Foothills: Lessons from WatershedDevelopment in India.” Social DevelopmentPaper No. 38. World Bank, Environmentallyand Socially Sustainable DevelopmentNetwork, Washington, DC.

Available from:http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/essd/essd.nsf/e0a6beef25793a39852567f200651c5c/f5659ac4406ef006852567f50057ab04

Keywords: community, community building,consultation (consultative workshops), fodderand livestock services, Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF), Haryana, Himachal, income-generating activities, India, institutionalcapacity, strengthening, institutions, IntegratedWatershed Development Project (IDWP II),Jammu and Kashmir, participation quality,Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), policyreforms, Pradesh, primary beneficiary, project,Project Appraisal Document (PAD), Punjab,Shivalik Hills, training (capacity building,needs, workshops), trans-humance, tribals (andscheduled castes), Uttar Pradesh, villagedevelopment plans, watershed developmentand protection, women and gender, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study examinesthe extent and impacts of primary beneficiaryparticipation upon the planning of the second



phase of the Integrated WatershedDevelopment Project (IDWP II). The studymethodology consisted of a review of projectdocuments, project and Bank staffquestionnaires, field visits, meetings andworkshops with project staff, interviews withBank staff, and a focus group held in each ofthe six affected villages.

Findings. The IWDP II is located in the ShivalikHills in the Himalayan foothills. Usingtreatment technologies, the project was intendedto restore the productivity of a watershed and toreduce poverty in five Indian states: Haryana,Himachal, Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh. The five keycomponents of the IDWP II include watersheddevelopment and protection, improvement offodder and livestock services, institutionalstrengthening through community building,provision of income- generating activities forwomen and policy reforms.

Although primary stakeholder participationwas not a significant element of the first stage ofthis project (IDWP I), the World Bank madecommunity participation a requirement for theplanning and implementation of the secondphase. Project preparation included twofeatures designed to generate communitysupport. The project planners allowed for a sixto twelve month planning period during thedesign phase. This period allowed flexibility invillage-level organizing and sufficient time tobuild ownership and establish agreements.Second, the project design included an iterativesocial assessment that was based on prospectivestudies and village development plans (VDPs).During the planning period, the project carriedout a three-tiered social assessment thatincluded: 1) a study of the impacts of previousdevelopment on the watershed and localinstitutions, 2) a tribal and transhumance study,and 3) a prospective study of new micro-watersheds accompanied buy three VDPs. The

main mechanisms for involving primarybeneficiaries were the prospective studies andVDPs. In the prospective studies, the projectused Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) toinform villagers about the project and allowedthem to provide some input to project staff.

Project staff increased their capacity andawareness as a result of the PRAs and the VDPprocess. They gained skills in participatorymethods and gained greater understanding ofthe stakeholder diversity. They became aware oftheir inexperience with PRA methods andidentified the need for more staff in the socialunit and more female staff members. They cameto recognize the lack of implementing and localinstitution capacity. Higher-level project staffbecame more convinced of the generalusefulness of participation.

Overall, the author points out that participationwas widespread but thin and relatively fewlocal people were involved in the PRAs. WorldBank technical staff thought the participationwas satisfactory and involved “consultation. ”However, World Bank social staff found projectparticipation only “marginally satisfactory” andconsisted of mostly “information sharing.”There were some specific problems with theactual use of participatory methods for projectplanning. PRAs were used only in some of thesocial assessments (SAs) and when used, theimplementation was fairly mechanical. Staff inonly two states, Uttar Pradesh and HimachalPradesh, had experience with PRA. Consultantsdid the prospective studies and they wereunfamiliar with stakeholder analysis and unableto represent diverse views. The SAs wereprepared late and could not be used in theProject Appraisal Document (PAD). In theauthor’s assessment, the effects of participationon implementation were more indirect thandirect.



To further improve participation, the projecthas taken or is planning several actions. Thereis a need for more training and capacitybuilding related to participation since capacityis weak for the implementing agency and localinstitutions. Proposals were generated todecentralize authority and avoid centralizeddecision-making. The project discussed cost-sharing proposals with the local community.The project hired more female project staff andthere was an increased emphasis on genderissues in the villages. There was also morediscussion on how to implement a village loadfund as a village organization activity.

25. Wells, Michael, P. Delfin, J. Ganapin Jr, andJuha l. Uitto. 2001. “Global EnvironmentFacility – Medium-Sized Projects (MSP)Evaluation.” Global Environment Facility,Washington, DC.

Request from: GEOnline.worldbank.org

Keywords: advantages, awareness raising,capacity, capacity building, co-financing,evaluation, impacts, mainstreamingparticipation, Medium-Sized Projects (MSPs),Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)(capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry), project, project cycle, ProjectDevelopment Funds (PDF-A), proposalrequirements, stakeholder involvement,participation, timeframe

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology: The objectives of thisevaluation of Medium Size Projects (MSPs)were to assess whether or not: a) MSPs wereresponsive to Global Environment Facility(GEF) objectives and policies, b) MSPs filled aniche in the GEF that could not be met byregular projects, small grants or enablingactivities, c) MSP project cycle procedures wereeffective. In addition, the evaluation identifiedimpacts and likely impacts of MSPs and maderecommendations for MSP improvements. The

authors reviewed a total of 121 MSPs including73 biodiversity projects and the remaining 48projects focused on climate change,international waters, ozone or multipleenvironmental sectors. The regionalcomposition of the MSP portfolio included 29percent from Latin America and the Caribbean,21 percent from Africa, 16 percent from EastAsia and the Pacific, 15 percent from Europeand Central Asia and 9 percent from the MiddleEast and North Africa. The evaluators usedstakeholder interviews, a review of keydocuments and visits to 10 countries. Becauseonly 6 of the 121 MSPs studied were completed,the evaluators assessed interim or indirectindicators of progress such as capacity building,innovation and new methodologies, awarenessraising and prospects for sustainability.

Findings. MSPs support stakeholderparticipation in several ways. In contrast tomost of the larger and more traditional GEFprojects, MSP procedures have enabled NGOsto become MSP executing agencies. In so doing,they have made direct contributions to NGOcapacity building. Project Development Funds-A type (PDF-A) allow for stakeholderconsultations during MSP preparation activitiesand these consultations are often the firstopportunity for smaller organizations toparticipate in GEF activities. Thesearrangements have been especially useful whereaction on threats to biodiversity has beenconstrained by the limited capacity of diversestakeholders to synchronize their efforts. Inaddition, many countries report that localawareness from community consultations hasbeen one of the most important benefits fromthe MSP preparation process under PDF-As.MSPs attract considerable co-financing andprovide additional opportunities for innovation.They allow for the scaling up of successfulprojects of the Small Grants Programme (SGP)of GEF/United Nations Development Program(UNDP). MSPs could further support



participation by lengthening their typicallyshort time-frames (two to three years),simplifying non-governmental organization(NGO) proposal requirements needed to accessGEF funds and broadening the base of localNGOs that can access GEF funds andparticipate effectively in MSP execution.

26. World Bank. 2001. “Participation ProcessReview.” Operations Evaluation Department,World Bank, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/participation/Participation%20Process%20Review-OED.pdf

Keywords: collaboration, community, communityforest management (and scaling-up), countryassistance strategies (CAS), empowerment,Guatemala, impacts, Kenya, OperationsEvaluation Department, participation,participation evaluations and participatorymonitoring, participation quality, project,project cycle, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The purpose of thisevaluation was to assess how much progresshas been made since the Bank committed itselfto a Participation Action Plan in 1994 and makerecommendations for future World Bank work.The evaluation focused on the extent ofmainstreaming; costs, benefits and impacts ofparticipation; good practices andrecommendations for Bank participationpolicies and operational work. The OEDmethodology included: a) a database consistingof participation data from PADS, b) case studies,c) task manager interviews, d) desk reviews ofCountry Assistance Strategies (CAS) and e)consultations with communities in the countrieswhere the project took place.

Findings. The benchmark for this study is the1994 Final Report of the World Bank’sParticipatory Development Learning Group.This strategy focused on: a) promoting a moreenabling environment for participation withinclient countries, b) increasing participation ineconomic and sector work, c) ensuring thatlending and economic and sector workidentified and involved relevant stakeholders,d) strengthening Bank capacity for participationwork through training and recruitment, e)allocating resources and provide incentives tomainstream participation, and f) monitoringand evaluating progress towards achievingparticipation goals.

The OED study found indicators ofparticipation progress for World Bank activities.Primary stakeholder participation in Bank-assisted projects increased significantly between1994-1998 with more participation incommunity-level activities and lessparticipation in infrastructure services activities.Since 1996, most of the increase has been incollaboration and empowerment. For the CAS,the benefits of participation have improved therelevance of projects to stakeholders, given asense of pride and ownership to participatingNGOs and local people and strengthenedrelationships between Bank and CASparticipants. There has been a substantialincrease in the CAS participation of non-governmental stakeholders and examples ofbenefits include better identification ofdevelopment constraints in Kenya andimproving the application of participatorystrategies in Guatemalan projects.

However, the study also revealed somedisappointing trends related to the quality,effectiveness and impacts of participation.Participation for projects has become too rushedand superficial. The use of participatoryapproaches has been uneven over the projectcycle; most participation took place during thepreparation stage and only nine percent of the



projects included participatory monitoring andevaluation. This pattern weakened theaccountability of project implementers toprimary stakeholders. Stakeholder participationin CAS varied; meetings were sometimes justopportunities for the Bank to present and gainacceptance for its country programs rather thanto learn about local priorities. In terms ofimpacts, only modest gains have been made forinstitutional development and participation inBank projects has not necessarily influencedimplementing organizations. The study foundthat the key obstacles for governments relatedto participation included resistance toparticipation, as well as lack of capacity andexperience with participatory approaches andthe necessary follow-up. Within the Bank, staffmembers cope with scarce time and funding forparticipatory activities, rigid project cycles andinconsistent management support. Although thedata is weak, it appears that projects arespending two to twelve percent of their budgetson participation, with most of the funds comingfrom governments or trust funds. Communitymembers also bear the costs of participationwhen voluntary labor or time is required. Thefindings indicate that individuals cannot beexpected to participate if they perceive theirindividual costs of doing so to be greater thantheir expected benefits.

To improve participation within the Bank, thestudy recommends that the Bank developcountry-level approaches, linked to projects andother instruments, to increase the impact ofparticipation. The Bank should encourage thecommitment of governments to participatoryapproaches by funding a more systematicgovernance approach to participation thatwould include decentralization, institutionalreform, transparency and accountability. Otherrecommendations including advocating a shiftfrom the current focus on facilitatingparticipation via Bank instruments (such as theCAS and project preparation) to more of a

capacity-building approach to participation.This approach would ensure that governmentagencies have the capacity to undertakeparticipatory activities, including monitoringand evaluation, with communities. OED alsosuggested improving the quality ofparticipation in projects and CAS preparationby developing benchmarks, standards andguidelines for participation and also byconducting local institutional analysis as part ofthe design process.

27. World Bank. 2001. “Forest PolicyImplementation Review and StrategyA Revised Draft Strategy for the World BankGroup.” World Bank, Washington, DC.

Available from: http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/ESSD/FORESTPOL-E.NSF/23471269758d6018852566270079d1cf/28c6db741f3f059785256a9b00545be9?OpenDocument

Keywords: collaborative forest management(CFM), community, community participation,conflict (management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), forest management participation,forest policy, Indigenous (communities, groups,peoples), participation, poverty (alleviation,reduction), World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This draft documentdescribes the Bank’s proposed new forestrypolicy and strategy for forestry-related projects.Participation issues are given greater attentionin Annex 2 that is focused on forestry andpoverty reduction.

Findings. Participation is discussed in severalsections of the draft forestry policy. As a globalchallenge, forestry issues in development arecontentious. Participation is key to resolvingconflicts between forest stakeholders anddevising policies that do not threaten the rightsof specific groups among the poor. Because the



Bank has a poverty reduction mission, Bankforest policies and projects will need to considerthe impact of forestry projects on communitiesand include them as key stakeholders informulating policies and projects that affectaccess and use of forests. The draft policystresses the dependence of communities,especially indigenous communities, on theeconomic and subsistence resources of forests.Community participation is included as part ofthe poverty reduction strategy for regionalprograms. The progress of poverty reductionefforts will be assessed by the existence andachievements of participation in forestprograms.

Participation is also listed as one of the majorprinciples of national forest programs. TheBank’s role in forestry will be to work withclient countries to ensure the rights of forest-dependent peoples. The means to accomplishthis objective include strengthened policies,institutions, and legal frameworks to ensurethat women, the poor, and marginalized groupsare active in forest policies and program. Inaddition, the Bank will support the scaling-upof collaborative and community forestmanagement. Other efforts will include workingwith NGOs and other partners to integrateforestry into rural development. Following thekey policy elements, the revised strategy focuses

on harnessing the potential of forests to reducepoverty, integrating forests in sustainableeconomic development and protecting globalforest values.

Annex Two on Forestry and Poverty Reductionfurther articulates social issues and relevantparticipatory approaches. For example,indigenous peoples and some other forest userstypically rely heavily on forest resources fortheir livelihoods, yet their tenure, access, andrights are often limited by government policies.Conflicts can develop between subsistenceusers, commercial users and forest managers. Toaddress these issues, the Bank’s povertyalleviation strategy adopts collaborative forestmanagement (CFM). The Bank encourages thedevolution of control over forest management tolocal actors. There are also some recurringdeficiencies related to participation in forestrymanagement. There has been a tendency torestrict participatory forestry management toareas of degraded forest. Often, there isinsufficient consideration of women’s concernsand the gender- specific use and management offorests and forest products. Management bodieshave mistakenly assumed that the poor arehomogeneous and they have not accounted forstakeholders with diverse interests, uses, values,and claims to forest resources. While donorshave promoted participatory development andthe devolution of control, these goals have notalways been achieved due, in part, to in-countrygovernment resistance and insufficient capacityof local management agencies.


28. Alexander, S.E. 2000. “Resident AttitudesTowards Conservation and Black HowlerMonkeys in Belize: The Community BaboonSanctuary.” Environmental Conservation 27 (4):341-350.

Available from: http://uk.cambridge.org/journals/enc/

Keywords: Belize, benefits, benefit sharing,community, Community Baboon Sanctuary,ecotourism, local, local attitudes, awareness andenvironmental education, managementcapabilities, management collaboration

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study aimed todefine residents’ feelings about resourceprotection in their communities and theirattitudes toward management of the Sanctuary.Member and non-member households weresurveyed, representing three of the eightvillages located within the Sanctuaryboundaries. Seventy-four percent of the samplewere member households and 26 percent werenon-member households.

Findings. The Belizean Government views theCommunity Baboon Sanctuary as a model forparticipatory ecotourism development.

Membership in the Sanctuary is voluntary. Itinvolves a commitment to protect reverieresources as habitat for black howler monkeys(Alouatta nigra).

While most local residents understand theintrinsic, aesthetic and material values of thisimportant resource and recognize thatprotection of it can provide opportunities forpromoting ecotourism activities in theircommunities, some members are dissatisfiedwith the project and threaten to withdraw theirmembership. Although the howlers hadincreased in number since the Sanctuary’sestablishment, many residents felt that neithertheir households nor themselves werebenefiting. Some Sanctuary members arguedthat management was not well organized andthat benefits to communities and individualswere not evenly distributed. Key issuesincluded the extent and nature of benefits tolocal residents, perceptions regardingmanagement capabilities and howmanagement is responding to these issues.

While these problems existed, the majority ofresidents did not want the Sanctuary abolishedand strongly supported maintaining Sanctuarystatus. They might not be reaping benefitsdirectly but they admitted that their lives wereno worse off than before and they recognized

Part B

Review of External Documents



that some members were benefiting. They hadhope that they, too, would be able to eventuallytake part in some type of tourism business. Forlong-term local support to be assured,management must orient its work to moredirectly address those factors that influenceresidents’ attitudes about the project. Thesefactors include the extent of local participation,representative organization, sound managementstructure, effective management capabilities,fair employment allocation, and educationopportunities for community residentsregarding the howlers, protection of theirhabitat and the value of resource conservation.

29. Anderson, P. N. 2001. “Community-BasedConservation And Social Change AmongstSouth Indian Honey-Hunters: AnAnthropological Perspective.” ORYX 35 (1): 81-83.

Available from: http://www.blackwell-science.com/~cgilib/jnlpage.asp?Journal=oryx&File=oryx

Keywords: commercialization, community,community-based conservation, consultation(consultative workshops), eco-development(committees, policies), honey-hunters,incentives (economic, other), India, local, localparticipation, control, ownership, social, socialchange

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This articlereconsiders the use of financial incentives forsecuring the participation of ‘local’ people inconservation programs. The author raisesseveral less-discussed social consequences ofthese types of incentives. He focuses on a SouthIndian honey-hunting ‘tribe.’

Findings. Anderson outlines the involvement ofthis ‘tribe’ with an eco-development program

and the market economy. He notes thatcommercializing ‘traditional’ livelihoods mayincrease the general ‘standard of living’ but canundermine the social ‘fabric’ of the community.It can also aid in the rationalization of custom.He concludes by suggesting that socialdevelopment should precede economicdevelopment for communities in transitionbetween subsistence and commodity-orientedeconomic practices.

30. Badola, R. 1999. “People and ProtectedAreas in India: Challenges of Joint ForestManagement and Eco-development.”UNASYLVA 50 (4): 12-14.

Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x3030E/x3030e05.htm#people and protectedareas in india

Keywords: capacity, capacity building, eco-development (committees, policies), forestprotection committees, India, institutions, jointforest management, national policy (forestry,framework), policy, protected areamanagement, resources (sharing, use),stakeholders, tenure (rights, security,community-based, devolution, land rights, userights), village eco-development committees,World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper examinesthe new eco-development policy in India andassesses the weaknesses and strengths of eco-development and joint forest managementapproaches for protected area management inIndia. India’s network of protected areas cover9.1 million hectares and constitute about 14percent of the country’s forest area. They havehelped to conserve significant portion of thecountry’s biodiversity.

Findings. Although the basic approach to themanagement of protected areas (PAs) has been



isolationist, there has been a shift in recent yearstoward participatory approaches in forestmanagement and biodiversity conservation. In1988, the National Forest Policy in Indiadeclared that all local communities were to beinvolved in natural resource conservation.Subsequently, in 1990, the Indian Ministry ofEnvironment and Forests issued a circular forjoint forest management (JFM) and resourcessharing. The JFM approach sought to developpartnerships between state forest departments(as owners) and local community organizations(as co-managers). User groups received usufructrights only. Since 1991, the government hascommitted funds for eco-development in 80 PAsthrough a centrally sponsored scheme and inseven PAs with World Bank officials. The eco-development approach integratesenvironmental and forest activities with otherdevelopment activities such as irrigation,animal husbandry, fisheries etc. It is an attemptto reduce forest dependence and to compensatecommunities with some type of alternativeincome-generating opportunities. As part of thisapproach, village eco-development committeesor forest protection committees administer alllocal eco-development activities.

The eco-development approach has benefits andweaknesses. The eco-development approachacknowledges that the people living near PAsmay have to bear enormous opportunity costswhile deriving few benefits from conservation.However, there are there is lack ofunderstanding of eco-development amongforest department officials and local people,who may fear their loss of rights. Participatorymethods, such as Participatory Rural Appraisaland Rapid Rural Appraisal, are widely used butnot properly understood or applied and theForest Department. This agency tends to betotally non-participatory in its decision-makingprocesses and has difficulty practicing what ithas only recently begun to preach. In addition,Indian PA management does not have financial,

managerial and administrative autonomy. Thus,the procurement of funds, expenditures andcontrols are unclear. The Indian legal, policyand administrative frameworks also do notreflect the new inter-department cooperationenvisaged by eco-development.

From a policy and strategic perspective, thereare additional problems. The eco-developmentapproach has neglected to push for changes inland tenure legislation and agrarian reformsthat could provide incentives to invest in landimprovement and conservation. For example,under the present tenurial arrangements, it hasbeen difficult to involve local people inconservation. While the list of eco-developmentactivities is comprehensive, it does not amountto a strategy. As a result, the conservation-development linkages are generally weak andhave not been able to control land use of the PAfringes.

The article outlines some ways forward toovercome these problems. The authorsrecommend capacity building and training forfield staff and local communities to createconservation awareness. Local level institutionsthat previously had an essential role insustaining resource use patterns should berestored. In addition, institutional linkages withmainstream development programs need to beformalized. Finally, conservation projects mustaddress the different resource priorities andrequirements among the various sectors of acommunity by establishing equitablepartnerships among all stakeholders.

31. Barrow, E., H. Gichohi, and M. Infield.2000. “Rhetoric or Reality? A Review ofCommunity Conservation Policy and Practicein East Africa.” Evaluating Eden Series No. 5.London: International Institute forEnvironment and Development and the WorldConservation Union.



Available from: World Conservation Bookstore,http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/index.html

Keywords: access, collaborative management, co-management, community, communityinvolvement, community-based conservation,history, Kenya, Lake Manyara National Park,outreach, ownership, participation,participation processes, Participatory RuralAppraisal (PRA), Tanzania, Tanzanian NationalParks Planning Unit and CommunityConservation Service (TANAPA), Uganda

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This book examinesthe history and practice of communityconservation in Kenya, Tanzania, and Uganda.It covers the evolution of exclusionary parkmanagement to the most recent approaches andstructures of protected area outreach,collaborative management and community-based conservation. The book includes a case ofthe successful use of community participationfor park planning and management in LakeManyara National Park by the TanzanianNational Parks Planning Unit and CommunityConservation Service (TANAPA).

Findings. The authors briefly discuss twoperspectives on community conservation - aparticipation perspective and an ownership andaccess perspective. Their framework forcommunity conservation is based on ownershiprather than on participation. From thisperspective, participation should be seen as atool and not a solution to communityconservation. Resource and land ownershipallow for more participation and collaborationbetween locals and authorities.

Local-level participation runs throughout thebook because the book emphasizes structuresfor community management. The authorsexplicitly discuss participation in a section on

enabling community conservation. They pointout several difficulties with participation inprotected areas. Truly inclusive participation isunrealistic because of limits on the resources ofconservation authorities. PRA can be misusedand outside facilitators often cannot noticewhen more dominant groups can impose theirviews. In terms of time, participation imposescosts on local people. Although people tend toparticipate because they expect something inreturn (e.g., improved access or a significantrole in resource management), participationprocesses often lead to no benefits for localpeople. At times, the documentation ofparticipatory processes can be misleadingbecause they are prepared by vested interests.For example, community concerns raisedduring a participatory process can be“laundered out” by the time the final documentis prepared.

32. Beltran, J, ed., 2000. “Indigenous andTraditional Peoples and Protected Areas:Principles, Guidelines, and Case Studies.”World Conservation Union, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and WWFInternational, Gland, Switzerland.

Available from: http://wcpa.iucn.org/pubs/publications.html

Keywords: accountability, agreements, benefits,benefit sharing, collaborative management, co-management, collaborative research, conflict(management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), decentralization and devolution,guidelines and guiding principles, indigenous(communities, groups, peoples), indigenousresource use, national boundaries, principles,restricted co-management, traditional authority,traditional groups, transparency

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This IUCN bookpresents principles and guidelines for the



planning, implementation, and management ofprotected areas (PAs) that also involve localindigenous and traditional groups (Part A). PartB includes eleven case studies featuringindigenous people participation in PAmanagement.

Findings. WWF and IUCN/WEPA adopted fiveprinciples. First, indigenous resource use andconservation are compatible and indigenouspeoples are rightful equal partners in themanagement of PAs. Two, agreements betweenindigenous groups and protected areamanagement must respect indigenous rights.Three, decentralization, participation,transparency, and accountability should betaken into account in areas of PA management.Four, indigenous peoples should share equallyin benefits with other stakeholders. Five,indigenous rights and protection are aninternational responsibility because PA systemscross national boundaries.

Principle 3 covers participation andinvolvement. The authors suggest that existingmanagement institutions should be reformed toaccommodate co-management and co-management should occur under a formalarrangement. Both agencies and indigenousgroups should be involved in reporting andmonitoring. For new PAs, they should only beestablished with the agreement of theindigenous group stakeholders and formalrecognition of land and resource rights. Theestablishment of new PAs should make use ofcollaborative research. All parties need to bemutually accountable and management will bedesigned in a collaborative process. Agencieswill promote communication and necessarypolicy changes. They will also develop conflictresolution procedures and the capacity ofindigenous organizations.

The eleven case studies present three maintypes of management collaboration: unrestricted

co-management, restricted co-management, andnon-participatory management. Each of theeleven case studies described the involvementof indigenous groups but not all of them areideal models. Each case is followed by a criticalevaluation of the collaboration. The authorsmade three global observations aboutparticipation in the case studies: 1) whereparticipation has taken place early in theplanning process, there have been positivebenefits for both indigenous peoples andmanagers, 2) the wider the participation, theless like the chances for conflict, and 3) whereco-management exists, the challenge is tostrengthen and extend it; where it does not exist,it should be established.

33. Biodiversity in Development Project. 2001.“Biodiversity in Development: GuidingPrinciples for Biodiversity in Development,Lessons from Field Projects.” WorldConservation Union, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

Available from: http://www.wcmc.org.uk/biodev/reports/guiding_principles.pdf

Keywords: biodiversity, biodiversity costs andbenefits, European Community/Union,guidelines and guiding principles, institutionalarrangements, institutions, national capacity,planning, planning theory

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This report aims toensure that development cooperation projectsand programs are effective and sustainable, andtake full account of environmental security andbiodiversity issues. It captures the experiencesand opinions of people working on biodiversityissues in European Community (EC) partnercountries and offers lessons learned fromEuropean Community/European Union-fundedfield projects. The production of the report



involved consultations with 98 workshopparticipants from 35 countries and 4 sites.

Findings. The report condenses the lessonslearned into a set of seven Guiding Principlesand provides short, illustrative cases. All of theGuiding Principles have implications forparticipatory conservation. Principles A, E andG suggest harmonizing biodiversity objectiveswith on-going national institutional capacity,policy frameworks (including adapting tenuresystems to suit local and national priorities) andmulti-sectoral, ecosystem-based planningapproaches. However, four Principles areclosely tied to social concerns (B, C, D and F).

Principle B focuses on the promotion of a fairand equitable sharing, among all levels (local,national, regional and international), of the costsand benefits from biodiversity conservation andsustainable use. For participatory approaches tosucceed and be sustainable, stakeholders needto see the benefits fairly early in the projectprocess. If short-term benefits are unattainable,then project managers need to suggestcomplementary short-term developmentactivities. Field experience indicates that ifconservation measures disregarded thelivelihoods of poor farmers, then they had littlechance of success. But income-generatingactivities that were not associated with thenatural habitat did not lead to improvedbiodiversity management. For tourismactivities, sites must be carefully selected,community should be directly involved andtourist revenue contributions to communityrural development must be carefully regulated.

Principle C emphasizes the need to respect localvalues and build upon social and culturalcontext. Projects should respect expressed needsand locally adapted approaches, as well asmaking full use of indigenous or localknowledge. Project approaches should buildpartnerships between civil society, government

and the private sector. To ensure fullparticipation, project should listen carefully andconduct PRAs to assess local needs, preferencesand culture.

Principle D indicates that there is a need tosupport capacity building of sustainablestructures and to ensure that institutionalarrangements are effective, transparent,accountable, inclusive and responsible. Forexample, the Negril Environmental ProtectedArea was the first of its kind in Jamaica butreplication was slow because the necessaryadministrative experience, legislation andmanagement infrastructure were missing.

Principle F indicates that it is important to useaccurate, appropriate and multidisciplinaryinformation. This information needs to beaccurate, accessible and understood by allstakeholders.

34. Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1999.“Final Stories from the Field.” BiodiversitySupport Program, Washington, DC.

Available from: www.BCNet.org or www.BSPonline.org

Keywords: Asia, benefits, benefit sharing,biodiversity conservation and protection,Biodiversity Conservation Network,Biodiversity Support Program (BSP),community, community enterprises, forests,India, marine, monitoring, monitoring andevaluation, natural resources (management,monitoring and evaluation), Pacific and PacificRegion, Papua New Guinea, stakeholders,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This book provides20 stories detailing the lessons learned from



enterprise-based biodiversity conservationprojects in Asia and the Pacific. Each accountdescribes how projects worked closely withcommunities and established a communityconservation project. The examples includeforests and marine environments.

Findings. The projects show how theBiodiversity Conservation Network’s (BCN)three core conditions for success are met in eachenterprise project. The conditions are 1) theactivity must depend upon the health of thebiodiversity to yield benefits and be sustainable,2) enterprises must generate benefits in both theshort and long terms when BCN funding ceases,and 3) the enterprise must involve localcommunity members who are stakeholders. Allof the BCN projects contributed to biodiversityconservation by meeting threats, directlyprotecting biodiversity, improving institutionsand educating individuals. The stories alsoshow how to organize a community ofstakeholders to take effective action andfundamentally illustrate BCN’s basic conclusionthat these enterprises can lead to conservation,but only under certain conditions and never ontheir own.

BCN was established to promote biodiversityconservation at specific project sites, evaluate anenterprise-oriented approach to conservationand develop process lessons. At each site, thebiodiversity was threatened by over harvestingof key species, conversion of natural habitatsand/or the development of human settlements.Each project attempted to meet these threats bydeveloping one or more enterprises thatdepended on the biodiversity of the site andincorporated local concerns. There was anemphasis on natural resource monitoring andevaluation. The project armed communitieswith the appropriate tools and techniques tocollect the data needed for informed decision-making to address these threats.

The series of examples in this book highlight theuse of participatory approaches to improve anddevelop enterprises while conserving thenatural resource:

In the Biligiri Ranganswamy Temple WildlifeSanctuary in India, BCN funded enterprise andparticipatory resource monitoring activities tosupport Joint Forest Management. Theysupported a honey-processing unit, a food-processing unit that processed jam and otherfood products and a herbal medicine-processingunit. In addition, BCN provided inputs onissues such as management and distribution ofprofits. From the third year of the project, thecommunity was involved in participatoryresource monitoring (e.g., preparation ofvegetation maps, determination of relativeabundance of woody species, work onpollination, seed dispersal and assessment ofthe impact of fire and weeds on the populationdynamics of tree species). To train enterpriseworkers and other community members, theproject helped to prepare simple manuals onproduction, extraction and regeneration. Whilethere has been some success on conservingbiodiversity, BCN concludes that four years istoo short of a period to initiate, implement andevaluate the project. Further project progresswill depend upon the extent to which thecommunity is able to maintain transparency anddistribution of equitable benefits for theenterprise operations and continueparticipatory monitoring.

In Papua New Guinea, landowners had beenselling their timber rights to large foreignlogging companies for a fraction of their truemarket value. In the BCN community, aparticipatory rural appraisal indicated that thecommunity wanted development because theyhave no access to roads, seas or the relativelyinaccessible forest. Their cash incomes are verylow and they have few economic option.Therefore, the Pacific Heritage Foundation and



its partners are using BCN funds to counterlogging threats and provide alternative sourcesof income to residents of six communities inEast New Britain Province. The project aims toreduce the decline of forest resources bydemonstrating the sustainability of small-scale,community-owned sawmill enterprises andproviding economic alternatives. The projectalso supported social and biological monitoringwork and conducted education and awarenesstraining efforts. BCN acknowledged that it isparadoxical to put saws in the hands ofcommunities to save the rainforest but theirlocal partner, the Pacific Heritage Foundation,believes that educating the population andeffective monitoring of the resource will ensurethe creation of a system of sustainable logging.

35. Brandon, Katrina, Kent Redford, andSteven Sanderson, eds. 1998. Parks in Peril:People, Parks, and Protected Areas. IslandPress, Washington.

Keywords: Caribbean, conflict (management,resolution, mapping, risk assessments),economic development, Indigenous(communities, groups, peoples), Latin America,local, local attitudes, awareness andenvironmental education, national policy(forestry, framework), natural resources(management, monitoring and evaluation), neo-tropical parks, organizational (roles andstructures), park, park establishment, park-buffer zone linkages, Parks in Peril, policy,resettlement, resources (sharing, use), tenure(rights, security, community-based, devolution,land rights, use rights), The NatureConservancy (TNC), threats, transboundary,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This analysis looksbroadly at The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC)

“Parks in Peril” portfolio (PiP) and examinesthe impacts of ecological, social, and politicalfactors on biodiversity conservation. Theanalysis features nine case studies of neo-tropical parks in the Latin America andCaribbean region. The methodology includedsite visits, park documents and discussions bythose living in and near parks to capture the“ground truth” from park staff and inhabitants.Each of the studies covers eight themes: parkestablishment, land and resource tenure,resource use, organizational roles, linkagesbetween park and buffer zones, conflictmanagement and resolution, large-scale threats,and national policy framework. The studies alsotreat three additional themes, indigenouspeoples and social change, transboundaryissues and resettlement. The editors ask whetherthe assumption that humans can both use andconserve biodiversity holds by pointing out thatthat all human resource use has impacts andthat cost-free “win-win” solutions do not exist.They state that “there needs to be substantialrethinking about parks and about what canrealistically be expected of efforts to manageand protect them” (p. 11).

Findings. Looking at all PiP sites, the editorsdescribe four categories of strategies andactivities for local resident participation in parkplanning and management: local awareness andenvironmental education, natural resourcemanagement, compatible economicdevelopment, and involvement in protected-area management. The editors treat theseactivities as a vehicle to “win the trust andcooperation of community members” (p. 69).Building local awareness is the most commonparticipation activity at PiP sites, especiallythrough environmental education. Among themost advanced of the environmental educationactivities is the Rio Bravo Conservation andManagement Area in Belize. Outreach topromote the concepts of sustainabledevelopment and conservation/economic



relationships is targeted to schools andcommunities. A majority of PiP sites havedeveloped small-scale sustainable resourcemanagement projects involving particularcommunities or individuals. Common activitiesinclude livestock breeding, beekeeping,aquaculture, agroforestry and agroecology.Some PiP sites include development that iscompatible with conservation by providinghealth services and health education andecotourism development. The most popularmethod of including locals in management is byhiring them as guards, extensionists, office staff,study assistants and maintenance staff.

Of the nine case studies, only three officiallyrecognize community participation. The formand extent of community participation varies.For example, in Mexico’s Ria Lagartos SpecialBiosphere Reserve, a Technical Advisory councilis the only institution available for localparticipation in management and conservationdecisions. A similar council is planned for thenearby Ria Celestun Reserve. However, itremains to be seen, according to the casewriters, whether these councils will live up totheir full potential as fora for communicationamong local stakeholders and conflictresolution. It is more likely that the councilsserve to transmit and mobilize support forfederal government policies. In Guatemala,NGOs are able to manage parks. Defensores, theNGO charged with managing the Sierra de lasMinas Biosphere Reserve, maintains strongrelationships with local communities. Theyprovide environmental education, technicalassistance and training to community groupswithin the Reserve. Defensores prepares yearlymanagement plans with extensive localparticipation. During the month-long process,dozens of communities evaluated past activitiesand planned future ones. In Costa Rica’sCorcovado National Park, the Proyecto deManeho y Conservation de Bosque de laPeninusula de Osa (BOSCOSA) project worked

with locals on several initiatives. These effortswere geared toward strengthening local supportfor development and economic activities thatwould be compatible with conservation. Acommittee brought together locals, project staff,government staff and other governmentalinstitutions involved with the Osa Peninsula.They developed the Osa 2000 developmentplan. Current BOSCOSA activities includetraining to strengthen local institutions forcommunity forestry, sustainable resource use,and environmental education.

36. Castro, G., L. Alfaro, and P. Werbrouck.2001. “A Partnership Between Governmentand Indigenous People for ManagingProtected Areas in Peru.” Parks 11 (2): 6-13.

Available from: The World Commission onProtected Areas, www.wcpa.iucn.org.

Keywords: Global Environment Facility (GEF),indigenous management of conservation areas,indigenous rights, local, local resource use andrights, Peru

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This article describeslessons learned from the participatory strategyused to create a model management scheme fortarget conservation areas managed byindigenous groups. The project selected areasusing a participatory process. Organizationsinvolved in this process included Peruvian parkand development agencies, NGOs, indigenousgroups, and two indigenous group federations.The Global Environment Facility funded thisproject.

Findings. The project learned how recognizewhen local indigenous management will bemore successful. The prospects for the success oflocal management improve when groups areorganized, maintain cultural values and



identities, possess traditional knowledge ofnatural resources, have access to abundantresources and there is knowledge of indigenouspeople’s rights. Local management isundermined by weak organizational structures,lack of capacity in participatory methods anddemocratic decision-making, poor healthconditions, limited energy sources andtransportation networks, lack of managementplans and insufficient knowledge of markets.

Project lessons and challenges suggest that: 1)the trade-offs between conservation and localresource use that must be balanced usingparticipatory methods, 2) management plansare not always able to control local resource use,and 3) there are difficulties in working withdiverse communities with different culture,values, and languages.

37. Colfer, Pierce, R.L. Wadley, and P.Venkateswarlu. 1999. “Understanding LocalPeople’s Use of Time: A Pre-Condition forGood Co-Management.” EnvironmentalConservation 26 (1): 41-52.

Keywords: collaborative management, co-management, Danau Sentarum WildlifeReserve, Indonesia, protected area conservation,time allocations, West Kalimantan

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. As an early step inthe co-management of conservation areas, theauthors describe and propose the wider use of amethod for studying time allocation. The use oftime allocation data in co-management isillustrated by a conservation project in theDanau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve (DSWR) inWest Kalimantan, Indonesia. The authorsanalyzed data from spot observations at threelevels: “macro-categories” (i.e., production,reproduction and leisure), an intermediate level(e.g., agriculture and food preparation) and a

level for individual activities (e.g., fishing,collection of forest foods and hunting).

Findings. The collaborative development ofmanagement plans with local people (e.g. co-management) is now an important means ofprotected area conservation. Formal protectedarea managers often need more specificinformation about the local people with whomthey want to co-manage resources. In theDSWR, the allocation of time differed accordingto gender, ethnicity and seasonality, throughoutthe year of the study. Colfer and Venkateswarlusuggest that knowledge of such patterns ofbehavior has several advantages. Thisinformation can help conservation areamanagers to understand local people’s needsand desires better. It can improve the rapportbetweenmanagers and local people. In addition, it canresult in better cooperative plans withlocal people.

38. Diamond, Nancy K, ed. 2001. “HumanRights, Indigenous Rights and EnvironmentalIssues: Linkage Lessons.” Session 3,Environmental-Democracy GovernanceExchange (EDGE) Roundtable Series.Biodiversity Support Program, Washington,DC.

Available from: http://www.bsponline.org/publications/asia/roundtable/0101summary.html

Keywords: Biodiversity Support Program (BSP),democracy (and decision-making), governance,government, Indigenous (communities, groups,peoples), Inter-American Development Bank,International Human Rights Law Group,mainstreaming indigenous concerns, Nicaragua,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)



Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The EDGERoundtable Series is part of the BiodiversitySupport Network’s ENV-DG Linkages Initiativeto encourage discussion between expertsinvolved in building democracy andgovernance and experts in the environmentalsector. This session focused on the link betweenindigenous rights and environmental issues andhow the concerns of indigenous peoples fit intothe environmental and democracy-governanceagendas of donors. The speakers were ArielDulitzky, International Human Rights LawGroup and Carmen Albertos, IndigenousPeoples and Community Development Unit(IPCD), Inter-American Development Bank(IDB).

Findings. Dulitzky discussed the linkagesbetween human, indigenous, andenvironmental issues in Nicaragua and hisorganization’s work there. The InternationalHuman Rights Law Groups worked to increasethe ability of indigenous groups to seek justice.They provide information, education andtraining for indigenous leaders and supporttheir advocacy efforts.

Albertos, the speaker from the IDB, pointed outthat indigenous groups often have economicand social practices that are appropriate forprotected areas. They are a resource for projectsthat seek to decentralize governmentresponsibilities. She explained how the IDB hasmainstreamed indigenous concerns andrecognized and worked with differingindigenous governance styles. The IDB has beensuccessful in mainstreaming because of theirinstitutional mandate, capacity, will, andpositive attitude toward change.

Discussion participants raised a range ofconcerns. Although the IDB tailors itsapproaches when working with indigenous

groups to respect cultural differences in the paceand timing of meetings, presentation, decision-making styles and sometimes uses traditionalpractices, multilateral lenders in the World BankGroup do not systematically coordinate theirefforts related to indigenous peoples. The IDBtends to have more leverage in working withgovernments than do NGOs and can provideloans to pay for participatory planning.Participants discussed the difficulty ofdetermining who legitimately representsindigenous groups. Sometimes, internationalgroups or national group bring togetherindigenous representatives, depending on thecircumstances. In some cases, it is appropriate toestablish new, more representative indigenousorganizations to represent indigenous peoples.Finally, environmental organizations sometimeshave difficulty supporting indigenous rightswhen these communities choose to pursueeconomic activities that damage theenvironment.

39. Diamond, Nancy K, ed., 2001. “BuildingPolitical Capital Outside of Capitol Cities:Advocating for Rural Rights and Livelihoods.”Session 4, Environmental-DemocracyGovernance Exchange (EDGE) RoundtableSeries. Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.bsponline.org/publications/asia/roundtable/0103summary.html

Keywords: Africa and Africa Region, Asia,Biodiversity Support Program (BSP), Center forInternational Environmental Law, civil society,community, community-based property rights,democracy (and decision-making), donors,environmental advocacy, governance,pluralism, United States Agency forInternational Development (USAID), WorldResources Institute (WRI)



Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The EDGERoundtable Series is part of the BiodiversitySupport Network’s ENV-DG Linkages Initiativeto encourage discussion between expertsinvolved in building democracy andgovernance and experts in the environmentalsector. This session focused on advocacy relatedto rural rights and livelihoods and how supportfor civil society and environmental advocacycan further democracy-governance goals.Presenters included Peter Veit, (WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC) and OwenJ. Lynch (Center for InternationalEnvironmental Law, Washington, DC).

Findings. Veit argued that support for pluralismin government and civil society groups is moreeffective for environmental protection andencouraging participation than efforts tosupport multiple political parties. According tothe speaker, multiple political parties have notresulted in meaningful change in environmentalprotection. However, the success ofenvironmental advocacy has depended more oncivil society and governmental pluralism. Hesuggested that donors phase investments tosupport civil society first and political parties,second. He found that NGO advocacy in Africahas been most effective where it wasconstrained by neither totalitarian states ortradition-bound societies.

Lynch argued for better recognition ofcommunity rights to resources. Governmentshave not promoted CBNRM agreementsbetween communities and governments andhave not recognized indigenous community-based property rights. Instead, governmentsand donors, including the World Bank, continueto promote individual private property rights.Lynch suggests a new category of private-grouprights that encompasses individual and

common property rights within community-based natural resource management (CBNRM).

Discussion participants made severalobservations about civil society, democracy-governance and environmental advocacy. Civilsociety and government pluralism tend to buildupon each other. Environmental advocacyNGOs tend to start with environmental goalsbut eventually shift to broader democracy-governance concerns. It was noted thatbiodiversity conservation implies restrictingrights to resources while NRM programs implymaking economic use of resources. The degreeto which a government shares control of naturalresources depends upon the unique evolution ofinstitutions and resource values. In some cases,communities may have resource rights but theyhave inadequate access to courts and justice.

40. d’Ostiani, L.F. 1999. “Lessons Learned froman Interregional Experience in ParticipatoryUpland Development.” UNASYLVA 50 (1): 9-11.

Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x0963e/x0963e04.htm

Keywords: Food and Agriculture Organization(FAO), Italian Government, ParticipatoryUpland Development Project, training (capacitybuilding, needs, workshops)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The purpose of thisarticle is to highlight those lessons related toparticipatory projects in mountain areas thathave major relevance and significant potentialfor replication elsewhere.

Findings. The Interregional Project forParticipatory Upland Conservation andDevelopment has been funded by the Italian



Government and executed by FAO. It has beenunderway since 1992. The project staff havelearned that participatory sustainable mountaindevelopment projects are very complex tomanage. These projects require expertise in awide array of disciplines. To successfullyaddress the needs and wishes of interestedparties, project staff should be well-trained inthe difficult process of negotiation, includingconflict management.

41. Enters, T. and J. Anderson. 1999.“Rethinking the Decentralization andDevolution of Biodiversity Conservation:Questioning Prevalent Assumptions aboutCommunity Management of ForestResources.” UNASYLVA 50 (4): 6-11.

Available from: http://aginfo.snu.ac.kr/research/unasylva/pdf/199_03.pdf or http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/X3030E/X3030E04.HTM

Keywords: biodiversity conservation andprotection, community, community forestmanagement (and scaling-up), conflict(management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), decentralization and devolution,forest communities, Integrated ConservationDevelopment Projects (ICDPs), livelihood(strategies, systems), tenure (rights, security,community-based, devolution, land rights, userights)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This articlechallenges current thinking by examiningseveral of the main principles upon whichdevolution and populist approaches tobiodiversity conservation and forestmanagement are based. The focus in this articleis on forest and/or forest margin dwellers andtheir livelihood strategies in tropical forests.

Findings. In the traditional approach tobiodiversity conservation, local people and theireconomic activities were viewed as threats tothe undisturbed functioning of the ecosystemand were to be excluded from protected areas.However, it became evident that the social costsof exclusionary conservation projects weresometimes high and that their success rate, evenin biological terms, was disappointing.Therefore, the classic approach was replaced byintegrated conservation and developmentprojects (ICDPs) that have aimed to enhancebiodiversity conservation through approachesthat attempt to address the needs, constraintsand opportunities of local people by involvinglocal people as active partners. However, thesuccess rate of ICDPs has also beendiscouraging. Despite this result, many continueto view decentralization and devolution ofmanagement responsibilities as the onlysolution for maintaining ecosystems and it isdifficult to question these assumptions.

The authors challenge three assumptions thatunderpin the concept of partnership inparticipation: 1) local populations are interestedand skilled in sustainable forest resource useand conservation, 2) contemporary localcommunities are homogeneous and stable, and3) community-based tenure, knowledge andmanagement systems are appropriate.

To contest the first assumption, the authors citeevidence of increased community harvesting ofnon-wood forest products in response to marketdemand and community problems withcontrolling resource action and taking collectiveaction for managing common or wild resources.They conclude that prior patterns of sustainableresource management can be attributed to lowlevels of use, traditional restrictions andregulations and low market demand forresources. The authors indicate that it is naïve tobelieve that people are interested in biodiversityconservation and that they prefer to keep



traditional practices and knowledge. Theyargue that locals may desire material goods anda better standard of living from forestmanagement. However, these goals may not beconsistent with sustainability.

Second, the authors argue that contemporarylocal communities are not necessarilyhomogeneous and stable. In reality, villagers areoften politically fractured and sociallydifferentiated along gender, wealth, class, age orethnic lines. Perceptions of biodiversity aresimilarly differentiated. Furthermore, differentinterest groups that are subsumed in thecategory “community” interact with the localenvironment and its resources in different ways.They may respond differently to changes in thelocal economy and other external forces.

Third, the authors question the appropriatenessof community-based tenure, knowledge andmanagement systems. Increased tenure securityhas been linked to sustainable farmingpractices. When applied to forest management,it is assumed that people are only willing toinvest their scarce resources in conservation ifthey know they will reap the rewards. Theauthors contend that much uncertainty remainsregarding the implications of tenure change anddevolution for resource conservation. There areboth positive and negative examples fromBolivia. Some local governments in indigenousareas patrol their areas to avoid encroachmentfrom logging companies. Others have sufferedfrom petty corruption and sold their timberresources to logging companies with littleconcern for sustainable production. Thus, itappears that tenure security is necessary butinsufficient condition for sustainable forestmanagement and conserving biodiversity.

The authors provide several recommendations.They urge consideration of all socio-economicand political groups in biodiversityconservation work since the needs and interests

of other stakeholders frequently contradictthose of direct users. It is important to recognizethe stratified nature of rural societies. In somesituations, it may be necessary to consciouslyabandon those areas where communities havealready made choices that are likely to causelong-term conflict with conservation.

42. Few, R. 2000. “Conservation, Participation,and Power: Protected-Area Planning in theCoastal Zone of Belize.” Journal of PlanningEducation and Research 19 (4): 401-408.

Keywords: Belize, biodiversity conservation andprotection, coastal zone, participation, power,protected area planning

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Drawing on debatesover social impacts of biodiversity conservationand the role of power relations in communityparticipation, this paper reports on fieldresearch examining community involvement inprotected area planning in Belize. The researchtakes an actor-oriented approach to analyze thesocial, political,and technical processes involved in initiatingand planning of two protected area projects.

Findings. The author focuses on the scope ofpublic involvement, the power differentialsamong actors in the planning process and themechanisms through which power wasexercised. He observed an emerging patternwhereby planning officials endeavored tomitigate or circumvent social and politicaldissent rather than foster an active, broad-basedform of community participation. The papersuggests that the notion of containment mayhave a general applicability wherever protectedareas are planned by external agencies that aimto engage local participation.



43. Fisher, R. J. 1999. “Devolution andDecentralization of Forest Management inAsia and the Pacific.” UNASYLVA 50 (4): 3-5.

Available from: http://aginfo.snu.ac.kr/research/unasylva/pdf/199_02.pdf

Keywords: Asia, decentralization and devolution,forest management, forest policy, local, localparticipation, control, ownership, Pacific andPacific Region

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. In the contemporarydiscussion of forest policy, decentralization anddevolution are dominant themes. This articleidentifies different models of implementation,trends in implementation and offersrecommendations as to how it can be improved.The focus on the article is on Asia and thePacific.

Findings. The author presents three typical typesof decentralization and devolution. In the first,governments encourage local publicparticipation in the implementation of decisionsand plans that have been made centrally. For thesecond, the responsibility for decision-makingand implementation is decentralized fromcentral to local government bodies. In the thirdscenario, control is handed over to localcommunities. The author notes that theassumptions of various people advocatingdevolution are often inconsistent and fail todistinguish devolution from decentralization.

To enable meaningful devolution, the authorrecommends several actions. There is a need todevelop trust between foresters and localcommunities. Further investment is needed forlocal capacity building in responsiblemanagement. Safeguards are necessary forforesters to monitor management. But in turn,foresters must be answerable to communities. If

communities have had no part in decision-making processes, then their ability to manage aresource responsibly cannot be accuratelymeasured. Finally, the author suggests thatcommunity-based activities should not bejudged more stringently than conventionalforest management (which has not had perfectresults).

The article concludes that it is not enoughsimply to diversify the responsibility forimplementing centrally defined objectives.Instead, decentralization and devolution policyand implementation must progress to genuinelydevolved forms of decision-making and jointobjective setting. Otherwise, decentralizationand devolution will contribute relatively little tosustainable forest management or humandevelopment.

44. Griffin, J., D. Cuming, S. Metcalfe, M.t’Sas-Rolfes, J. Singh, E. Chonguica, M.Rowen, and J. Oglethorpe. 1999. “Study on theDevelopment of Transboundary NaturalResource Management Areas in SouthernAfrica.” Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, DC.

Available from: Biodiversity Support Program athttp://www.bsponline.org/publications/

Keywords: benefits, benefit sharing, BiodiversitySupport Program (BSP), community,community-based natural resource management(CBNRM), decentralization and devolution,heterogeneous communities, tenure (rights,security, community-based, devolution, landrights, use rights), transboundary naturalresource management (TBNRM), transparency,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. USAID funded thisstudy on transboundary natural resource



management areas (TBNRM) in Southern Africato help guide its future work in natural resourcemanagement. The study methodology consistedof stakeholder consultations, a literature review,the circulation of draft papers on specific topics,and large and small consultative meetings withregional stakeholders. The document discussesparticipation as part of approaches tocommunity-based natural resource management(CBNRM).

Findings. A focus on communities has madeCBNRM successful and the authors argue thatthe long-term success of transboundaryconservation and natural resource management(TBNRM) rests on whether or not communitiesbecome real partners as opposed to merebeneficiaries. The extent to which communitieswill be included in collaborative TBNRMdepends upon whether communities areorganized at local, regional or bilateral levels toassert themselves in policy dialogues andwhether they are recognized in official circles.The recognition of communities is conditionedby how much governments have empoweredthem to control their own resources.

Typically, there is tension between customaryand statutory understandings of community.Internally, communities are heterogeneous. Inparticular, lineage and gender-based issues areimportant factors in community-basedmanagement for TBNRM in Southern Africa.However, governments often view communitiesas a uniform unit in policies and laws. As aresult, communities sometimes struggle tobehave as a single stakeholder when dealingwith other stakeholders.

Other problematic issues influence CBRNMsuccess. The private sector often seeks decisionsat higher, more official levels because it hasbecome frustrated by the slow pace ofcommunity decision-making and rigidadministration. These situations can lead to a

lack of transparency and corruption, as well ascommunities feeling cheated by theirgovernments. In addition, in southern Africa,lack of clarity around the conferring andapplication of tenure and use rights is a centralproblem for CBNRM schemes. This problemaffects groups such as pastoralists and womenresource user groups who rely on resourceslocated across community, sub-national, andnational borders.

The authors discuss devolution in relation toCBNRM. Devolution has typically been limitedto giving rights to smaller statutory authoritiesor traditional authorities or a mix of thesegroups. However, rights are generally not givenat the household or individual level. Accordingto the authors, CBNRM is “fixated at theinterface between the community (meso) andlocal and regulatory authority (macro) levels.”

Five principles of devolution are key toCBNRM. First, resources should have focusedvalues so that communities can compare costsand benefits. Second, differential burdens leadto differential benefits. Third, there needs to bea positive relationship between managementquality and benefits realized. Fourth, the unit ofproprietorship should be the unit of production,management, and benefit. Fifth, the unit ofproprietorship should be small. However,applying these principles can be problematic.Practitioners are unsure of the best economic,ecological, and local criteria to use indetermining management units. The mainproblem is that communities lack strongproperty rights on communal lands. Fordevolution to be successful, it must include all“bonafide” stakeholders, even if the processmust be slowed to build the capacity of localgroups.

45. Hockings, M., S. Stolton, and N. Dudley.2000. “Evaluating Effectiveness: A Frameworkfor Assessing the Management of Protected



Areas.” World Conservation Union, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.


Keywords: community, evaluation, protectedarea planning, stakeholder evaluations

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This book isintended for protected area and evaluationprofessionals. It provides a framework and toolsfor evaluating the management effectiveness ofall types of protected areas in developing anddeveloped countries.

Findings. Management effectiveness relates todesign of parks and park systems, theappropriateness of management systems andprocesses and the achievement of goals.Protected area (PA) planning or managementagencies are the principal stakeholders ofevaluations. They are interested in knowingwhether the goals of the PA are being met. Localcommunities have an interest in knowingwhether a PA is meeting its objectives andconstitute another stakeholder group. Idealevaluations will include partnerships betweenmany players including local managers, senioragency managers, government agencies fromother sectors, local communities, indigenousgroups, NGOs, donors, and private sector staff.All relevant stakeholders should be included.The authors also suggest that a transparentsystem is needed to make results available to allstakeholders. Besides having clear managementgoals and criteria for assessing them,management evaluations should includeindicators of social, environmental, andmanagement issues and also how the PA relatesto its surroundings. They need to focus on themost important issues and give broadconsideration of all of the factors that affectmanagement (such as design and context).

The authors suggest a scoring system as anevaluation tool. Several items in a scoringsystem to evaluate management processes andoutputs relate directly to local participation.Management engagement with the neighbors ofPAs is scored at four levels (i.e., no contact,limited contact, regular contact, andcooperatively addressing of mutual concern).An element on residents and traditionallandowners scores the level of localparticipation in management (i.e., no or littleinput, input but no involvement, directcontribution to management in some areas, anddirect contribution to management). Additionalpoints can be assigned when there is opencommunication and trust between managersand locals.

46. Horowitz, L. S. 1998. “IntegratingIndigenous Resource Management withWildlife Conservation: A Case Study ofBatang Ai National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia”Human Ecology 26 (3): 371-403.

Keywords: Batang Ai National Park, conflict(management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), customary law, Iban, indigenousmanagement systems, Integrated ConservationDevelopment Projects (ICDPs), land and forestmanagement, local, local authority, Malaysia,park, participation, Sarawak, wildlife

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper examinesthe indigenous land and forest managementsystems of a community comprised of sevenIban longhouses. Their territories comprise thearea of Batang Ai National Park in Sarawak,Malaysia. It also discusses the integratedconservation and development program (ICDP)at the park.

Findings. To enlist the cooperation of localpeople and their leaders in implementing a newconservation strategy, this Malaysian ICDP is



attempting to work within the existing systemof customary law. It aims to build upontraditional legislative infrastructure andmanagement practices. In addition toreinforcing local authority, park planners haverecognized that it is necessary to offer strongincentives to local people for their participationin co-management of the protected area.

Despite a history of conflict between the Stateand indigenous peoples, Horowitz argues thatState officials have demonstrated a willingnessto work with local people and communityleaders in this particular situation. At the sametime, they are encouraging communitydevelopment. They have helped local people tofind alternatives to activities that threaten thepark’s wildlife.

47. Infield, M., and A. Namara. 2001.“Community Attitudes, and Behavior TowardsConservation: An Assessment of ACommunity Conservation Programme AroundLake Mburo, National Park, Uganda.” ORYX35 (1): 48-60.

Available from: http://www.blackwell-science.com /~cgilib/jnlpage.asp?Journal=oryx&File=oryx

Keywords: community, community attitudes andbehavior, community development, community-based, conservation, Uganda

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper analysesthe impact of a Community ConservationProgramme (CCP) implemented over a seven-year period around a national park in Uganda.The authors conducted a survey of communityattitudes.

Findings. CCP activities included dialogue,conflict reduction, education, communityresource access and support for community

development. The attitudinal surveys ofattitudes showed that communities who hadbenefited from the program were significantlymore positive towards the park and wildlifethan communities that did not receive benefits.The CCP built an understanding of conservationobjectives amongstcommunities whose members were more likelyto recognize positive aspects of thepark and less likely to demand that it bedegazetted.

However, comparisons over the seven-yearduration of the CCP do not show thatcommunities were generally more positivetowards conservation over the life of the project.Communities were more critical of managementand demanded more support and resourcesthan they had received. Their behavior was notgreatly changed and high levels of poachingand illegal grazing continued. Communityattitudes were influenced by receipt ofdevelopment assistance but improvements werefragile. They were vulnerable to the poorbehavior of park staff and law-enforcementactivities that were seen as contradictory tocommunity approaches. Land ownership andeconomic occupations also influencedcommunity attitudes.

The authors conclude that the CCP was not apanacea for the problems of the park. It did notresolve fundamental conflicts of interestbetween communities and parkmanagement. However, it did change the waythe protagonists perceive andinteract with each other.

48. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1999.“Parks for Biodiversity: Policy GuidanceBased on Experience in ACP Countries.”World Conservation Union, GlandSwitzerland and Cambridge, UK.




Keywords: Africa and Africa Region, capacity,capacity building, Caribbean Region,decentralization and devolution, local, localparticipation, control, ownership, Pacific andPacific Region, World Conservation Union(IUCN)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Intended to provideinformation to the public, this book offersbackground information and summarizes themain points from three regional strategies(Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific Region)that were presented to the EuropeanCommission.

Findings. Local participation is a concern thatruns throughout the book. The authors point outthat donors should “be suspicious of anyprotected area project that does not haveactivities with the local community at its heart.”The background section also describes fiveprinciples derived from the Caracas Action Planfrom the Fourth World Congress on NationalParks in Caracas, Venezuela. The secondprinciple explicitly calls for the involvement oflocal people. While it may be more expensiveand complex, approaches that encourageparticipation are more likely to succeed. Thissuccess is, in part, attributable to the fact thatparticipatory conservation requires less formalpolicing since local people often act as unpaidguardians.

The authors discuss categories and issuesrelated to protected area stakeholders. The booklists five stakeholder categories: 1) the publicsector, such as electric and water utilities; 2) thecommercial sector; 3) non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs); 4) research institutions;and 5) local communities. The first step ofprotected area work involves identifying theobvious and not-so-obvious stakeholders, suchas military and religious groups.

The book recommends several approaches forworking with local communities. The WorldConservation Union’s (IUCN) ParticipatoryAction Research approach encourages localpeople to research and understand their naturalresources. When they gain an understanding oftheir impacts on their resources, they are moreempowered to take charge of the planning andmanagement processes. As much as possible,managers should include locals in managementthrough boards and co-management structures.When necessary, protected area projects shouldraise the local standard of living by tyingdevelopment to the conservation of core areas.In the past, Integrated Conservation andDevelopment Projects have only supportedconventional development in areas surroundingcore areas. In some areas, they haveinadvertently attracted more people to thelocation and put more pressure on resources inthe core area. Responsibility and financing forprotected areas should be devolved to thelowest level possible. Projects should encouragelocal leadership and community initiatives.Achievements can be recognized through awardschemes, public ceremonies, and personalcontact above all.

In Africa, parks face a two-fold challenge –making protected areas contribute to local needswithout compromising conservation andfinding ways for conservation go generateincome to cover more of the local costs. For theformer challenge, the basic park managementstrategy has involved integrating developmentneeds with conservation. IUCN recommendsthe co-management model as one option.However, co-management involves risksbecause it can be difficult and time-consuming,vulnerable to corruption and pressure fromvested interests and a lack of community andstaff capacity and democracy at the local level.

For the Caribbean region, participation is onlybriefly mentioned in the strategy. What ismentioned is an overriding belief is that parks



must be able to generate income for localresidents. Tourism is intended to play a largerole in creating economic opportunities. Co-management and participation are seen asmeans to foster local cooperation and reduceconflicts between managers and locals. It isnoted that “the community has to organize itselfinto a form in which it can participate indecision-making. ” Communities must reach apoint where they can think about long-termsustainability and not just meeting immediateneeds.

The Pacific Region strategy discusses theuniqueness of the region in terms of tenure.Customary tenure dominates rather thangovernment ownership of natural resources. Asa result, these governments have little controlover what happens in sensitive areas.Conservation practitioners must work directlywith the communities and owners of land andmarine areas. Local owners have considerablerespect and knowledge of their naturalresources but are tempted to exploit resources inorder to join the cash economy. In this context,the most appropriate role for donors is to workthrough community groups and NGOs in orderto negotiate with owners. According to IUCN,Pacific Island governments believe that a TrustFund is the best way to support conservation.These funds are believed to be the bestmechanism for providing funding in the mostappropriate, small scale for community-basedconservation. A Trust Fund has the potential tomaintain the approaches that have beensuccessful to date. These approaches take along-term approach and provide small butsustained amounts of funding. They buildcapacity and minimize the use of outsideexperts. They have the flexibility to meet theneeds of communities in the “driver’s seat” andallow activities to be led by communitydemand.

49. IUCN (World Conservation Union). 1998.“Protected Areas in the 21st Century: FromIslands to Networks.” Conference Report,January, 1998, Albany, Australia. WorldConservation Union, Gland Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

Request from: World Conservation Bookstore,http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/index.html

Keywords: capacity, capacity building,indigenous role, management capabilities,management collaboration, Pacific and PacificRegion, protected areas, Venezuela, WorldConservation Union (IUCN)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Several plenarysessions and papers in this conference reportwere briefly discussed in this conference report.The report does not provide papers discussed inthe plenary sessions.

Findings. In a plenary entitled “The ChangingNature of Society,” speakers noted thatindigenous peoples are playing an importantrole in protected area management and there isa continued need for managementcollaboration. Often, the interests of indigenouspeoples and conservation managers coincidebut there are few forums where stakeholderscan resolve conflicts. There is increased use ofco-management. It has been effective atresolving many deep-rooted conservationproblems that stem from poor communicationbetween managers and local communities.Speakers also emphasized that devolution hasbeen valuable and that stakeholders mustcontinue to be fully involved in management.

“The Capacity to Manage” plenary sessionnotes observe that protected area managersneed to gain skills in communication,negotiation, and obtain greater socio-economic



knowledge. Managers will need to incorporatelocal knowledge into management and tocommunicate the values associated withprotected areas. There is a need to trainmanagers on co-management strategies andhow to work with communities. Communitygroups need training to increase their capacityto be managers of protected areas. Thesummary did not specify exactly whatknowledge locals would need.

Several conference papers discussed the role ofparticipation. A paper on the Convention onBiological Diversity stated that the protectedarea planning and management must be done“with and through” local communities. “TheRoad from Caracas” paper details the progressmade since the 1992 World Parks Congress inCaracas, Venezuela. It mentions that manycountries have been promoting collaborativemanagement of PAs that covers the full range ofparticipation from consultation to collaborativemanagement arrangements. While the role ofindigenous peoples is increasingly prominent, itis still often inadequately considered in PAmanagement. For the Pacific Islands region, apaper on marine protected areas (MPAs) statedthat successful MPA management is atransparent process that uses local participationat every step, builds stakeholder capacity andintegrates traditional and modern conservationapproaches. Because government-led PAmanagement has failed, other managementarrangements have arisen where communitiesown and depend upon the resources to beconserved. For the South Pacific BiodiversityConservation Programme, the maincharacteristics of management are localownership, full local participation, locallydriven processes, and benefits for locals.

50. Kramer, Randall, Carel van Schaik, andJulie Johnson. 1997. “Last Stand: ProtectedAreas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity.”Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Keywords: compensation, exclusion of people,Integrated Conservation Development Projects(ICDPs), local, local participation, control,ownership, Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) (capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry), social, social issues, social threats,tropical rainforests

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The overall focus ofthe book is on the loss of biodiversity in tropicalrain forests and the role of protected areas instemming this loss. This book is the culminationof several years to bring together people from avariety of disciplines, national backgrounds andwork experience to share ideas aboutconservation of biodiversity in the tropics.Tropical rain forests are disappearing rapidlydue to human encroachment and have becomethe subject of international concern. The bookmoves from general topics such as “what isbiodiversity” and the history of the parkmovement to more complex questions andconcepts. For example, what are designproblems that need to be improved to keepprotected areas (PAs) functioning as viableecosystems? What are the social threats to PAs?How successful have Integrated Conservationand Development Projects (ICDPs) been andwhat is the role of local participation in PAmanagement?

Findings. In a chapter on user rights andbiodiversity conservation, the authors explicitlydiscuss the devolution of rights to local people.They point out that there are two main schoolsof thought regarding the devolution of rights tolocal people. Some argue that the only way tovest locals in the maintenance of forestresources is to give them specific, income-enhancing rights to its use. Others point tonumerous examples of local populations thathave exploited their forest resources in waysthat are not sustainable, degrading the



biodiversity of the area. The authors suggest theprimary issues shaping the devolution debateare population pressure and equity issues.Population pressure drives incursions ontoprotected areas and inequitable distribution ofland and other resources forces disenfranchisedindividuals to rely on protected areas toenhance their incomes. Several other issues leadto encroachment. Insecure tenure createsperverse incentives to exploit the forestresources at unsustainable rates. There are alsoconflicts between formal laws/policy andtraditional norms, between traditional users andnew migrants and between traditional usersversus commercial enterprises.

Using three case studies from Costa Rico,Bolivia and Belize, the book recommends howpopulation pressure and equity can bereconciled with preserving biodiversity throughcreative user-rights arrangements. In CostaRica, the keys to success included stronggovernment commitment, the institutionaliza-tion of these commitments via the creation ofseveral autonomous NGOs, clear links betweenprotection of biodiversity and economicprosperity, establishment of professional andfinancial relationships with international NGOsand local investment. In Belize, the success ofthe project was the result of respect for, anddependence upon the local entrepreneurialcapabilities of the local population, as well aslinks to international NGOs. In Bolivia, wherethe project was less successful, incomeopportunities were created without providingmechanisms for limiting the subsequent influxof colonizers into the area. As a result, there wasgreater in-migration and both locals andmigrant were forced into harvesting within theprotected area.

In the final analysis, the book highlights fourprinciples that would successfully improveprotected area management. The first principleis that active protection, through law

enforcement, should be a fact of life forprotected areas, irrespective of whether or notlocal people are involved, for sustainability intothe future. The second is that it is reasonable toask that beneficiaries elsewhere be prepared topay for these benefits, which they currentlyreceive at no cost. It is largely city dwellers andothers are benefiting directly or indirectly fromthe protected resource. Payment measures mayinclude taxation, or support by privatefoundations. The third principle is that foreigninvolvement in the management of a country’sbiodiversity is justified, particularly intransboundary or “common” cases. Much likeozone, biodiversity is perceived to be a commongood. The fourth principle is that activeinvolvement of local communities inconservation is mandatory because theinvolvement of locals is likely to significantlyimprove protection. However, although thisdevolution of PA management is effective at thecommunity level, the interests of otherstakeholders, national or international, shouldalways be represented. These interests need tobe represented, if not at the executive level, thenat the oversight level. Thus, the advantages ofdevolution should be married to the strongpoints of state involvement.

51. Lane, M.B. 2001. “Affirming NewDirections in Planning Theory: Co-Management of Protected Areas.” Society andNatural Resources 14 (8): 657-671.

Available from: http://tandf.catchword.com/titles/08941920.htm

Keywords: collaborative management, co-management, conservation management, local,local stakeholders, planning, planning theory

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This article considersthe trajectory of change in planning



theory over the past 50 years and demonstratesthat planning theorists haveconverged on similar ground to managers ofprotected areas

Findings. In recent years, the conservationmanagement literature has seen many calls forco-management of parks and protected areas.The rationale for this approach toprotected area management has come from theexperience of park managers who are strugglingto integrate protected areas into thesocioeconomic fabric ofsurrounding regions. This rich experienceinforms calls for more co-management schemes.

However, a theoretical rationale for, andexplanation of co-management have been slowin coming. Developing cooperativerelationships with local stakeholders andsharing the burden of managementresponsibilities have emerged as a potential newparadigm in natural resource planning.Therefore, protected areas provide a context toempirically test many of the ideas and conceptsthat are being debated among scholars ofplanning.

52. Lohmann, 1998. “Same Platform, DifferentTrain: The Politics of Participation.” TheCorner House Briefing Paper 4. Abstractedfrom: Hildyard, Nicholas, Hegde, Pandurang,Wolverkamp, Paul and Somersekhave Reddy.1998. “Same Platform, Different Train:Pluralism, Participation and Power.”UNASYLVA 49(3).

Available from: http://cornerhouse.icaap.org/briefings/4.html

Keywords: India, marginalized groups,participation, participation development,poverty (alleviation, reduction), Western GhatsForestry Project

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This article discussesthe politics of participation in the Western GhatsForestry Project in India.

Findings. The author notes that manycommunity groups take a suspicious view of thenew vogue among development agencies forforms of participatory development. Some ofthese groups see donor participatorydevelopment as an attempt to activelyundermine local efforts to reclaim control overthe institutions, forests, fishing grounds, fieldsand rivers upon which their livelihoods depend.

The Western Ghats Project illustrates some ofthese issues. The Western Ghats project wasintended to ensure that poorer people, women,tribals and other disadvantaged groups whowere dependent upon the forest were “notworse and preferably better off.” However, inmany cases, the project caused considerablehardship to local villagers. For example, theproject located funded plantations mainly onvillage commons. In these areas, villagers andparticularly the poorer villagers derive pasturefor animals, fuel, manure, medicinal plants andother products to fulfill their basic needs. Now,women much travel longer distances to obtainfirewood. Increasingly, they must take thiswood from forestlands. The result is oftenfurther forest destruction. In addition, despiteefforts to include women, the project ended upmarginalizing the voices of many women, inparticular lower-caste women.

NGOs played a key role in altering the project toincorporate greater involvement of villagers anda poverty-oriented focus. However, manymodifications were simply tacked on to anexisting framework rather than substantivelyinfluencing project design. The project wouldhave taken a very different shape if the NGOs,let alone the villagers, had drawn up their own



project rather than modify someone else’s.However, many NGOs continue to participatein these types of projects because they believethey can exert influence.

In conclusion, the Western Ghats projectillustrates that “participation” is likely to offerlittle to marginalized groups if it fails to engagewith the distribution and operations of powerwithin local communities and the wider societyin which they live. Facilitating measures may beimportant in negotiations. However, they arenot sufficient. Marginal groups need to begranted the bargaining power to overcome thestructural dominance enjoyed by more powerfulgroups. Therefore, participation requires widerprocesses of social transformation andstructural change to the system of socialrelations through which inequalities arereproduced. To address the structural causes ofinequality, it is necessary to make policychanges and rethink the means by which suchchange is achieved.

53. MacKinnon, K. 2001. “IntegratedConservation and Development Projects- CanThey Work?” PARKS 11 (2): 1-5.

Available from: The World Commission onProtected Areas, www.wcpa.iucn.org.

Keywords: Integrated ConservationDevelopment Projects (ICDPs), park, parkmanagement and park managers, poverty(alleviation, reduction)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. MacKinnon providesthe editorial introduction on IntegratedConservation and Development Projects to thisspecial issue of PARKS.

Findings. The author points out the broad andmulti-dimensional roles that protected areas are

increasingly expected to play. These rolesinclude protectors of biodiversity anddevelopers of the communities that live withinand around parks. However, biodiversityconservation and development objectives oftenconflict. The author believes that the linksbetween conservation and developmentopportunities are unclear and cases where thereis a link are rare. Although participation is oneelement of ideal integrated conservationdevelopment projects (ICDPs), it is oftendifficult to fairly target communities andindividuals for development.

Park managers are generally poorly equippedand lack the financial resources to tackle issuesthat extend well beyond park boundaries. Theseissues include poverty alleviation, tenure andresource allocation issues, as well as social,justice, and market failures. However, training,education, and awareness campaigns have beensuccessful in building local support forconservation.

54. Maguire, Patrick, Nonette, Royo, LaurentSome and Tatiana Zaharchenko. 2000.“Lessons from the Field.” BiodiversitySupport Program (BSP), Washington, DC.

Available from: http://www.BSPonline.org

Keywords: Biodiversity Support Program (BSP),capacity, capacity building, community,decentralization and devolution, empowerment,institutional capacity, strengthening,institutions, power, threats, United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. For years,conservationists have treated decentralizationas a “magic bullet.” On the whole, decentralizeddecision making and increased user grouprights have promoted reforestation. However,



there have been problems and the BSP study,“Shifting the Power: Decentralization andBiodiversity Conservation” suggests a morecomplicated scenario. BSP conducted a studyasking two questions: does decentralizationempower the people living in direct contactwith natural resources and if this power shiftoccurs, does it result in environmental policiesand management practices that reduce threatsto biodiversity?

Findings. Obstacles to decentralization inconservation were numerous. Adopting laws todecentralize power did not guarantee that itwould occur or that it would prove favorable toconservation. Decentralization was oftenaccompanied by neo-liberal reforms that reducethe government’s responsibilities all across theboard including the task of ensuring that localactors carry out their responsibilities. The BSPstudy suggests that it is optimal to build inreciprocal forms of accountability between thelocal and national levels. The study also showedthat while communities face a problems thatlead to resource degradation, decentralizedconservation programs are unlikely to overcomethese problems although they may help addresssome of them. In some areas, local peopledistrust conservationists. They fear that theprograms they bring will diminish their accessto resources. BSP’s Senior Program Officer withthe KEMALA project also indicated that withdecentralization, it is easier to get permits to cutdown the forest.

The BSP decentralization study proposesseveral principles for effective conservationpractice. It is important to know, for allstakeholders, the meaning, value and existingrights to the natural resources. It is alsonecessary to know who benefits most and leastfrom conservation actions. It is helpful toidentify institutional partners with authorityand legitimacy, local non-conservation goalsand their relationship to conservation goals.

There is a need for more research and efforts toaddress underlying social factors behindenvironmental threats. It is important to payattention to the position of any potentialconservation allies hold within the localcommunity as a whole. It is helpful to findinstitutional partners with capacity and buildthe capacity of local resource managementstructures instead of creating new ones. Projectsshould work with groups normallymarginalized from the public arena, encouragelocal-national linkages and discourage meredivestment of functions and authority.

55. Margoluis, R., Cheryl Margoluis, KatrinaBrandon, and Nick Salafsky. 2000. “In GoodCompany: Effective Alliances forConservation.” Biodiversity Support Program,Washington, DC.


Keywords: alliances, biodiversity conservationand protection, Biodiversity ConservationNetwork, Biodiversity Support Program (BSP),Fiji, India, Indonesia, international agencies,Nepal, Non-Governmental Organizations(NGOs) (capacity, roles, executing agencies, hostcountry), Papua New Guinea, Philippines,Solomon Islands, Threat Reduction Assessment,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study focuseson the characteristics of effective conservationalliances and their member organizations andthe key principles that can help organizationswork together more effectively. The authorsexamined a range of alliances working topreserve conservation and conservation NGOsinvolved in these alliances. The sample focusedon 20 projects supported by the BiodiversityConservation Network (BCN) in Fiji, India,



Indonesia, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, ThePhilippines and the Solomon Islands. Thesample included 39 sites, 43 organizations and37 enterprises. To measure whether a projecthad an impact upon biodiversity conservationat each site, the authors used the ThreatReduction Assessment (TRA) approach. Thistechnique evaluates the area, the intensity andthe urgency of each threat, as well as the degreeto which all threats have been addressed byproject activities. The authors drew from theliterature and conventional wisdom to select theindependent variables that were thought toinfluence conservation success. They used semi-structured questionnaires to interview BCNstaff and alliance personnel.

Findings. The study findings showed somedisagreement with the conventional wisdomregarding alliances. For example, neitherconservation NGOs nor internationalorganizations were best suited or most effectiveat managing and implementing conservationprojects. To be effective, organizations need toplay appropriate roles. Although internationalorganizations generally had the most controlover projects, these arrangements proved to beless effective and not sustainable. Local andnational organizations need to be involved sothat they can create and manage successfulconservation projects on their own. Projects thathave conservation goals and involve organizing,training or educating people who live aroundareas of high biodiversity may be bettermanaged by development organizations thatwork with local people.

The study confirmed some of the commonlyaccepted assumptions about alliancemanagement. Complex projects and alliancesoften come with more difficulties because theyare difficult to maintain in terms of time, energyand money. Although they may have hadgreater access to a variety of technical skills andfinancial resources, alliances with more member

organizations were not more effective. Moreflexible alliances were more likely to achieveconservation success as were alliances that hadone strong leader for creating and maintainingsuccessful conservation projects. Simpleralliances with fewer member organizationswere better able to establish and maintain clearproject goals. Simple alliances, such aspartnerships and contractual agreements, allowfor complementary resources and skills to beshared, while minimizing the resources thatneed to be invested by each partner.

56. McNeely, J., ed. 1998. Major ConservationIssues of the 1990s: Results of the WorldConservation Congress Workshops. WorldConservation Union, Gland Switzerland andCambridge, UK.

Request from: World Conservation Bookstore,http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/index.html

Keywords: biosphere reserves, collaborativemanagement, co-management, indigenousknowledge, intellectual property rights, poverty(alleviation, reduction), World ConservationCongress

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This book includesbrief summaries of the proceedings ofworkshops held during the first WorldConservation Congress. This meeting was heldin Montreal, Canada in 1996. It is intended towhet the appetites of readers for the topicsdiscussed.

Findings. Several workshop proceedingscovered participation issues related toconservation efforts in general, and lessspecifically to protected areas. The mostrelevant workshops related to ParticipatoryConservation included “Biosphere Reserves:Myth or Reality,” “Collaborative Management



for Conservation” and “Poverty, People, and theEnvironment.”

The “Biosphere Reserves: Myth or Reality”workshop explored operational issues forputting the biosphere reserve model intopractice. Three factors contributed to the successof biosphere reserves: 1) demonstrating thedirect benefits associated with the Reserve, 2)assuming an “outward focus” that is linked to atargeted communications and outreach strategy,and, 3) real, rather than token, input intodecisions by local people.

The “Collaborative Management forConservation” workshop discussed the issuesand possibilities provided by collaborativemanagement (CM). Two overarching opinionssurfaced toward CM – CM as an effective wayto manage resources and CM as a means topromote equitable access to resources. There issome concern that government should still haveresponsibilities as the caretaker of theenvironment, even when stakeholders areincorporated into CM. The disenfranchisedsectors of society should be included in framingCM rules. In addition, information should beshared to balance power among stakeholders.CM systems should be aware of, and build uponlocal knowledge and practices but notuncritically perpetuate harmful practices. Toavoid a heavy reliance on natural resources, CMschemes should offer diverse means forgenerating revenue and flexible incentives thatcan change with local conditions. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are usefulfacilitators but they risk intruding if theyconsider themselves to be stakeholders. Ingeneral, a long-term approach and support areuseful to craft the details of CM systems, buildtrust between government and communities,resolve conflicts that arise over time and lookout for the interests and rights of futuregenerations.

For the “Poverty, People, and the Environment”workshop, participants discussed possibleapproaches and policies related to a paradigmthat links conservation to poverty. The generalapproach includes preventing environmentaldegradation and providing livelihoodopportunities. However, trade barriers,intellectual property rights, tenure rights andparticipation influence biodiversityconservation. Trade barriers interfere with thesuccess of biodiversity conservation strategiesthat depend upon the sale of natural products(i.e., the negative impact of the ivory trade banupon Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE program).Despite the presence of intellectual propertyrights laws, individuals or communities thathold traditional knowledge with market valueare generally not compensated. Both publicpolicy and local tenure plans are needed toguarantee local resource rights.

In addition, stakeholder participation hashelped avoid destructive conflicts. In bufferzone management, successful participationstrategies have included involving andstrengthening local institutions, increasing localparticipation in decision-making; establishingstrategic alliances among stakeholders andworking by consensus and compromise. It alsohelps to recognizing the contradictions betweenshort-term poverty alleviation and long-termconservation goals.

57. Mehta, J.N., and J.T. Heinen. 2001. “DoesCommunity-Based Conservation Shapefavorable Attitudes Among Locals? AnEmpirical Study from Nepal.” EnvironmentalManagement 28 (2): 165-177.

Available from: http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00267/

Keywords: Annapurna Conservation Area,benefits, benefit sharing, community,community-based conservation, local, local



attitudes, awareness and environmentaleducation, Makalu-Barun Conservation Area,Nepal, people-park relations

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This article is gearedto the needs of policy-makers and resourcemanagers in Nepal and worldwide who areinterested in understanding whethercommunity-based conservation approaches leadto improved attitudes on the part of localpeople. It also discusses whether or notattitudes are influenced by the personal costsand benefits associated with variousintervention programs, as well as socioeconomicand demographic characteristics. The authorsexplore these questions by looking at theexperiences in Annapurna and Makalu-BarunConservation Areas, Nepal. The research wasconducted during 1996 and 1997; the datacollection methods included random householdquestionnaire surveys, informal interviews, andreview of official records and publishedliterature.

Findings. Like many developing countries,Nepal has adopted a community-basedconservation (CBC) approach to policyformulations, planning and management inrecent years to manage its protected areas. Thisnew approach has been adopted mainly inresponse to poor park-people relations. Underthis approach, the government has created new“people-oriented” conservation areas. It hasformed and devolved legal authority tograssroots-level institutions to manage localresources. In addition, it has fosteredinfrastructure development, promoted tourismand provided trainings on income generationfor local people.

The study results indicated that the majority oflocal people held favorable attitudes towardthese conservation areas. Logistic regression

results revealed that the most significantpredictors of local attitudes were participationin training, benefits from tourism, the wildlifedepredation issue, ethnicity, gender andeducational levels. These predictors wererelevant for one or the other conservation areas.The authors concluded that the CBC approachhas potential to shape favorable local attitudesand that these attitudes will be mediated bysome personal attributes.

58. Metcalfe, S. 1999. “Study on theDevelopment of Transboundary NaturalResources Management Areas in SouthernAfrica: Community Perspectives.” BiodiversitySupport Program, Washington, DC.

Available from: Biodiversity Support Program athttp://www.bsponline.org/publications/

Keywords: Africa and Africa Region, BiodiversitySupport Program (BSP), community,community perspectives, community-basednatural resource management (CBNRM),private sector, stakeholders, tenure (rights,security, community-based, devolution, landrights, use rights), transboundary naturalresource management (TBNRM), United StatesAgency for International Development (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This supplement tothe BSP Transboundary Study (see #39),explains specific community perspectivesregarding Transboundary Natural ResourceManagement (TBNRM) and Community-BasedNatural Resource Management (CBNRM). Itdiscusses many of the community managementissues presented in the main report and alsodescribes the relationships betweencommunities and other stakeholders,constraints to community management and theinterventions needed to improve community-based management.



Findings. Communities have differentrelationships with each type of stakeholder.Governments ultimately decide whether togrant rights and listen to community voices. Insouthern Africa, governments have not soughtthe participation of civil society and have notencouraged input from informally organizedrural communities. Communities are in greatercontact with the private sector because tourismprovides a new way to value natural resources.However, communities need clearer tenurerights to be seen by the private sector aspartners. NGOs have a history of building localcapacities. The ability of communities toparticipate with other stakeholders dependsupon their ability to establish community-basedorganizations. The role of donors can be unclear.While donors are necessary to support CBNRM,communities are unsure of where their interestsfall within donor priorities. CBNRM-related hashelped to inform stakeholders, identify issuesand conflict, as well as provide options.

The document lists the constraints tocommunity management from the point of viewof communities and proposes some solutions.These constraints include weak communalproperty rights and contestation of rightsbetween traditional and statutory authorities.The time demands of community managementcreate high costs. Large programs tend tomarginalize communities and there is a problemwith top-down implementation. There issometimes a lack of NGO transparency. Bothcommunities and government staff lack skills,including the skills needed to work together.Sometimes, cultural heritage is madesubordinate to conservation. Some activitieslack incentives for compatible land uses inprotected areas (PAs). To overcome theseconstraints, communities need to be involvedearly on in CBNRM initiatives. Governmentsshould improve the formal access rights forcommunities. Projects should support thedevelopment of community-based

organizations to represent communities at alllevels. It is important to encourage indigenousknowledge systems, provide training andcapacity building and support communicationand information sharing. TBNRM should be anextension of CBNRM and allow a uniqueprocess to develop that informs the institutionalstructure of TBNRM.

59. Metcalfe, Simon. 1996. “Whose Resourcesare at Stake? Community-Based Conservationand Community Self-Governance.” TheUniversity of Reading Agricultural Extensionand Rural Development Department. TheRural Extension Bulletin Number 10.

Available from: http://www.undp.org/eo/documents/who.htm

Keywords: CAMPFIRE, capacity, capacitybuilding, community, community self-governance, conservation, participation,participation evaluations and participatorymonitoring, planning, planning theory,stakeholders, tenure (rights, security,community-based, devolution, land rights, userights), traditional authority, traditional groups,United States Agency for InternationalDevelopment (USAID), Zimbabwe

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This four-pagearticle shows how political and social factorshave led to different community dynamics intwo different village wards and to very differentoutcomes in response to a project. It focuses onlessons from the CAMPFIRE project inZimbabwe.

Findings. According to the author, the conceptsof community and community ownership areattractive but are in danger of being idealized.Colonial interventions and the more recentintroduction of democratic structures based on



individual adult representation principles havealtered traditional systems of rights andobligations that govern access to resources.Conflict between these interventions andtraditional systems can rupture communityconservation policies.

Political and social differences influence howthe CAMPFIRE Project is able to operate. Forexample, in the Chapoto Ward of GuruveDistrict, there is conflict between thedemocratically elected Ward DevelopmentCommittee and the traditional chief. As long asthe chief’s authority is not recognized and thecommunity continues to support him, theeffectiveness of the CAMPFIRE Committee isundermined. For project activities in this area,CAMPFIRE has had to rely upon firm districtlevel oversight, supervision and enforcement.On the other hand, there is a viable relationshipbetween the Ward Committee and thetraditional chief in Kanyurira Ward.Communities adhere to decisions. In addition,this ward has had more consistent technical andinstitutional support than other wards.

Based on CAMPFIRE’s experiences, the authornotes several other challenges to community-based conservation. Programs are flawed if theyespouse community-based conservation but donot have a firm footing in national legislation.Projects that are not set within an integratedprogrammatic policy framework provide a poorenvironment for sound institutionaldevelopment. Half-hearted devolution ofresource tenure will lead to cooptation ofcommunities, not community –based naturalresource management (CBNRM). At the locallevel, there is a need reconcile traditional andstatutory authority since this issue directlyimpacts CBNRM. Finally, dedicated andsensitive implementation facilitates a welldesigned program’s successful outcome.

60. Pimbert, Michel, and Gujja Biksham. 1997.“Village Voices Challenging WetlandManagement Policies: Experiences inParticipatory Rural Appraisal from India andPakistan.“ Nature and Resources 33 (1).

Keywords: community, community opposition,conflict (management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), India, Keoladeo National Park,Pakistan, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA),protected area management, protected areamanagement, Punjab, Rajasthan, tenure (rights,security, community-based, devolution, landrights, use rights), training (capacity building,needs, workshops), Ucchali wetland complex,wetland management

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This article reportson the community-wetland interactions of twosites of international importance forconservation. These sites are the Ucchaliwetland complex in the Pakistani Province ofPunjab and the Keoladeo National Park in theIndian State of Rajasthan.

Findings. Although agencies drew upmanagement plans for these wetlands followingwestern scientific principles and theinternationally agreed guidelines of the RamsarConvention, local community opposition hashampered effective PA management. To preventmore intense conflicts with local communities,the conservation authorities initiated localconsultations related to wetland management.Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) werecarried out in several villages that neighboredthe two wetlands in India and Pakistan.

The purpose of the PRAs was three-fold. Oneobjective was to assess the social impact of thePA management system on local communitiesand to make the assessment available to allstakeholders. The second objective was to revise



the protected area management plans in thelight of the interactive dialogues between localpeople and outsiders. The third objective was toinitiate a dialogue on the policy reforms neededto involve local communities as equal partnersin wetland conservation. They were designed toinvolve key government and WWF staff inexperiential learning. The training workshopsand appraisals reinforced the message thatparticipation is not just the application of amethod. Instead, participation was viewed aspart of a process of dialogue, action, analysis,conflict resolution and change.

The PRAs revealed a profound mismatchbetween local experiences of the social andecological history of the wetlands and theperceptions of outsiders. External organizationsassume that the Ucchali and Khabbaki Lakes arenatural features of the landscape. However,villagers see Lake Khabbaki as a disaster floodzone instead of a lake. The wetland is of recentorigin and was formed by heavy rains over thelast 50 years. It sits on prime agricultural landthat is owned by neighboring villagers.Currently, Khabbaki is a waterfowl sanctuary.When it was created, local people’s prior landrights were neglected and this situation set thestage for conflicts between the state and localcommunities.

The interactive dialogue between the villagersand the conservationists revealed manyecological and social differences, includingdifferences between villages in the area. Duringthe PRA mapping and dialogues, the villagersdrew the boundaries of the wetlands and thesewere compared with those boundaries drawnby conservation scientists. The villagers shareda wider analysis of the wetlands. In addition,local level diversity suggests that standardizedand undifferentiated approaches to wetlandplanning and implementation are inappropriate.

The PRA also showed that farmers who had lostland or land rights could not appreciate thevalue of vague “long-term” conservationbenefits for society or humanity. In their view,conservation benefits should be immediate andquantifiable. Villagers felt that they should havea fair share of the benefits accruing fromsuccessful management of the wetlands or faircompensation for loss of productive resources.

To avoid further conflict, the authorsrecommend incorporating villager proposalsinto protected area activities. Villager proposalsshould be added to existing management andused to shape legal reforms. In addition,increased dialogue between villagers,conservation agencies and governmentdepartments must become an essential part ofthe development of compensation and jointmanagement schemes.

61. Rambaldi, Giacomo. 1997. “RRA as a Toolin Integrating People’s Participation inProtected Areas Management.” Sylvatrop 7 (1& 2): 28-39.

Keywords: National Integrated Protected AreasProgramme (NIPAP), Philippines, Rapid RuralAppraisal (RRA), traditional resourcemanagement

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper focuseson the Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) techniquesused for protected area (PA) management by theNational Integrated Protected Areas Programme(NIPAP) in the Philippines. Through aworkshop and data analysis, the NIPAPevaluated several communities to choose targetsites. Their criteria included economic,geographic, cultural and ecologicalconsiderations related to resource use andaccess.



Findings. The NIPAP assumed that sustainable,participatory community-based PA planningshould be based upon a thoroughunderstanding of local people’s knowledge,perception, practices and their relationshipswith natural resources. This understandingwould be progressive and would enhance theempowerment of local disadvantaged groups.In addition to helping to integrate localknowledge and traditional resourcemanagement systems into PA managementdesign, the NIPAP promoted a two-waylearning process between insiders andoutsiders. Direct participation of villagers indiscussions and workshops allowed them tohave a deeper understanding of their resources.In addition, the participatory learningexperiences enabled them to have more relevantand effective planning output for practical andreliable management strategies.

The NIPAP used Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA)as a strategy to integrate people’s participationin protected areas management planning. TheRRA tools and methods used at the village levelfocused on several techniques. The NIPAPundertook a historical transect to detail resourcechanges over time. The activity allowedvillagers to use culturally accepted indicators tomeasure resource changes. The project also didtwo-stage resource mapping to help farmers,forest dwellers and fishermen to depict theterritory and the distribution of resourcesknown to them. Social mapping enabledvillagers, usually women, to picture theirvillage, social infrastructure and services.Villagers participated in transects and transectmapping to identify resource use patterns.Seasonal calendars captured information onclimate, income and expenditures and seasonallivelihood matrixes described seasonal accessand or management of resources. Venndiagrams enabled the project to identifystakeholders and their relative importance andinteraction in the community.

62. Roe, D., Mayers, J., M. Grieg-Gran,A.,Hothari, C. Fabricius, and R. Hughes. 2000.“Evaluating Eden: Exploring the Myths andRealities of Community-Based WildlifeManagement.” Evaluating Eden Series No. 5.London: International Institute forEnvironment and Development and the WorldConservation Union.

Available from: World Conservation Bookstore,http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/index.html

Keywords: Africa and Africa Region, Asia,Australia, Central America, community,community-based wildlife management(CWM), community-government relationships,customary law, South America, stakeholders,statutory laws

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This book focuses ona study about community-based wildlife(CWM). The study assessed the environmental,economic, and social impacts of CWM. Itexamined the strengths of CWM for wildlifeconservation (Chapter 7) and the factors thatmake CWM work (Chapter 8). The bookincludes CWM case studies from Africa, Asia,Central America, South America and Australia

Findings. CWM increased environmentalawareness among community members andofficials. CWM has improved relationships,mutual respect and understanding betweenresource users and officials. Stakeholders havegained an expanded appreciation for thevalidity of both scientific and local knowledge.CWM shortcomings include the continuedpersistence of poaching due to a lack of lawenforcement, unsustainable use by communitiesin spite of CWM, introduction of exotic speciesand continued use of incompatible agriculturalpractices.



Environmental, social, human and physicalfactors contribute to successful CWM:

• From an environmental perspective, CWMsbenefit from clear and defensibleboundaries, a manageable scale and wildlifeare easy to monitor. Collective action ismotivated by sufficient scarcity of resources,resources have value and communities arein close proximity to resources. Otherfavorable factors include seasonal factorsthat affect livelihoods and the ease of use ofthe CWM scheme.

• Social attributes also help CWMarrangements to succeed. It is helpful tohave clear tenure rights, cultural valuesrelated to wildlife and low demand forwildlife. CWM works well with smallcommunities. It helps to have identifiablelocal stakeholders who have the capacity toresolve conflicts, negotiate with theirneighbors and equitably distribute benefits.Institutions for CWM need to representstakeholders, be built on motivation andretain flexibility. It helps to have effectiveuse rules and a balance between customaryand statutory laws. Finally, there needs tobe institutional space to build community-government relationships and coordinatedefforts among government, civil, andprivate organizations.

• Human attributes include a balance ofscientific and indigenous knowledge,versatile leadership, and education.

• Physical attributes include a strategy fordeveloping and maintaining finances andinfrastructure.

63. Rosenberg J., and F.L. Korsmo. 2001. “LocalParticipation, International Politics, and theEnvironment: The World Bank and theGrenada Dove.” Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 62 (3): 283-300.

Available from: http://www.academicpress.com/jem

Keywords: Global Environment Facility (GEF),Grenada, habitat protection, social, SocialImpact Assessment, social impacts, stakeholderinvolvement, participation, World Bank

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This case studyanalyzes the participatory methods and resultsof the World Bank-funded project in Grenada,including an unexpected shift inthe policy agenda toward habitat protection forthe elusive Grenada Dove, thenational bird of Grenada.

Findings. The process of locating waste disposalsites in the Eastern Caribbean country ofGrenada illustrate important lessons in theimplementation of new international mandatesto invite stakeholder participation in projectswith environmental and social impacts. Theauthors conclude that the impact of newrequirements for stakeholder inclusion byfunding agencies such as the World Bank andGlobal Environmental Facility has beenpalpable, but mixed. As the catalysts of moreparticipatory methods, funding agencies stillmust give more careful consideration to themethods by which their participatoryrequirements are implemented. In particular,they must develop more effective knowledge of,and relationships with a broader range ofstakeholders than are routinely considered byexisting methods. They must also allow for, andlearn from unexpected contingencies and beflexible as to project goals and methods.

64. Salafsky, N., and E. Wollenberg. 2000.“Linking Livelihoods and Conservation: AConceptual Framework and Scale forAssessing the Integration of Human Needsand Biodiversity.” World Development 28 (8):1421-38.

Keywords: Asia, biodiversity, BiodiversityConservation Network, conservation, livelihood



(strategies, systems), natural resources(management, monitoring and evaluation),Pacific and Pacific Region, United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The authors developa conceptual framework for defining the linkagebetween livelihood activities and conservation ,measure the strength of the linkage and testboth by evaluating 39 Asian and Pacific projectsites of the Biodiversity Conservation Network.

Findings. Although there has been increasinginterest in trying to link the livelihoods ofpeople living near natural resources to theconservation of those resources, there has beenlittle attempt to systematically assess ormeasure this linkage. The authors constructed afive-dimensional scale to assess the strength ofthese linkages. The five dimensions includespecies, habitat, spatial, temporal andconservation association. After testing theframework and the scale, the authors discussedthe relevance of linkage for designingappropriate conservation strategies.

65. Samaranayake, Mallika. 2001. “Promotingand Enhancing Stakeholder Participation.”International Conference on Protected AreaManagement in the 21st Century (ICPAM 21).June 17-20, 2001. Subic Bay Freeport, ThePhilippines.

Available from: http://www.icpam.org/papers_011.shtml

Keywords: landlessness, Participatory RuralAppraisal (PRA), poverty (alleviation,reduction), Sri Lanka, subsistence resources

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This short 5-pagepaper details the methodology of participation

and its relevance to protected area managementin Sri Lanka. It was presented at aninternational conference in protected area (PA)management.

Findings. In Sri Lanka, an estimated 1.5 millionpeople live within five kilometers of protectedarea boundaries. This population creates a highdemand for land as well as subsistenceresources such as fuel wood and non-timberforest products. Many of the problemsassociated with PA management occur becausethe poverty and landlessness around protectedareas are inducements for encroachment andpoaching. To meet the demands of localpopulations, resources are degraded. Often,community members release livestock into theprotected areas. Outside the reserve, encroachedland is used for homesteads, crop cultivationand livestock rearing. Therefore, it isincreasingly important to enlist the support ofthe surrounding communities to managenatural resources.

The author defines participation as a processthrough which various stakeholders influenceand share control over Protected AreaManagement, including conservation andsustainable use. The process includes thevarious decisions taken by stakeholders withregard to the resources that affect them.Participatory processes involve the variousstages of the development cycle. In addition,there are considerations related to the roles andfunctions of the different stakeholders incommitting themselves to the common objectiveof Protected Area Management. The authorcontends that the most effective PAmanagement projects are those that involvepeople with a stake in the outcome. Thesepeople include communities andrepresentatives of implementation agencies (i.e.,forest officers, wildlife officers, law enforcementofficers), civil administrators and politicians,donors, NGOs, religious groups, community-based organizations and private sector firms.



There are several useful Participatory RuralAppraisal (PRA) and other methodologies forPA management. Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA) uses participatory methods to do socialmapping and obtain generational informationon population. PRAs can be used to identifyhistorical trends in the use of forest products.Problem analysis can identify causes and effectsof the pressure on the reserve. Wealth and Well-being Ranking as well as Venn Diagrams canhelp managers to understand power andinstitutional relationships. Other methods forobtaining stakeholder perspectives includebrainstorming, semi-structured interviews,stakeholder consultation workshops andStrength-Weakness-Opportunity-Threat (SWOT)analyses and focus group discussions.

66. Songorwa, A.N. 1999. “Community-BasedWildlife Management in Tanzania: Are theCommunities Interested?” World Development27 (12): 2061-2079.

Available from: www.sciencedirect.com

Keywords: Africa and Africa Region, community,community-based conservation, community-based wildlife management (CWM), SelousConservation Programme, Tanzania

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. Using the SelousConservation Programme (SCP) in Tanzaniaand seven other African cases, this paperexamines the plausibility of assumptionsregarding the interest and willingness ofcommunities to conserve wildlife on their landsunder Community-Based Wildlife Management(CWM) or Community-Based Conservation(CBC) schemes.

Findings. Many conservationists believe that thefences-and-fines approach to wildlifeprotection, based on the American National

Park model, has failed in Africa. However,under the names of Community-based WildlifeManagement (CWM) or Community-BasedConservation (CBC), rural communities aregiven ownership rights or custodianship andmanagement responsibilities for the resource.This new approach is currently underexperimentation in many parts of Africa.

67. Straelig, de S. and F. Helles. 2000. “Park-People Conflict Resolution in Royal ChitwanNational Park, Nepal: Buying Time at HighCost?” Environmental Conservation 27 (4): 368-381.

Available from: http://uk.cambridge.org/journals/enc/

Keywords: community, community-basedconservation, conflict (management, resolution,mapping, risk assessments), forests, GrassCutting Program, nature-based development,Nepal, Royal Chitwan National Park

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The aim of thepresent study was to assessthe extent to which the Grass Cutting Program(GCP) of the Royal Chitwan National Park is aform of ‘community-based conservation’ on theone hand, or ‘nature-based development’ on theother.

Findings. The Grass Cutting Programme (GCP)of Royal Chitwan National Park (RCNP) hasbeen very successful in gaining local people’sacceptance of RCNP. The GCP is internationallyrecognized as a model for park-people conflictresolution. However, ithas seemingly become a spent force. During theten days of open access in 1999, almost 50 000tons of biomass were removed from the Park.The total gross economic value of the GCP in1999 was more than US$ 1 million. But illegal



fuelwood was the single most importantproduct extracted from RCNP and accountedfor half of the total quantity and economic valueof all resources collected.

Therefore, the authors argue that the GCP doesnot, in its present form, comply with the conceptof community-based conservation. Instead, it isan example of nature-based development,where important natural core areas areexploited in the name of development. Thisstudy suggests a two-fold approach toreappraise the importance of the GCP in solvingpark-people conflicts without ignoring natureconservation. Firstly, access should be providedin different areas at different times instead ofopening the whole Park at the same time.Secondly, since for the last 10-15 years buffer-zone community forestry has not been able tosubstitute fuelwood from RCNP, other ways toaddress local people’s energy demand shouldbe considered. The authors argue that park-people conflicts in RCNP have not been solvedbut only postponed, especially bycompromising forest conservation and thepossibility of the GCP to supply villagers withessential products in the future.

68. Thibault, M., and S. Blaney. 2001.“Sustainable Human Resources In A ProtectedArea In Southwestern Gabon.” ConservationBiology 15 (3): 591-595.

Available from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/Journals/issuelist.asp?journal=cb

Keywords: capacity, capacity building, Gabon,Gamba Protected Areas Complex, ParticipatoryRural Appraisal (PRA), protected areas,sustainability, sustainable land-use

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study examinedthe capacity built in government agents and

local community members in the GambaProtected Areas Complex in southwesternGabon. The authors analyzed the perseveranceof all those who participated in training sessionsin techniques related to ecological surveys andparticipatory rural appraisal (socioeconomicstudies). They studied participants in trainingdating form 1996.

Findings. In central Africa, where governmentsand funding agencies cover only a fraction ofthe recurrent expenditures needed to effectivelymanage the protected-areas network. Therefore,it is essential to invest in the people who will becalled on to participate in conservation effortsover the long term.

Study results indicated significant differences inthe impact of training on government staffcompared to local community members. Twoyears after training, only 7.7 percent of thegovernment agents who attended trainingsessions continued ecological surveys and nonecontinued to practice participatory ruralappraisals. After the same time period, 76.2%and 60.0% of the members of local communitieswho received training were still active inecological surveys and participatory ruralappraisal, respectively. However, definitiveconclusions regarding the participation ofnongovernmental organization members cannotbe drawn because of the low number of initialparticipants in the training programs.

The authors conclude that village collaboratorsseem to be a more “sustainable” humanresource than government agents or ofnongovernmental organizations members.Even though local communities cannot be solelyresponsible for managing protected areas,today’s conservation professionals mustacknowledge the strengths and limitations ofvillage collaborators. Implementing a processinvolving the participation of communitymembers is a demanding task because



protected-area managers must be based in thefield to identify key individuals and to organizeintensive training sessions. Also, if constantsupport is provided during the first years, thenthe most capable and motivated collaboratorswill be able to pursue further training. They willthen be able to work their way up through theranks of the organizational structures ofprotected areas.

69. Tisen, Oswald, and Michael Meredith.2000. “Participation of Local Communities inManagement of Totally Protected Areas.”Hornbill (4).

Available from: http://www.mered.org.uk/mike/papers/Comanagement.htm

Keywords: collaborative management, co-management, community, democracy (anddecision-making), Integrated ConservationDevelopment Projects (ICDPs), Malaysia,participation, Sarawak, Totally Protected Areas(TPS)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper reviewsthe range of options for involving local peoplein protected area activities in Sarawak andassessed the value of integrated conservationand development projects (ICDPs) for TotallyProtected Areas (TPA) management. Itconcludes with recommendations forimplementing collaborative management inSarawak.

Findings. In the 1950s, the State of Sarawakrecognized the need to put aside areas for thepurpose of conservation and protection ofwildlife and their habitat. The governmentenacted Wild Life Protection Ordinance in 1957and the National Park Ordinance in 1958. Theseordinances provided for the establishment ofTotally Protected Areas (TPAs), either Wildlife

Sanctuaries or National Parks. These ordinancesmandated respect for the rights of localcommunities that are living or using resourceswithin the areas that are needed as TPAs. Thegovernment granted rights and privileges forlocal people to continue use the resourceswithin the TPAs, and even, in some cases, toreside there. This situation has resulted in asystem of “split management” where TPA staffhave tried to manage the whole ecosystem andlocal people controlled the harvesting ofresources.

In the past, the State of Sarawak, the ForestDepartment and local communities have hadconflicts over the establishment of TPAs. Thegeneral view of the local communities was thatTPAs were an obstruction to their traditionalway of lives. They have felt the need to defendtheir rights constantly. Management generallysaw these community rights as externallyimposed constraints. They felt that theseconstraints made their conservation objectivesdifficult if not impossible to achieve but theywere beyond the control of the ForestDepartment. In addition, many of thecommunity members holding harvestinglicenses have over-harvested resources. As aresult of unsustainable harvesting practices bycommunity members, the TPA was unable tofulfill its legal purpose of conservation.

A new approach to TPA management wasclearly needed that could also better manageharvesting. The government considered twobroad approaches to managing the exploitationof TPAs by local people: integrated conservation(ICDPs) and development projects andcollaborative management. ICDPs promotedevelopment in or around a TPA. Usingpolitically and economically acceptableapproaches, ICDPs aim to curtail the localpeople’s use of resources in TPAs by offering adevelopment incentive (e.g., school, dispensary,road, etc.) in exchange for not harvesting in the



TPA or by providing livelihood alternatives tolocal people who previously had no alternativesto harvesting in the TPA. However, in manycases, the ICDP approach may be untenablebecause of the assumptions that developmentcan “compensate” people for their lostharvesting rights. Therefore, the authors suggestthat these underlying assumptions should becritically examined and that ICDPs be treatedwith caution. When local people are no longerable to harvest in the TPA, ICDP projectplanners need to develop activities that fill agap in local people’s livelihood strategies andthis link must be clear. However, the morepreferred approach is collaborativemanagement, which is also referred to as co-management, participatory management, jointmanagement, shared management, multi-stakeholder management, or round-tablemanagement. The term, ”collaborativemanagement” describes a wide range ofsituations in which some, or all of the relevantstakeholders in a protected area are involved inmanagement activities. If supportive policy andlegislation exist, they strengthen a managementpartnership.

To address the TPA-community conflicts, theState of Sarawak recently recognized the criticalimportance of collaborative management. Theyestablished legal mechanisms to supportdecision-making participation by localcommunities. The Master Plan for Wildlife(Wildlife Conservation Society and SarawakForest Department 1996) recommended that aSpecial Committee be established for each TPA.These committees bring together the ForestDepartment and local people with legal rightsor privileges in the TPA. They can provide aforum for collaboration in resource managementand are also a means of channeling the benefitsof the TPA to local people. For example, theSpecial Committee could use part of theentrance fees collected from visitors for projectsbenefiting local people and this revenue could

serve as compensation for voluntary reductionsin harvesting.

70. Turner, M.D. 1999. “No Space forParticipation: Pastoralist Narratives and theEtiology of Park-Herder Conflict inSoutheastern Niger.” Land Degradation andDevelopment 10 (4): 345-363.

Keywords: Fulsse, history, Niger, park, park-herder conflict, participation, pastoralists, state-sponsored programs

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This paper examinesthe growing conflictbetween Fulsse herders and managers ofNational Park “W” in southeastern Niger. Theresearch entailed an examination of historicaldocuments and oral histories.

Findings. Increasingly, state-sponsored programsfor protecting natural areas in Africa haveadopted “participatory” approaches. These area welcome change from earlier, more coerciveapproaches. However, these more participatoryprograms face several major impediment totheir effectiveness. These problems related tohow conservationists conceptualize the logic,constraints and spatial scales associated withthe production practices of rural inhabitants,including those practices that may cross theperimeters of protected areas.

For the coercive past and “participatory”present, the “development narratives” related toFulsse livestock husbandry in West Africaprovide support for the rationale and reactionsof conservationists to herder incursions. Turnershows that these narratives are constructed bysequentially conflating linguistic group, ethnicidentity, production practices, production logicand environmental trajectories in an ahistoricfashion. For example, the development/



conservation community has often charac-terized the Fulsse people of West Africa as“pastoralists.” As such, the Fulsse are viewed ashighly mobile managers of an unsustainable(ecological or social) form of livestockhusbandry, tradition-bound and politicallyunorganized.

However, historical research indicates that herdmanagement by the Say Fulsse has historicallybeen governed by a two-tiered politicalstructure. They display highly circumscribedpatterns of mobility with close integration toagricultural production. Increased incursions ofherders into the park are traced, not to a rigidadherence to livestock mobility but to thegrowing shortage of pastures in their hometerritory near Say. Draconian enforcements bypark guards and “participatory” programs toeducate local herders about the merits ofsedentary livestock husbandry provide littlespace for herder-park constructive engagement.In fact, these actions have reduced the positivepotential of participatory programs by erodingindigenous political control over livestockmovements.

71. Turyaho, Moses and Mark Infield. 1996.Uganda: From Conflict to Partnership: TheWork of the Lake Mburo CommunityConservation Project with Pastoralists,Fishermen and Farmers.” The University ofReading Agricultural Extension and RuralDevelopment Department. The RuralExtension Bulletin Number 10.

Available from: The Publications Office, AERDD,The University of Reading, PO Box 238, EarleyGate, Reading RG6 6AL, UK. Tel. (0)1734 318119Fax. (0)1734 261244.

Keywords: community, conflict (management,resolution, mapping, risk assessments), farmers,fishermen, Lake Mburo CommunityConservation Project, park, park management

and park managers, participation, partnerships,pastoralists, Uganda

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This report, fromtwo of the workers most closely involved in thiswork, outlines the stages by which the projecthas built up local community and politicalsupport for the park.

Findings. Lake Mburu National Park had adisconcerting beginning. When it wasestablished in 1983, pastoralists andagriculturalists were forcibly evicted from thearea. Three years later, in the disorder caused bythe fall of the government, these communitiesmoved back to the park and were determined tovandalize the park infrastructure and kill manyof the wildlife. The new government reducedthe size of the park in an attempt to provide forthe legitimate needs of the dispossessed.However, resentment against the parkcontinued.

When the Lake Mburo CommunityConservation Project was launched in 1991, itsgoal was to demonstrate that the park couldprovide real benefits to local people. The projecthas progressed through three stages for buildingof the relationship between the park andneighboring communities: creating goodrelationships, institutionalizing theserelationships and strengthening the ParkManagement Advisory Committee (PMAC).The authors believe that this three-prongedapproach has brought people closer to the parkand vice verse. Via participation of LocalConservation Committees (LCCs) in parkprotection activities, hostilities are slowly givingaway to mutual sharing of responsibilities andthe communities.

In the first stage, the project focused on creatinga good relationship by establishing contacts



through the Community Conservation Unit(CCU). They organized regular meetings withthe people and their leaders to discuss park-community-related issues. Eventually, theseinteractions evolved into a park planningprocess with strong community input and thedevelopment of the park’s first evermanagement plan for the 1994-1998 time period.In addition, the project helped form a ParkManagement Advisory Committee (PMAC) thatwas comprised of Uganda National Parks(UNP) staff, District Government, pastoralists,agropastoralists, agriculturalists and fishers.Communities assisted in developing, and attimes, funding community micro-projects. Theseactivities helped to create economic linksbetween the park and people or in othersituation, simply served to improve the publicimage of the park. The project also helped localcommunities gain assistance from thegovernment (e.g., the park’s main access roadhelped to ease local transport problems formarketing). Other interventions included acontinuous series of awareness programs forcommunities, schools and other governmentinstitutions neighboring the park.

The second stage focused on institutionalizingthese relationships. Community representativesattended consultations and workshops thatculminated in a draft plan submitted forapproval to the Board of Trustees. This draftwas put in place to ensure the institutionaliza-tion of the PMAC, as an advisory board. Eachparish representative on the PMAC also chaireda democratically elected, parish-based LCCs.The PMAC performed functions such asmonitoring and advising the park on theimplementation of management programs,promoting community participation in parkmanagement, coordinating communications anddeveloping linkages between the park andcommunity. In addition, the PMAC developedmodalities for benefit, resource and revenuesharing and controlling disbursement of funds.

The third stage focused on strengthening thePMAC institution. The authors indicate that thisprocess is on-going. The PMAC has heldgeneral meetings and the committee hassuccessfully implemented an experiment onrevenue-sharing supported by USAID funds.

72. Uniyal, V.K., and J. Zacharias. 2001.“Periyar Tiger Reserve: Building Bridges withLocal Communities for BiodiversityConservation.” Parks 11 (2): 14-23.

Available upon request from: The WorldCommission on Protected Areas,www.wcpa.iucn.org.

Keywords: community enterprises, eco-development (committees, policies), India Eco-Development Project, micro-development,micro-planning, Participatory Rural Appraisal(PRA), Periyar Tiger Reserve, tribals (andscheduled castes)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This articledocuments the participatory strategy for theIndia Eco-Development Project in southernIndia’s Periyar Tiger Reserve. Surrounding thereserve, a large and diverse population makesuse of reserve resources and threatensbiodiversity conservation. The articles featuredthree Eco-Development Committees (EDCs) andtheir impacts: improved pepper cultivation for atribal group EDC, an EDC of bark smugglerstrained to be trekking guides and an EDC ofvendors who serve the pilgrims that cross thepark annually.

Findings. The IEP’s participatory strategy makesuse of micro-planning strategies developed byteams consisting of trained forest staff,ecologists, sociologists, and NGOs. Early on inplanning, park staff were trained inparticipatory appraisal and planning



techniques. The teams use participatory ruralappraisal techniques to create the plans withlocal stakeholders who are organized into theEDCs. Each of the micro-development plansdescribed a sustainable, income-generatingactivity for its EDC members.

The project organized three types of EDCs toaccommodate the wide variety of types of“communities.” Neighborhood EDCs werebased on settlements and villages. User-groupEDCs represent people who depend on specificresources. Professional group EDCs wereformed by individuals who had specific skillsthat were useful for park conservation,monitoring, and tourism management. Underthe latter EDC type, the project organized barksmugglers, tribal guides, and park guards.

73. WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2000.“Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Bridgesfor Conservation.” World Wildlife Fund,Washington, DC.

Available upon request from: EcoregionalConservation Strategies Unit, Research andDevelopment, World Wildlife Fund. 1250 24th

Street, NW. Washington DC 20037

Keywords: collaboration, conflict (management,resolution, mapping, risk assessments),stakeholder identification, United States Agencyfor International Development (USAID)

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This manual focuseson improving understanding about, andeffectiveness of stakeholder collaboration. Itdescribes terms such as collaboration andstakeholder identification. It details howcollaboration and stakeholder identificationshould be utilized to create successful projects.

Findings. WWF describes “collaboration” as amutually beneficial relationship between two or

more parties who work toward common goalsby sharing responsibility, authority, andaccountability for achieving results. There aredegrees of collaboration. They range fromconsultation, which is a one-way flow ofinformation with dominance and advocacy byone or two groups to transferred responsibilitywhere there is full control by other stakeholders,empowerment and a two-way flow ofinformation. In the middle of this continuum,shared control gives communities and otherstakeholders a fairly high involvement indecision-making and shared responsibility.

According to WWF, collaboration may not workunder several circumstances. There areproblems when there are fundamentalideological differences. Collaboration is difficultwhen there is little or no room for negotiation,where power is not evenly spread and wherekey parties are not willing to participate. Insome situation, there is not enough time to workthough problems. In other places, the price ofcollaboration exceeds the benefits gained.Collaboration will be difficult where theinstitutional culture of stakeholderorganizations is unresponsive to collaboration.Therefore, before starting a collaborativeprocess, managers should ask five questions. Isany stakeholder collaboration alreadyoccurring? Are there particular factors orconditions enabling this? If stakeholdercollaboration is not happening, are there reasonswhy? Can existing stakeholder efforts be builtupon? Are there any collaboration gaps thatyour organization can fill?

Because stakeholder identification is importantto collaboration, this book suggests astakeholder checklist to categorize allstakeholders. It is necessary to determinewhether stakeholders are primary, secondary oropposition stakeholders. Managers mustidentify the nature and limits of their stake andinterest in the issues being explored, including



the basis of this stake (customary rights,ownership, legal responsibilities. It is relevant toknow whether their relationship with proposedactions and objectives is supportive or inopposition to others. Managers also mustexplore stakeholder perceptions of thefeasibility of a conservation initiative and theirperception of the degree of collaboration and/orcompromise required for success. Stakeholderprofiles should also stratify by gender,socioeconomic status, political affiliation orprofession.

The manual details how specific people can beused to improve and facilitate stakeholderprocesses. The facilitator should prepare groundrules. They should outline the roles andresponsibilities of stakeholders and themechanisms for their involvement. Theconvener should identify stakeholders andbring them to the table. They should propose aprocess for collaboration. They need to catalyze,convene, energize and create an open credibleprocess.

WWF presents four main approaches toresolving conflict in the collaboration process.One approach is to “expand the pie.” Forexample, some stakeholder conflicts are basedon a shortage of resources (i.e., natural,financial, professional etc) and solutions can befound when available resources are increased.This approach is useful when the parties findone another’s proposals inherently acceptablebut reject them because only one group’sproposal can be accommodated with existingresources. The “expanding the pie” approachoften starts by asking - how can we accomplishmy interest and your interest. The second meansto resolve conflict is through the “low priority/high priority” method. In this solution, eachparty concedes on its own low priority issuesthat also happen to be of high priority for theother party. According to WWF, this approach isonly possible when several issues are underconsideration at once and the parties have

different priorities among these issues. The thirdmeans of resolving conflict is by “cost cutting”.Using this solution, Party A gets what it wantsand the cost that Party B incurs for agreeing tothe proposal are reduced or eliminated. In thelast approach, termed “bridging”, no partyachieves its initial demands. Instead, a newoption is devised that satisfies the mostimportant issues underlying these demands.Most often, high-priority interests are servedwhile lower-priority interests are discarded.

74. Wunder, S. 2000. “Ecotourism andEconomic Incentives - An EmpiricalApproach.” Ecological Economics 32 (3): 465-479.

Available from: http://www.ecologicaleconomics.org/publica/publica.htm

Keywords: Amazon, conservation attitudes,conservation incentives, Cuyabeno WildlifeReserve, ecotourism, Ecuador, impacts on localdevelopment, incentives (economic, other),tourism, Tourism participation

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. The authorconceptualizes and empirically analyzes the linkbetween tourism, local benefits andconservation. He uses data from threeindigenous group near the Cuyabeno WildlifeReserve in the Ecuadorian Amazon region, nearthe border of Colombia and Peru. He quantifieslocal cash flows from tourism to obtain acomparative analysis of income structure,spending, and the impacts on localdevelopment and on conservation attitudes.

Findings. Within the new array of ‘green’products and services, ecotourism claims tocombine environmental responsibility with thegeneration of local economic benefits that willhave both a development impact and serve asconservation incentives. Economic incentives



are imperative for nature conservation,particularly in remote and ill-monitoredregions. In these areas, the state presence isweak and this situation hinders the use ofalternative tools of environmental regulation.

Three Cuyabeno indigenous groups havedeveloped different modes of tourismparticipation ranging from autonomousoperations to pure salary employment. Theanalysis revealed that for the whole study area,tourism has actually provided significantadditional income. Counter to common belief,the mode of participation is less decisive forlocal income generation than the touristattraction of the natural site, the degree oftourism specialization and the level of localorganization. However, as a conservationincentive, the participation and on thesubstitution versus complementarity of otherproductive activities: only if tourism changeslabor and land allocation decisions, will it havea local conservation impact. The authordiscusses the circumstances under which theconjectured link between tourism, local incomesand conservation is likely to be effective. Heprovides some general lessons for governmentpolicies, for the design of integratedconservation and development projects (ICDPs),and to a number of site-specific recommenda-tions for improving incentive structures.

75. Wyckoff-Baird, Barbara, Andrea Kaus,Catherine Christen, and Margaret Keck. 2001.“Shifting the Power: Decentralization andBiodiversity Conservation.” BiodiversitySupport Program, Washington, DC.


Keywords: biodiversity conservation andprotection, Bolivia, Botswana, community,community development, conflict(management, resolution, mapping, riskassessments), decentralization and devolution,

Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, protected areas,United States, wildlife trust

Abstract

Objectives and Methodology. This study examineshow decentralization of decision-making andmanagement authority affects biodiversityconservation. The research focuses on whetheror not decentralization empowers the peopleliving in most direct contact with naturalresources and if this power shift does occur,does it result in environmental policies andmanagement practices that reduce threats tobiodiversity? The authors drew material fromsix case studies Bolivia, Botswana, Guatemala,Mexico, Panama and the United States (Florida).These cases were chosen illustrate a broad arrayof primary levels of decentralized authorityover natural resources and a similar diversity ofcase study units, operating arrangements andcountries. For five of these studies, the authorscontracted case study authors and providedthem with standardized research topic guides togive the study a consistent framework forcomparison. The Bolivian authors donated theircase study.

Findings. The study sets forth two mainassumptions. First, devolution of authority,responsibility and funding capability will givegreater power over natural resourcesmanagement to those people in most directcontact with the resources. Devolution willtransfer these assets from the centralgovernment to regional and local institutionsand organizations. Second, the authors assumethat the people most directly in contact withnatural resources will promote conservation andthus reduce threats to biodiversity once theyhave the power to decide how to manage themand have viable economic alternatives to over-use.

For the six case studies, different entities holddecentralized authority. For the Botswana and



Mexico case studies (NW Kalahari Desert andForest Ejidos of Quintana Roo), the communitywas the unit of decentralization. In Panama(Wildlands of Kuna Yala), the decentralizedauthority is the indigenous autonomous district.It is managed, in part by the Kuna people, alongwith research institutions and internationalconservation organizations that help the Kunaestablish the protected area. In the case ofGuatemala’s Sierra de la Minas BiosphereReserve, the decentralized authority is a privateNGO that was given the right to manage thereserve by the government. A number ofcommunities live within the boundaries of thereserve. In administering the reserve, the NGOworks in association with local communitiesand leaders, local governments and NGOs andalso raises money abroad for reservemaintenance. Under decentralization, Bolivianmunicipalities have control over local forestresources and they also have the right to receive25 percent of the royalties from commercialtimber harvesting and clearing concessions andto get assistance with the development of socialinfrastructure. In the United States, a Federal-State body manages the Florida Everglades.

For Botswana, all community members belongto the wildlife trust that was established in 1997.The trust is officially registered with thegovernment. The Trust has sought to preservecultural conditions and enhance theorganizational capacity of the community toutilize and manage its natural resources. Policydecisions have relied on extensive publicdiscussions with both males and females.However, the district councils and centralgovernment maintained control over fundingcapacities and set off-take quotas for wildlifeand wildlife management species lists. In thisparticular example, there are conflicts betweenthe central government delineations ofprotected areas and local delineations and thissituation has limited local access to land andresources.

In Mexico, the community-based control ofharvesting and sales of valuable timber resultedfrom a break with the state-owned timbermonopoly in the early 1980s. Timber revenuesand resources now go directly to localcommunities. These communities are ejidos andthey hold a special legally recognized form ofcommon property. By 1986, these ejidos formallybanded together in societies that wererecognized under Mexican law. They operatedas community enterprises that were dedicatedto sustained yield forest exploitation and jointsales. This community forestry initiative hasbeen managed via continuous negotiationbetween the state and federal government,foreign funding agencies, local ejidos andregional forest societies. Responsibility for forestpolicy and regulation and enforcement restswith federal government.

In these cases, the authors found that centralgovernment had devolved authority to lowerlevels of government or other organizations toshed onerous responsibilities rather than beingmotivated to improve natural resourcesmanagement. The cases studied tended not toinvolve the devolution of resource managementauthority. Instead, they revealed continuing,complex associations between national and localauthority with respect to both management andfinancial responsibilities. The authors foundthat the impact of decentralization upon naturalresource management depended on who getsmore authority as a result (e.g., the State, NGO,communities or municipalities). Devolutionactually increased the opportunities and poweravailable to some community members whiledecreasing power to others. The authorsconclude that these outcomes may actuallyexacerbate, rather than resolve, conflict overnatural resources. In the final analysis, theauthors indicated that conservation did improvewith decentralization although biodiversityconservation may not be improving because ofdecentralization.


BCN Biodiversity Conservation NetworkBSP Biodiversity Support ProgramCAMPFIRE Communal Area Management Programme for Indigenous ResourcesCAS Country Assistance StrategyCBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementCBO Community-Based OrganizationCCU Community Conservation UnitCFM Collaborative Forest ManagementCOREMAP Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management ProjectCWM Community-Based Wildlife ManagementDFID Department for International Development (UK)DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Canada)EDC Eco-Development CommitteeEDGE Environment/Democracy-Governance ExchangeFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsGEF Global Environment FacilityICAD Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentICDP Integrated Conservation and Development ProjectIDB Inter-American Development BankIDWP Integrated Watershed Development ProjectIPCD Indigenous Peoples and Community Development UnitIUCN The World Conservation Union (or the International Union for Conservation of

Nature and Natural Resources)JFM Joint Forest ManagementLCC Local Conservation CommitteeMPA Marine Protected AreaMSP Medium-Size ProjectNFP National Forest ProgramNGO Non-Governmental OrganizationNIPAP National Integrated Protected Areas ProgrammeNRM Natural Resource Management

Annex 1

Acronym List



OED Operations Evaluation DepartmentPA Protected AreaPAD Project Appraisal DocumentPASIA Protected Areas Social Impact AssessmentPDF Project Development FundsPDLG Participatory Development Learning GroupPMAC Park Management Advisory CommitteePRA Participatory Rural AppraisalRRA Rapid Rural AssessmentRSCN Royal Society for the Conservation of NatureSA Social AssessmentSGP Small Grants ProgramSIA Social Impact AssessmentSWOT Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-ThreatsTANPA Tanzania National Parks Planning Unit and Conservation ServiceTBNRM Trans-Boundary Natural Resource ManagementTPA Totally Protected AreaTRA Threat Reduction AssessmentUNDP United Nations Development ProgramUNP Uganda National ParksUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentVDP Village Development PlanTNC The Nature ConservancyPiP Parks in Peril ProgramBOSCOSA Proyecto de Maneho y Conservation de Bosque de la Peninusula de Osa.WWF World Wildlife Fund or Worldwide Fund for Nature


Keyword Abstract Number

access 31accountability 14, 32advantages 25Africa, Africa Region 1, 39, 48, 58, 62, 66agreements 32alliances 55Amazon 74Annapurna Conservation Area 57Argentina 11Argentina Biodiversity Conservation Project 15Asia 1, 34, 39, 43, 62, 64Australia 62awareness raising 25Batang Ai National Park 46behavioral change 11Belize 28, 42beneficiaries 3, 23- assessments 3- participation 23benefits, benefit sharing 21, 28, 32, 34, 44, 57biodiversity 2, 4, 8, 15, 20, 33, 64- awareness 22- conservation and protection 3, 19, 22, 34, 41, 42, 55, 75- costs and benefits 6, 33- conservation ethic 20- projects 21Biodiversity Conservation Network 34, 55, 64Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) 34, 38, 39, 44, 54, 55, 58,biosphere reserves 56Bolivia 75

Annex 2

Keyword Index




Botswana 75bureaucratic reform 11CAMPFIRE 59capacity, capacity building 10, 22, 23, 25, 30, 48, 49, 54, 59, 68Caribbean 1, 35Center for International Environmental Law 39Central America 62Central Asia 1civil society 39climate change 2coastal zone 42co-financing 25collaboration 15, 26, 73- collaborative forest management (CFM) 6, 27- collaborative management, co-management 8, 31, 32, 37, 51, 56, 69- collaborative research 32Colombia 8commercialization 29community 1, 4, 5, 15, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 34,

39, 41, 44, 45, 47, 54, 57, 58, 59, 60, 62, 66, 67, 69,71, 75

- attitudes and behavior 47- community-based approaches 5- community-based conservation 29, 31, 47, 57, 66, 67- community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) 44, 58- community-based projects 1- community-based property rights 39- community-based wildlife management (CWM) 62, 66- community building 24- community-government relationships 62- community perspectives 58- development 4, 47, 75- enterprises 34, 72- forest management (and scaling-up) 26, 41- involvement 5, 31- opposition 60- participation 4 , 15, 27- self-governance 59- support groups 5Community Baboon Sanctuary 28compensation 50


Keyword Index


conflict (management, resolution, mapping, 3, 9, 11, 18, 27, 32, 35, 41, 46, 60, 67, risk assessments) 71, 73, 75Congo Wildlands Protection and Management Project 11consensus building 3conservation 59, 64- attitudes 74- incentives 74- management 51Conservation of the Dana Wildlands and the Azraq 22 Oasis Projectconsultation (consultative workshops) 8, 9, 29, 23, 24Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Management Project 5 (COREMAP)councils (inter-village) 5country assistance strategies (CAS) 26cultural survival 8culturally appropriate plans 5customary law 17, 46, 62Cuyabeno Wildlife Reserve 74Danau Sentarum Wildlife Reserve 37decentralization and devolution 11, 32, 41, 43, 44, 48, 54, 75decentralized capacity building 23decentralized management 11democracy (and decision-making) 38, 39, 69demographic factors 10disseminating lessons 13Dominican Republic Biodiversity Conservation 11 and Management in the Coastal Zone Projectdonors 39East Asian Seas Project 13eco-development (committees, policies) 9, 18, 29, 30, 72economic development 35ecotourism 28, 74Ecuador 74Ecuador Biodiversity Protection Project 9empowerment 26, 54entitlements 4environmental advocacy 39environmental awareness 12Europe 1European Community/Union 33evaluation 8, 25, 45exclusion of people 50




extension 3farmers 71feedback, feedback mechanisms 13, 21Fiji 55financing 22fishermen 71fodder and livestock services 24Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 40forests 3, 34, 67- communities 17, 41- enterprises 17- forestry 8, 23- forestry projects 3- management 43- policy 6, 27, 43- protection committees 30Fulsse 70Gabon 68Gamba Protected Areas Complex 68gender (analysis and considerations) 3, 10Ghana Coastal Wetlands Management Project 9, 11Global Environment Facility (GEF) 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18,

19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 36, 63governance 38, 39government 6, 38Grass Cutting Program 67Grenada 63Guatemala 26, 75guidelines and guiding principles 32, 33habitat protection 63Haryana 24heterogeneous communities 44Himachal 24history 31, 70honey-hunters 29Iban 46impacts 25, 26impacts on local development 74implementing agency 8incentives (economic, other) 3, 22, 29, 74income-generating activities 24India 3, 23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 52, 55, 60India Eco-Development Project 9, 18, 72


Keyword Index


Indigenous (communities, groups, peoples) 8, 27, 32, 35, 38- conservation areas 19- Ecuador 19- knowledge 56- management of conservation areas 36- management systems 46- Peru 36- rights 36- resource use 32- role 49Indonesia 5, 8, 37, 55Institutions 22, 23, 24, 30, 33, 54- institutional arrangements 33- institutional capacity, strengthening 22, 23, 24, 54Integrated Conservation Development Projects (ICDPs) 41, 46, 50, 53, 69Integrated Watershed Development Project (IDWP II) 24intellectual property rights 56Inter-American Development Bank 38international agencies 55International Human Rights Law Group 38international waters 2inter-village councils 5Italian Government 40Jammu and Kashmir 24joint forest management 3, 30joint management 1Jordan 13, 22Kenya 26, 31Keoladeo National Park 60Lak Integrated Conservation and Development Project 12, 13Lake Manyara National Park 31Lake Mburo Community Conservation Project 71land and forest management 46land use 10landlessness 65Latin America 1, 35legislation 11lessons learned and learning 12, 13, 21livelihood (strategies, systems) 10, 11, 41, 64local 1, 6, 28, 29, 35, 36, 43, 46, 48, 50, 51, 57- local attitudes, awareness and environmental education 28, 35, 57- local authority 46- participation, control, ownership 1, 29, 43, 48, 50




- resource use, rights 6, 36- stakeholders 51logging 12Madagascar Environment Program Support 11mainstreaming indigenous concerns 38mainstreaming participation 1, 23, 26Makalu-Barun Conservation Area 57Malawi 3Malaysia 46, 69management capabilities, collaboration 28, 49mapping 9marginalized groups 52marine 34market mechanisms 4Medium-Sized Projects (MSPs) 25Mexican Nature Conservation Fund 22Mexico 8, 22, 75Mexico Resource Conservation and Forestry Sector Review 17micro-development, micro-planning 72monitoring, monitoring and evaluation 3, 8, 34national boundaries 32national capacity 33National Integrated Protected Areas Programme (NIPAP) 61national policy (forestry, framework) 30, 35natural resources (management, monitoring and evaluation) 34, 35, 64nature-based development 67neo-tropical parks 35Nepal 55, 57, 67Nepal Biodiversity Protection Project 11Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (capacity, 1, 3, 7, 15, 19, 25, 50, 55 roles, executing agencies, host country)Nicaragua 38Niger 3, 70Operations Evaluation Department 26organizational (roles, structures) 10, 35outreach 31ownership 9, 14, 31Pacific and Pacific Region 1, 34, 43, 48, 49, 64Pakistan 60Panama 11, 75Papua New Guinea 8, 12, 13, 34, 55park 35, 46, 53, 70, 71- park-buffer zone linkages 35


Keyword Index


- park establishment 35- park-herder conflict 70- park management and park managers 53, 71Parks in Peril 35participation 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 26, 27, 31, 42, 46,

52, 59, 69, 70, 71- barriers, constraints 1, 2, 23- development 52- evaluations, participatory monitoring 5, 26, 59- forest management 27- management plans 5- primary beneficiary 24- processes 13, 31- quality 24, 26- tourism 74Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 3, 5, 9, 24, 31, 60, 65, 68, 72Participatory Upland Development Project 40partnerships 71pastoralists 70, 71people-park relations 57Periyar Tiger Reserve 72Philippines 13, 55, 61Philippines Conservation of Priority Protected Area Project 11planning, planning theory 33, 51, 59pluralism 39policy 30, 35- framework 22- recommendations 17- reforms 24political structures 10political will 22portfolio performance review 20poverty (alleviation, reduction) 27, 52, 53, 56, 65power 42, 54Pradesh 24principles 32private sector 15, 23, 58project 1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26- project appraisal document (PAD) 24- cycle 2, 7, 10, 25, 26- design, formulation, planning, preparation 1, 5, 10, 21- Project Development Funds (PDF-A) 25- Project Implementation Review 22




- site choices 12proposal requirements 25protected areas 15, 16, 18, 21, 49, 68, 75- conservation 37- management 30, 60, 60- planning 42, 45public awareness 3, 5public involvement policy 14Punjab 24, 60Rajasthan 60Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) 61resettlement 2, 35resources (sharing, use) 10, 22, 30, 35restricted co-management 32risks 10root causes 21Royal Chitwan National Park 67Russia 8Sarawak 46, 69Selous Conservation Programme 66Shivalik Hills 24Slovakia Biodiversity Project 13small business development 8social 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 29, 50, 63- social assessment 3, 5, 9, 10, 15, 17, 18- social change 29- social cohesion, diversity 6, 12- social controls 10- social feasibility study 12- social funds 1- Social Impact Assessment, social impacts 16, 63- social issues, social threats 10, 50- socioeconomic surveys 9Solomon Islands 55South America 62Sri Lanka 65stakeholders 6, 23, 30, 34, 58, 59, 62- consultation 1, 10- evaluations 45- identification 15, 73- involvement, participation 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 21, 25, 63state-sponsored programs 70statutory laws 62


Keyword Index


subsistence resources 65sustainability, sustainable land-use 15, 21, 22, 68Tanzania 31, 66Tanzanian National Parks Planning Unit and 31 Community Conservation Service (TANAPA)tenure (rights, security, community-based, devolution, 3, 8, 10, 17, 30, 35, 41, 44, 58, 59, 60 land and resource, land rights, use rights)Caribbean Region 48The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 35Threat Reduction Assessment 55threats 10, 35, 54time allocations 37timeframe 25Totally Protected Areas (TPS) 69tourism 74trade agreements 4traditional authority, traditional groups 32, 59traditional resource management 61training (capacity building, needs, workshops) 24, 40, 60transboundary 35transboundary natural resource management (TBNRM) 44, 58trans-humance 24transparency 8, 32, 44tribals (and scheduled castes) 23, 24, 72tropical rainforests 50trust funds 1Ucchali wetland complex 60Uganda 31, 47, 71United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 20United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 20United States 75United States Agency for International Development 34, 35, 38, 39, 44, 54, 55, 58, 59, 64, 73 (USAID)user groups 11Uttar Pradesh 24Venezuela 49village development plans 24village eco-development committees 30village-based project committees 11water resources development 23water user associations 1watershed development and protection 23, 24West Kalimantan 37Western Ghats Forestry Project 52




wetland management 60wildlife 46wildlife trust 75women and gender 24workshops (including multi-state workshops) 17, 21World Bank 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23, 24,

26, 27, 30, 63World Bank Institute (BBI) 4World Conservation Congress 56World Conservation Union (IUCN) 7, 48, 49World Resources Institute (WRI) 39World Wildlife Fund (WWF) 7Yemen Socotra Archipelago Project 11Zimbabwe 59