GEF LESSONS NOTES 12 www.gefweb.org July 2001 GEF Participation Means Learning Through Doing: GEF's Experience in Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use A GEF special study on stakeholder participation and social issues, including science and technology, was IN THIS ISSUE conducted for 30 GEF-financed biodiversity conserva- tion and sustainable use projects which have been The GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) completed or are near completion. Excluding enabling Special Study on Participation and Social Issues (with activities, these projects represent 14 percent of the particular reference to Science and Technology number of projects, and about 30 percent of total GEF issues) forms part of a larger Biodiversity Program allocation, as of FY00. Study. The results show that effectiveness of public The findings indicate that the degree of stakeholder involvement varies by country and project, and even participation varies by country and project, but the by site, within projects. The evidence demonstrates most effective approaches were those designed at lo- the positive contributions of multi-stakeholder cal or community levels. Based on available project participation for project success. Additionally, documentation, stakeholder participation was compre- projects would strongly benefit from expanding inputs hensive in 30 percent of projects reviewed, satisfacto- from the private sector and academic and research ry in 25 percent, and partial in 20 percent. As shown institutions, especially from developing countries, on in the first chart on page 2, more than half (19) of the a more systematic basis. To complement these lessons projects were executed by government agencies. Nine projects were implemented by UN or international learned, numerous examples of good practice agencies, four by the UN Office of Project Services approaches emerged from this study. Describing these (UNOPS), and two by UNEP. One project each in the lessons and indicating how they can be replicated in Philippines and Indonesia was executed by local other projects are the key purposes of the GEF NGOs and in-country scientific institutions, respec- Lessons Notes. tively. Stakeholder participation in project activities is The Notes series is aimed primarily at project shown in the second chart on page 2. Local and inter- designers, managers, and evaluators in GEF national NGOs and scientific institutions are engaged implementing and executing agencies. To ensure that in over 75 percent of projects. Local communities and we are meeting your needs, and providing valuable village groups participate in more than 60 percent, and only about 25 percent involve the private sector. information,weinviteyourfeedbackontheNotesseries. Learning Through Doing One of the important lessons from the review is how Jarle Harstad projects have applied a learning-through-doing ap- Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator proach: first, by adjusting the project's design to re- G l o b a l E n v i r o n m e n t F a c i l i t y G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s Executing Agencies Stakeholder Groups Involved (30 Projects) (30 Projects) NGOs Local Govt. Village Groups SAT Private Sector UN Agency SAT Intl. Agency Local NGOs Govt. Intl. NGOs 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Percent of Projects Percent of Projects spond to changing realities in the field and second, by identifying the tribal leaders as representatives to the applying what are sometimes called adaptive manage- project's steering committee. ment, learning and innovation, or process dynamics. Examples from the projects reviewed indicate that · Risk assessments are critical in areas under po- mistakes can be constructive. litical and socioeconomic instability ... The Congo Wildlands Protection and Management project's risk · Stakeholder participation, especially by affected assessment did not anticipate the difficulties of imple- communities, is essential if behavioral change is ex- menting the project under conditions of social and pected ... In Madagascar Environment Program Sup- political unrest. In less than two years, the project port, the project team proposed to change existing un- was forced to suspend some of its operations, can- sustainablefarmingpractices,butinsteadofgettingfeed- celing a trust fund that was to be set up for park man- back from farmers, six technical units and forest teams agement and closing down some sites. The project were used to disseminate a new agroforestry technol- team then shifted its focus to two sites, and with the ogy. Within a year, an insignificant proportion of the help of international and local NGOs, adopted a com- population was reached, prompting the project to re- munity-based conservation approach with decentral- viseitsapproachandinsteadorganizesmallholdersinto ized project funding and disbursements. Because of mini-project teams and provide funding to small these adjustments, the project team in the Nouabale- agroforestry-based businesses that employed sustain- Ndoki and Conkouati and Lake Tele/Likhoula-aux- able harvesting techniques. Herbes sites were able to continue their village out- reach programs. · To reduce conflicts, participatory appraisals were important in the design of activities addressing Expanding Science and Technology local needs ... When the Panama Biodiversity Con- Inputs in Projects servation in the Darien Region project was first implemented in 1996, it experienced difficulties, forc- There is evidence of successful north-south and ing it to restructure its operations in 1998.A key prob- south-south cooperation among scientific institutions lem was overlapping boundaries of the national park involved in the projects reviewed, but the participation and indigenous territories. The project contracted five of in-country scientists needs to be expanded on a local NGOs to conduct participatory appraisals fo- more systematic basis. Local scientific inputs were cusing on the needs of the Embera andWounaan tribal critical to the success of two projects. One is Indone- communities. The results of the appraisals helped the sia Biodiversity Collections project which features ex- project in designing a co-management plan within situ conservation programs. The other is the Ghana disputed lands, setting up micro credit schemes, and Coastal Wetlands Management project, in which the 2 G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s results of the University of Ghana-Legon studies be- · Village-Based Project Committees. By giving local came the basis for formulating the community out- leaderstheauthoritytodesignandimplementtheirown reach strategy. The university and Birdlife biodiversityconservationandsustainableuseprograms, International also provided baseline information on dependence on the government is reduced, as shown migratory birds. in the Argentina Patagonia project. Coastal and inter- coastal committees were formed--and initially funded A key lesson in the Philippines Conservation of Pri- bytheproject--butlaterbecameself-sufficientthrough ority Protected Areas project was the importance of in- income earned from small livelihood projects. In the cluding local scientists, especially provincial Ghana CoastalWetlands Management project, village universities and colleges, as members of the park com- site management committees were established by mittees. Having recognized local scientists' contribu- project-hired community organizers. Because the or- tions and advantages due to their local knowledge and ganizers worked with village elders and local govern- proximity to the parks, the project team found that they ment officials, the committees were effective in gener- relied more on local inputs in formulating the Biodi- ating consensus and mobilizing support for coastal re- versity Monitoring System (BMS) than on scientists in source conservation. Manila-based institutions. In the Yemen Socotra Archi- pelago project, more than 30 local scientists were ac- · Legislation for Decentralized Management. The tive in the collection and analysis of specimens, Philippines Conservation of Priority Protected Ar- although most of the final documentation was done eas project builds upon the National Integrated Pro- outside of the country. Such partnerships should not tected Areas Law, which legally recognizes the for- only facilitate species inventory and analysis, but also mation of Protected Area Management Boards (or enhance the hands-on training of local staff. PAMBs). Under this decentralized set-up, the project ensured that local communities, especially indig- Sustaining Built-In Participatory enous groups, were represented in the PAMBs. Al- Mechanisms though the effectiveness of PAMBs varied by site (there are 10 sites in the project), this approach of It is often stated in many project evaluations that, "mainstreaming" a multi-stakeholder structure into once a project ends, there are no mechanisms to sus- park management seems to provide a long-term and tain biodiversity conservation activities. Seven projects sustainable mechanism since, by law, the in this review resolved this problem by building into government's national budget must allocate operat- the implementation structure community-based stake- ing funds for PAMB operations. holder participation systems. Some of these systems are legally recognized, but more importantly, all of · Bureaucratic Reform and Devolution of Author- them are socially sanctioned. ity. The Dominican Republic Biodiversity Conser- vation and Management in the Coastal Zone project · UserGroups.CommunityForestUserGroups(CFUG) reconstituted its staff in the Wildlife Department by and Grazing User Groups (GUG) were established in changing the hiring policies of civil servants. The the Nepal Biodiversity Conservation project using ex- government hired its first full-time community de- isting village systems of cooperation and co-manage- velopment specialists to work together with govern- ment. The CFUGs and GUGs were then legalized so ment extension agents. In the Samana area and that they had the authority to enforce their own rules Jaragua National Park, about 80 village organizations and manage their own funds.As a result, there was more were mobilized by the specialists to participate in than a 40 percent increase in forest area under commu- the project's environmental education and outreach nity management. CFUGs also increased the participa- activities. Since the salaries of the specialists come tion of women in forest management by training over from the department's regular budget, they will con- 400 women in tree planting and maintenance and sus- tinue to work in these sites even after the project tainable agroforestry livelihoods. ends. A similar approach is being tried in the Yemen Socotra Archipelago project within the Environment 32 G E F L e s s o n s N o t e s Protection Council (EPC), the main agency in charge and traditional regimes of regulating access to re- of national biodiversity conservation. The project sources, such as common property resource manage- hired village extension agents from the villages and ment, which have worked for many years in control- is working with the EPC in the Socotra archipelago ling resource degradation. It is important to engage to absorb these agents so that village conservation communities of users, including the private sector and environmental awareness activities can continue and the scientific community, in the design of ap- beyond the project's lifetime. proaches to biodiversity conservation and sustain- able use. Putting Study Results to Work: Three Recommendations Recognize the difficult livelihood choices of com- munities and their trade-offs. Communities in and Incorporate results from social analysis into the around protected areas often make difficult decisions design of project activities. It makes practical sense regarding use of natural resources. In some areas, that, before project activities are designed, project the choices are apparent in their culture of protec- teams look first at how different stakeholder groups tion where, for example, religion and belief systems "behave"--or how they use the resource. Tried and support conservation (e.g., burial and sacred tested techniques include social profiles of affected grounds). In others, changing environments, some- communities, socioeconomic surveys and analysis, times complicated by encroachments, encourage participatory appraisal, risk assessment, and benefi- more intensive and unsustainable resource uses. In ciary and needs assessment. There are numerous ma- these cases, projects offer so-called alternative live- terials describing the concepts and methods, but few lihoods or mobilize some co-financing to comple- resources demonstrate how to incorporate the find- ment conservation with development programs. But ings and translate them into project activities. this is a partial view and a much deeper analysis of what may constitute sustainable alternative liveli- Use participatory techniques to address the root hoods may be needed. In this instance, it may be causes of biodiversity loss. Because human influ- helpful to understand how communities define what ences on ecosystems are pervasive--e.g., unsustain- is meant by culturally and economically acceptable able logging, intensified agriculture, over-fishing, ex- livelihoods by engaging in meaningful consultations cessive grazing--dealing with affected populations' and joint assessments by the project team and af- needs and motivations is a critical factor in reducing biodiversity loss.At the same time, there are existing fected communities. Other GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Publications of Interest The full Biodiversity Program Study is available on the GEF website (www.gefweb.org) or may be requested from the GEF Monitoring and Evaluation team. Earlier issues of GEF Lessons Notes can also be obtained from the website or by writing to us. If you would like to be on the mailing list for future issues of GEF Lessons Notes, please contact us at the references below. Please let us know whether you wish to receive an electronic version or a hard copy, and which language (English, French, or Spanish) you would prefer. GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Program 1818 H Street, NW telephone: (202) 458-2548 Washington, DC 20433, U.S.A. fax: (202) 522-3240 website: gefweb.org e-mail: geflessons@gefweb.org 4