WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 383 w W~~~VTP3s8 Work in progress for public discussion ODct. oq Ahi Experiences wNTith Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia aPt 1i. ~~'" - ( OA .~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ I .(/ .. ../ .. . -,.h .1~~~~~'/..1.S,,j.., RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS No. 305 Johnson, Education and Training of Accountants in Sub-Saharan Anglophone Africa No. 306 Muir and Saba, Improving State Enterprise Performance: The Role of Internal and External Incentives No. 307 Narayan, Toward Participatory Research No. 308 Adamson and others, Energy Use, Air Pollution, and Environmental Policy in Krakow: Can Economic Incentives Really Help? No. 309 The World Bank/FOA/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and Demand Balancesfor Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1993194-1999/2000 No. 310 Elder and Cooley, editors, Sustainable Settlement and Development of the Onchocerciasis Control Programme Area: Proceedings of a Ministerial Meeting No. 311 Webster, Riopelle and Chidzero, World Bank Lendingfor Small Enterprises 1989-1993 No. 312 Benoit, Project Finance at the World Bank: An Overview of Policies and Instruments No. 313 Kapur, Airport Infrastructure: The Emerging Role of the Private Sector No. 314 Valdes and Schaeffer in collaboration with Ramos, Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies: A Handbookfor Ecuador No. 316 Schware and Kimberley, Information Technology and National Trade Facilitation: Making the Most of Global Trade No. 317 Schware and Kimberley, Information Technology and National Trade Facilitation: Guide to Best Practice No. 318 Taylor, Boukambou, Dahniya, Ouayogode, Ayling, Abdi Noor, and Toure, Strengthening National Agricul- tural Research Systems in the Humid and Sub-humid Zones of West and Central Africa: A Frameworkfor Action No. 320 Srivastava, Lambert, and Vietrneyer, Medicinal Plants: An Expanding Role in Development No. 321 Srivastava, Smith, and Forno, Biodiversity and Agriculture: Implications for Conservation and Development No. 322 Peters, The Ecology and Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources No. 323 Pannier, editor, Corporate Governance of Public Enterprises in Transitional Economies No. 324 Cabraal, Cosgrove-Davies, and Schaeffer, Best Practicesfor Photovoltaic Household Electrification Programs No. 325 Bacon, Besant-Jones, and Heidarian, Estimating Construction Costs and Schedules: Experience with Power Generation Projects in Developing Countries No. 326 Colletta, Balachander, and Liang, The Condition of Young Children in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Convergence of Health, Nutrition, and Early Education No. 327 Vald6s and Schaeffer in collaboration with Martin, Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies: A Handbookfor Paraguay No. 328 De Geyndt, Social Development and Absolute Poverty in Asia and Latin America No. 329 Mohan, editor, Bibliography of Publications: Technical Department, Africa Region, July 1987 to April 1996 No. 330 Echeverria, Trigo, and Byerlee, Institutional Change and Effective Financing of Agricultural Research in Latin America No. 331 Sharma, Damhaug, Gilgan-Hunt, Grey, Okaru, and Rothberg, African Water Resources: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Development No. 332 Pohl, Djankov, and Anderson, Restructuring Large Industrial Firms in Central and Eastern Europe: An Empirical Analysis No. 333 Jha, Ranson, and Bobadilla, Measuring the Burden of Disease and the Cost-Effectiveness of Health Interventions: A Case Study in Guinea No. 334 Mosse and Sontheimer, Performance Monitoring Indicators Handbook No. 335 Kirmani and Le Moigne, Fostering Riparian Cooperation in International River Basins: The World Bank at Its Best in Development Diplomacy No. 336 Francis, with Akinwumi, Ngwu, Nkom, Odihi, Olomajeye, Okunmadewa, and Shehu, State, Community, and Local Development in Nigeria No. 337 Kerf and Smith, Privatizing Africa's Infrastructure: Promise and Change No. 338 Young, Measuring Economic Benefitsfor Water Investments and Policies (List continues on the inside back cover) WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 388 Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia M. A. Sanjayan Susan Shen Malcolm Jansen The Work/Bank Washington, D.C. Copyright © 1997 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A. All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America First printing October 1997 Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community with the least possible delay. The typescript of this paper therefore has not been prepared in accordance with the proce- dures appropriate to formal printed texts, and the World Bank accepts no responsibility for errors. Some sources cited in this paper may be informal documents that are not readily available. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the author(s) and should not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data in- cluded in this publication and accepts no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other information shown on any map in this volume do not imply on the part of the World Bank Group any judgment on the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such bound- aries. The material in this publication is copyrighted. Requests for permission to reproduce portions of it should be sent to the Office of the Publisher at the address shown in the copyright notice above. The World Bank encourages dissem- ination of its work and will normally give permission promptly and, when the reproduction is for noncommercial purposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy portions for classroom use is granted through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., Suite 910, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, Massachusetts 01923, U.S.A. The complete backlist of publications from the World Bank is shown in the annual Index of Publications, which con- tains an alphabetical title list with full ordering information. The latest edition is available free of charge from the Dis- tribution Unit, Office of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A., or from Publications, The World Bank, 66, avenue d'Iena, 75116 Paris, France. ISSN: 0253-7494 M. A. Sanjayan is a consultant to the World Bank. Susan Shen is a senior ecologist in the Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit in the World Bank's East Asia Department. Malcolm Jansen is an environmental spe- cialist in the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the World Bank's Asia Department. Cover photos: Bhutan forests and Bhutan wood carrier, Curt Carnemark, 1993. Thailand basket weaver in a village near Chi- ang Mei, Yosef Hadar, 1982. Stripes, Malcolm Jansen, 1992. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jansen, Malcolm, 1949- Experiences with integrated-conservation development projects in Asia / Malcolm Jansen, M.A. Sanjayan, Susan Shen. p. cm. - (World Bank technical paper; no. 388) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8213-4084-0 1. Economic development projects-Environmental aspects-Asia. 2. Sustainable development-Asia. I. Sanjayan, M. A., 1966- II. Shen, Susan. III. Title. IV. Series. HC415.E44J37 1997 363.7'0095-dc2l 97-35483 CIP Contents ABSTRACT ........................................................................ iv FOREWORD ........................................................................ v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................ vi ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................ vii CHAPTER 1. DECIDING THE SUITABILITY OF AN ICDP ........................................................................ I DEFINING ICDP ......................................................................1 WEIGHING THE OPTIONS WHEN BEST TO USE AN ICDP ........................................................................ 3 CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL ICDPS ........................................................................ 4 SELECTING APPROPRIATE ICDP SITES ........................................................................ 5 PROJECT PREPARATION TIME AND PROCESS ........................................................................ 6 TIMELY RELEASE OF FUNDS ........................................................................ 8 CHAPTER 2. GOING FORWARD WITH AN ICDP ........................................................................ 11 DEVELOPING SHARED OBJECTIVES .........................................................................11 ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP OF ICDP ...................................................................... 14 LINKAGES WITH BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ........................................................................ 20 CHAPTER 3. MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE ICDP ..................................................................... 27 BENEFITS OF M&E ........................................................................ 27 CONSTRAINTS TO M&E ........................................................................ 28 TIPS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE M&E DESIGN ........................................................................ 29 ANNEX 1. PREPARATION AND IMPLEMENTATION CYCLE .................................................................... 31 ANNEX 2. CASE STUDY FOCUS AT THE ICDP WORKSHOPS .................................................................... 35 ANNEX 3. ICDP SELECTED READINGS ........................................................................ 37 ANNEX 4. SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS ENGAGED IN ANALYTICAL ICDP WORK .......................... 41 iii Abstract Conservation-development is considered a land for their living. The cooperation and singular concept in this publication. For this participation of the local community is vital to reason, the authors hyphenate the words to the sustainability of a project. But the main emphasize that it is not conservation through objective of the ICDP is that biodiversity development or conservation with conservation is the goal and socio-economic development or even conservation adjoined investment is a tool for achieving the goal. with development. But, it is the achievement Not all situations require an ICDP and careful of conservation goals and development needs thought must be given to when and where to together. apply such an approach. Oftentimes, major threats to biodiversity are not local people. In Conserving biodiversity faces complex those cases, other measures will need to be problems when the natural resources from the considered including better law enforcement land also provide income and sustenance to its and education. ICDP will need to be tailor- local inhabitants. Finding a balance between made for each situation and require time and biodiversity conservation and the socio- careful assessment of an area. This report economic development of a community near looks at the experience of others and discusses protected areas is the goal of integrated the many considerations in planning an ICDP. conservation-development projects (ICDP). Another document for further analysis of Active participation of all stakeholders is findings and recommendations on ICDPs is the critical to its success. Protected areas face forthcoming "Investing in Biodiversity: A constant threat from agricultural Review of Indonesia's Integrated Conservation encroachment, wildlife poaching, fuelwood and Development Projects," by the World and other forest collection including illegal Bank's Indonesia and Pacific Islands Country logging. An aim of ICDP is to find alternative Department. income for the people who so depend on the iv Foreword Integrated Conservation-Development lessons learned in preparation of six World Projects (ICDP) link the conservation of Bank managed biodiversity projects funded by biodiversity in protected areas with social and GEF. A subsequent workshop was held in economic development of adjoining Padang, Indonesia in June 1994 jointly communities. ICDPs do this by providing sponsored by ASTEN and the Economic alternative sources of livelihood to those Development Institute (EDI) to obtain communities in or near the protected areas to feedback from Asia government staff, NGOs, reduce pressure on the exploitation of and project consultants on project design resources. ICDPs have been increasingly used issues. A third and final workshop which took as a strategy for conserving biodiversity, place in early 1995 in Washington, DC, initially funded by non-governmental focused on a prevailing ICDP design issue of organizations, but more frequently now by how to reconcile the needs of indigenous international bilateral and multilateral donor people and the goal of biodiversity organizations. The establishment of the conservation. This report has been developed Global Environment Facility (GEF) in 1992 at the request of participants from the three which provides grant financing for workshops who felt that there was a need to international environmental concerns provided consolidate existing information on ICDPs, to an opportunity for the World Bank to become distill lessons learned in design and more involved in assisting client countries in implementation, and to provide guidance for developing programs and projects in future ICDP practitioners. It is not meant to be biodiversity conservation. exhaustive in coverage; rather it is an effort to stimulate critical thinking, provide the latest Starting in January 1994, the Asia information and identify key issues that affect Environment and Natural Resources Division current projects. (ASTEN) launched a series of workshops and dissemination notes on issues related to ICDP design and implementation in South and East Maritta Koch-Weser Asia regions. The first workshop, which was Chief, Asia Environment and attended by consultants, World Bank task Natural Resources Division managers and technical staff, focused on v Acknowledgments The authors wish to acknowledge the from the World Bank, Esme Abedin, Ajit contributions of the following people to this Banerjee, Chong-Hoy Chung, Rob Crooks, document: Sjaak Beerens, Liz Bennett, Chona Cruz, Gloria Davis, Victoria Elliott, Katrina Brandon, Barbara Dugelby, Mike Hill, Jose Furtado, Patrice Harou, Ian Hill, Agi Richard Margolius, Raman Mehta, Scott Kiss, Augusta Molnar, Glenn Morgan, Jessica McCormick, Judy and Mike Rainy, Kent Mott, Kathy Mackinnon, Ben Van De Poll, Redford, Mark Renzi, Nick Salafsky, Kathy Colin Rees, Rick Scobey, and Yves Wong. Saterson, Dian Seslar Svendsen, Shekhar Sheldon Lippman was the editor. Singh, Michael Soule, and Anthony Zola; and vi Acronyms and abbreviations EDI Economic Development Institute GEF Global Environment Facility FOMACOP Forest Management and Conservation Program (Lao PDR) ICAD integrated conservation and development ICDP integrated conservation-development project IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Parks KSNP Kerinci Seblat National Park (Indonesia) M&E monitoring and evaluation NGO non governmental organization PA protected area RRA rapid rural appraisal WB World Bank vii Chapter 1. Deciding the suitability of an ICDP First and foremost, it is important to ensure that an conservation areas.' More generally, any area integrated conservation-development project managed with the conservation of wildlife as a (ICDP) is the most appropriate intervention to primary goal can be thought of as a protected area. conserve biodiversity at a particular site. As The terms parks and protected areas are used ICDPs gain in popularity and funding, the danger interchangeably in this report. is that ICDP will be seen as a panacea even for sitaton tatclearly do not meet the necessary Protected areas are the cornerstone of every situations that nation's conservation strategy. Today, many conditions. In some situations, actions such as enocee* bonay dmacto. n protected areas are under substantial pressure from enforcement, boundary demarcation and Poet consTvation education are necessary first steps to human-induced activities including agricultural consider before the introduction of an ICDP. This encroachment, fuelwood and minor forest product section defines the parametirs under which an collection, wildlife poaching, and illegal logging. ICDP will most likely succeed. Local communities are routinely blamned for the demise of the protected area, but in reality they are living at or near a subsistence level and are unable Defining ICDP to stop such activities. Oftentimes, their actions are influenced by economies from distant urban Perhaps the most succinct definition of ICDPs is centers or masterminded by a few affluent provided by Wells and Brandon (1992): projects individuals reaping great benefits at the expense of that link biodiversity conservation in protected both local people and natural resources. The areas with local socio-economic development. involvement and empowerment of local people This linkage means that local people living in or and the improvement of their socio-economic near the protected areas are given alternative condition is a necessary tool in conservation of the sources of livelihood that do not deplete the protected area. resources of the protected areas. ICDPs evolved Currently, there are various interpretations of out of the failure of the traditional protection ICDP. The main commonality is that ICDP has approach to conservation in light of growing two important components: biodiversity population pressures and heightened by unclear conservation and socio-economic development. tenure arrangements, poor enforcement and public Consequently, ICDPs have become "all things to policy. Conservationists realized that local all people" and a number of labels have been communities have to be involved in conservation developed to meet the particular objectives of the efforts and their subsistence needs have to be project. For example, the World Wide Fund for addressed. Nature-Nepal refers to such projects as The term protected areas is used for all the "integrating conservation with development category I - X parks set by the International Union projectse and in Papua New Guinea, they are for Conservation of Nature and Natural Parks referred to as "integrated conservation and (IUCN). It refers to national parks, wilderness development projects (ICADs)." Another inter- areas, natural heritage sites, and natural resource pretation, "conservation through development," is gaining popularity and is potentially problematic McNeely t al (1990). I 2 because it creates the misleading notion tht only devlopmwnt, to emphasize the singular objective. through development could consevation goals be Although ICDPs are genally applied to met. It also tends to simplify cos5boi issues address the inmteraction of local communities and by providing a win-win sceniario t hat yet5 to protected areas, they could be broader in scope and prove achievable. It is also noteworthy that nmy deal with the impacts of economic development so-called ICDP or ICAD projects are not elly activities, e.g. mining, roads, dams, etc. Such biodivermity conservation projecs but ru activities have the potential to have significant development projects which are carried out imn impact on local people's subsistence livelihood environmentally sustinable manner. This and on the protected area. A review of 21 "greening" of rural development projects, although protected areas in Indonesia found that local worthwhile, may inadvertently divert scar fiuid conservon ranked behind roads, mining, logging earmarked for biodiversity consrvation ox2 e World Bank's (bo . ~ ..... and sponsored immigration.ThWol acs Expenences with ICDPs thus far have shown at India Ecodevelopent and Indonesia Kerinci direct linkap between tbe two components - Seblat National Park Projects are conceptually conservation and socio-economic development- designed to address the broad rnge of socio- is essential, but the primary goal of ICDPs must economic activities in the vicinity of the protected always remain biodiversity conservation, with reas, including, but not limited to those of local SOCio-economic development used as a tool aras inldn,btntlmie.otoeooa socio-c .o .sW a a tool . ............ . communities. However, there is little expenence forachieving this objective. Thus, this publication so far in dealing with the larger regional concefns hyphenates the two actioris, comervatlon- in the context of ICDPs. i '~~ Boxi1. ICDPs, not rural development projects ICDPs are considered to be consevation project lrst and Ibromost, although they have socio-economic development activite which are critical to the sucom and sustainabillty of the projet Therefore, how much focus should there be on Xt social and economic development of the people impacting the protected area? If too much emphasi Is placd on soclo-economic development, the ICDP eventually becomes a rural deveopment prjct wth a wea_ed biodersity conservation objcive. On the other hand, social and economic condWions of the people living In or adjacent to the protected area must be taken into consideration If long lsng sdutbons to problems are to be reached. This issue is contentious and there exist competng vuws supporting a variety of extemes, i.e. spending funds on socmeconomic devopmen versus spending on conservation measures aimed directly at bodiversity proteon. Howvr, by the accepted delnition of ICDPs as described in the above, almost all investments and actvits In an ICOP project should be aimed at biodiversily conservation. Even when investments are made in acdvit desIned to promote the economic and social well-being of the local people, they can only be justilled - an ICDP (or use biodiversity conservation funding) if the ultimate goal of these In_vesmnt is consevatio with clear links between these activities and the well- being of the protected area. This doe not mean that general community investments are excluded but just that acbtvits with Indirect links ned to be carefully selcted with a system in place ensuring that they do indeed enhance blodhvray. Note: Unls Indicated, boxe orlgnstd by authr. 2 World Bak. Invesn in BioWuNy (1997). &periec.u with Interated-Conrervation Dewlopment Projects in Asia 3 WVeighing the options kilometers to graze. Even within this initially defined area, there is often the need to further when best to use an ICDP prioritize the areas for project intervention, primarily based on the adequacy of institutional When or when not to use an ICDP approach to capacity and availability of financial resources. achieve conservation goals has to be determined The final project area receiving support was taken on a case-by-case basis. It is often easier to define as a two-kilometer belt along the periphery of the when not to use the ICDP approach than when to protected areas. use it (box 2). However, so as to better illuminate e The types and scale of pressures on the the use of ICDPs as a conservation tool, some protected area are relatively limited. In this ideal ICDP situations are described below. case, people use the protected area for subsistence * One of the primary pressures on level income or to harvest products for immediate biodiversity is from local people living in the local consumption such as fuelwood, fodder and immediate vicinity of the protected area. In the medicinal plant gathering, small plot farming or India Ecodevelopment Project, the initial project hunting for locally consumed meat. However, development area, from where pressures and experiences have shown that ICDPs have not been threats to the protected areas emanate, is taken to effective in dealing with extensive logging be the 10-kilometer radius around the protected operations or agricultural activities designed to area. Past studies have established that livestock, satisfy' the demands of an export market. For which represent the greatest long range threat to example, in Indonesia, the large-scale cultivation protected area, are rarely led more than ten of cinnamon within Kerinci Seblat National Park Box 2. When not to use ICDPs Contrary to popular belief, ICDPs may not always be the best strategy for encouraging conservation in and around protected areas. Under certain circumstances, traditional conservation techniques that emphasize boundary controls and enforcement of conservation regulations may be a better and more cost-effective method of protecting biodiversity. Following are some examples where ICDPs may not be appropriate. - In areas where policy reform or public expenditure reform alone could be sufficient and politically possible to reduce pressures or threats, the implementation of ICDPs may not be the most cost- effective use of scarce financial resources. * Areas with little human impact and protected areas where enforcement alone would be adequate to limit disturbances need not be included unless there is a reasonable possibility that future conflicts will arise. * Where the threat to protected areas is from regional development such as highway development, forest concessions, industrial pollution, extensive high-value farming, or mining, other strategies need to be employed, local social economic development is not advised; as a conservation strategy, ICDPs are most appropriate where main conflicts arise by pressures from local (rural) communities. * In areas where problems already exist either with rapidly declining biodiversity (due to poaching, for example) or very high levels of conflict, ICDPs will not have enough time to work as it usually takes several years to establish connections between conservation and development. Chapter 1. Deciding the Suitability of an ICDP 4 provides an enormous and lucrative source of income to both local people and their more distant business employers. Development activities Conditions necessary for usually envisioned under ICDPs cannot adequately successful ICDPs compete with the income generated from this type of export-oriented cash crop cultivation. The following are some conditions for a successful * ICDPs are viewed as a medium-range ICDP based on past design and implementation strategy designed to buy time for the protected * v a area unil comrehensve polcy and experiences of a number of projects in the Asia area until comprehensive policy and * ** institutional changes are in place. ICDPs should region. Complying with all these conditions would not be viewed as the ultimate solution to the long- greatly enhance the chances for a successful ICDP. term conservation problems of the protected area; * Adequate protection measures such as for that to happen, national policies and priorities boundary patrols and enforcement of laws must need to change. Instead ICDPs should be used to also be supported to reduce immediate threats prevent or at least slow down the irreplaceable to the area. It is only after stabilizing immediate erosion of biodiversity from the protected area. A threats that an ICDP has a reasonable chance of realistic time frame is needed for more succeeding and establishing itself (box 3). comprehensive policies to evolve, for education to * Expectations need to be managed take effect, and for attitudes to change. throughout the project. ICDP funds cannot meet * The opportunity exists to realistically all the needs of a community. Their expectations generate income from limited local need to be carefully managed and focused with development activities such as ecotourism, explicitly stated conservation objectives. In subsistence farming, minor forest products and addition, past project preparation experiences have agroforestry. However, it is important not to shown that unless funds are available early in the overestimate the revenues generated from such planning stage, false expectations could build activities, particularly ecotourism. Too often false among the local communities making future work expectations are raised among local communities with them much more difficult. Thus early release and local governments as to the level of economic of a small amount of funds could help to build benefits they might enjoy. confidence and credibility necessary for successful * Policies are conducive to long-term dialogue community involvement and ownership. between all the stakeholders, especially between * ICDPs require long-term commitment and the protected area authorities and the local financing. ICDP activities which rely on active people targeted by the ICDP. In countries where community participation take a long time to the political situation precludes such open implement and even longer time to realize results. dialogue, participation process espoused by ICDPs ICDPs should be viewed as a long-term program cannot be used, although this does not necessarily rather than a one-time project and appropriate mean that western-style participation is an financing mechanism beyond typical project life of absolute necessity for successful ICDP five years should be included during design. A implementation. For example, the China Nature component to develop a viable financing Reserve Management Project is fostering co- mechanism for protected areas was included in the management through government facilitation of Indonesia Kerinci Seblat Project and Lao PDR community consultations at the village level. Wildlife and Protected Area Project. Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 5 Box 3. Responding to external threats The World Bank/Global Environment Facility-financed India Ecodevelopment Project provides an example of how managers of an ICDP are trying to address threats to the protected areas from extemal development activities. Some of the seven protected areas included in the project are under potential threat from proposed reservoir and irrigation conveyance systems, fisheries and other development activities. These activities, which are largely expected to be located in the protected area peripheries have the potential to undermine the conservation effectiveness of this project. To address these concerns, the India Ecodevelopment Project includes specific assurances from the national and state govemments that they will not undertake activities which will undermine the objectives of the project. To accomplish this task, the national and state governments are expected to apply their own environmental assessment regulations and additional standards that the project has outlined to asses the impact of proposed external activities. Further, the provision of the National Environmental Protection Act can also be applied, where appropriate, to control and manage external development. The Project has defined specific critera and procedures for ensuring compliance with the project covenant on regional development activities. Specifically, a set of criteria has been established to assist protected area authorties determine whether biodiversity conservation and/or ecodevelopment activity has been or may be undermined. The understanding is that if the government proceeds with an activity that is deemed to have the potential to undermine conservation or the ecodevelopment strategy, project financing could be withdrawn. In case the application of the criteria for determining potential impact cannot be resolved between the protected area authorities and the development agencies, a high-level project steering committee (which includes NGO representation) is responsible for mediation and conflict resolution. This project also includes funding for independent NGO studies and monitoring and as a means of objectively identifying and suggesting solutions to potential conflicts between regional development and biodiversity conservation. Source: India Ecodevelopment Project, World Bank (1997). - Funding agencies supporting ICDPs should have the will to withdraw from the project if Selecting appropriate agreements, especially those dealing with conservation, are broken beyond repair. This ICDP sites will not only reduce costs but will also send a clear message about the conservation priority of the In designing ICDPs, certain critical questions need ICDP. Although several ICDPs under to be resolved. In particular, this requires the implementation have reciprocal agreements selection of suitable sites and a detailed (contracts) between protected area managers and understanding of the real world based on extensive local communities, none are yet fully operational discussions with all the communities involved -- a for assessment of effectiveness. lengthy process if done properly. Chapter 1. Deciding the Suitability of an ICDP 6 The principles of conservation biology can be four years to design. In Indonesia, the eight month applied to maximize the biological suitability of preparation time was inadequate to fully consult the site(s) selected for ICDP. A series of issues all the stakeholders and to develop a fundable need to be addressed before an area is considered project proposal. An additional year and more for an ICDP: funds were needed to complete preparation. In * The proposed site should be biologically China, project design took two years to finalize. valuable. The biological value of an area This ensured that many of the parties involved (because of endangered species, unique ecological could be adequately consulted and a detailed communities, presence of key species project preparation report that deals with the representative ecosystems etc.) should be the first Complexities of biodiversity prodects d b and foremost consideration when selecting an developed. ICDP site. Although this process is relatively long it * There should be a high degree of landscape appeared to be necessary in order to introduce the integrity. Large intact ecosystems as opposed to ICDP concept and bring all the parties on board. small fragmented areas make better conservation Preparation funds come from several sources in unitsm Connected or contiguous landscapes can addition to GEF funds. For example, the proposed maintain larger populations of species while Thailand project carried out a study of keeping edge effects (the consequence of the encroachment (the most serious problem facing booundary on species) to a minimum. A caveat to protected areas) financed by a grant from Japan. bounaryon pecis) o aminmum.A cvea toThis was followed up by a more in-depth project this however is even small fragmented areas may prpsal financed by a more-investinent contain important refuge for particular species and proposal financed by the GEF Pre-Investment in some instances there is a capacity for habitat clity. restoration. Even more time is needed when basic * ICDPs should be the correct conservation biological, management, and socio-economic data strategy. The ICDP concept must be the are not readily available and have to be first appropriate tool for achieving effective collected. Or, when strong antagonism exists piodiversity conservation. The type of ICDP between the local community and government activities envisioned must be carefully chosen for authorities, or even within communities, a rapport- the area. building process can be time consuming. x Support tools should be available to However, based on the World Bank's improve probability of success. The area experience in the design of six ICDP projects in impro olhve probroadity ofsuTbiodiversity Asia, it is critical that the lag-time between project selected should have broad biiversit preparation and the release of funds for Availability of technical support, accessibility to implementation of the ICDP be minimized to Avalailtyof ecnialsupor, ccssiiltytomaintain momentum and enthusiasm of the the protected area, NGO presence, infrastructure, stain (see andiscusiof the and community support are all useful in ensuring stockholders (see following discussion). Asca project success. The structure and organization of result of the issues of timing and project cycles the community is also an important consideration being raised at the ICDP Workshop I inselectinganICDPsite. (Washington, DC, 1995), a proposed model for in selecting an ICDP site. preparation and implementation cycle was developed during the ICDP Workshop II organized Project preparation time by EDI and ASTEN in Pedang, Indonesia, 1995 (see annexes 1 and 2). and process There are three main reasons why it is often Cuffently, most World Bank/Global Environment not possible to spend a long time on project Facility (GEF) ICDP projects take between two to preparation. First, there is often an urgent need to act immediately in order to halt further Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 7 degradation of the protected areas. Second, * Using small teams and frequent visits. expectation of benefits by the local people and Increasing the number of people in the preparation government need to be satisfied without long team cannot necessarily compensate for delays. Third, there are limited resources inadequate preparation time. Greater efficiency available for project preparation. Several simple might be achieved by having smaller teams but strategies can be used to reduce the time and cost longer preparation time using discretionary funds. of the planning process, however inherent Ideally, a small consultant team should make drawbacks must be evaluated against any savings. frequent visits to guide the local preparation team The answer is generally negative to the question with the composition visiting team changing as the 'can preparation time be shortened?' But, some of project design evolves. the more frequently used solutions that might offer * Implementing immediate enforcement some relief are proposed below along with. some frelief are proposed below alongwithAnother solution is the immediate enforcement of potential pitfalls. the required protected area management * Applying rapid rural appraisaL Rapid rural prescription to arrest degradation of biological appraisal (RRA) is one technique for shortening resources pending the design and implementation the planning period. This method helps generate of the ICDP. This allows time to design a detailed large amounts of data in a brief time span participatory planning process without the facilitating detailed micro-level planning within impending threat of a rapidly degrading protected the brief allotted time. The main drawback is that area. However, there is a danger that strict RRA misses seasonal and annual variation in the enforcement of the laws and regulations without biological and socio-economic profiles of the area. corresponding development of alternative In addition, given the social stratification that resources would only heighten the antagonism of exists in most of the countries of the region, RRA the local people toward the protected area is often an inadequate tool for capturing the management making the implementation of a internal dynamics of decision making that exists successful ICDP rather uncertain. There is also within any community. This handicap may be the added complication that once the protected partially overcome by involving local NGOs, area staff and managers are geared toward greater whenever possible, assisted by grassroots groups, enforcement, it would be difficult to reorient them, because they are usually cognizant of the internal once the ICDP starts toward a more participatory dynamics in communities. and conciliatory approach toward local * Reducing data collection. Another option is communities. Thus, the use of strict enforcement! to start the ICDP without a vast amount of data measures pending ICDP implementation is not collection or detailed planning. However, generally recommended except in the most urgent cases where a clear and present danger exists that a experience from rural and community species or biological resource will disapear development programs suggests that such an withougtm at reson. approach has high incidence of failure. wthout Immediate action. Difficulties caused by the inaccurate identification * Incorporating two planning phases. An of problems, adoption of ineffective or approach that is being tried in India and elsewhere inappropriate solutions, and a lack of support from with some measure of success is to break up the local people are usually to blame. One possible planning phase into two parts. An initial solution is to carefully target data collection along 'Indicative Planning' phase which lasts 6 to 12 with concurrent analysis. This can reduce time months and a 'Detailed Planning' phase that lags and prevent unnecessary information being occurs during implementation. The indicative processed. plan is based on a study of a small sub-sample of Chapter 1. Deciding the Suitability of an ICDP 8 communities and the available information on the powers, and lack of accountability mechanisms for protected area. The funding agency commits the government funds. Therefore, one critical funds based on the indicative plan but planning consideration for ICDPs is to establish disbursement will occur in the implementation appropriate financial procedures: phase after village-based microplans have been . Devise an explicit delegation mechanism prepared. Benefits would be provided on the basis of reciprocal agreement or action on the part of the whereby expenditure authority is transferred to beneficiaries. This approach shoe lower levels minimizing transaction costs. beneficiaries. This approach shows great promiseComntoro-gvnetmagdad (box 4). Community or non-government managed and (box 4). operated funds, such as trust funds and revolving funds that operate on flexible financial Timely release of funds mechanisms, also need to be developed. * Where government regulations permit, it may The meaningful involvement of local communities also be useful to establish independent societies in ICDPs requires the transfer of substantial that are delegated powers to plan, implement and financial and implementation responsibility to the finance project-related activities. Another local level. The extent to which financial possibility would be to delegate substantial responsibility can be transferred is dependent on financial and approval authority to protected area the flexibility available within the project managers so that they can effectively and timely executing and financing agencies. Nevertheless, it discharge funds for community investment is important to at least ensure that financial activities. resources necessary for ICDP investments are * Release funds in a timely fashion so that work available in a timely and efficient manner, or else ' ~~can proceed uninterrupted. This is particularly the trust and goodwill of local communities may critical near the end of the year when ICDP funds be eroded. As a result of unmet expectations, the project loses credibility. Although NGO-financed lapsingy projects have the flexibility to ensure timely release of funds, normal government financial and * Improve flexibility in the budget to support the budgetary procedures often lead to long time lags wide range of activities that may be identified via between planning and implementation and require community assessments and as part of a high transaction cost to beneficiaries. In surveys participatory planning. of public sector community programs, these delays U Ensure adequate transparency and and high transaction costs are often determined to accountability to prevent misuse of funds. This is be the cause of project failure. Other reasons for important because of the flexible approach ICDPs failure related to funding are insufficient funds, use to identify appropriate activities. lack of delegation/decentralization of financial Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 9 Box 4. Using indicative planning in India In the India Ecodevelopment Project planning is a dynamic, ongoing process that runs concurrent to implementation. Planning processes for such projects are usually participatory in nature using participatory rural appraisal techniques which entail going from village to village and interviewing people. Unfortunately when there is no certainty of funding for the project, or when funding will not come through for some time, such labor intensive approach unnecessarily raises the expectations of local people. Therefore, it is better to delay detailed micro-level ecodevelopment planning until the project is approved and in the early stages of implementation. It is expected that based on the indicative plan, the financial support required for the project will be committed allowing for the second phase of micro-planning to start. This would take place at each village, using planning teams that would help the villagers plan for themselves within the constraints of the broad objectives of the ICDP. For the purpose of determining the broad thrusts of the project as well as the budget required, a small and representative sample of villages is visited and the costs analyzed and extrapolated. As only a sub- sample of communities are consulted, expectations are not unnecessarily raised throughout the entire region. A preliminary indicative plan is then produced from these findings and is used for project approval and guidance until micro- planning during implementation is complete. However, in a situation where the general nature of the local interactions and impacts are already well understood, and there is agreement on processes, and budget levels based on comparable sites elsewhere, it may be possible to prepare an indicative plan without close interactions or sampling with villagers in ways that would not raise expectations and create frustrations involved with long project processing delays. Such indicative plans should provide the following: * basic information about the project area; * identification of major management and development issues as it pertains to relieving pressures on the protected area; * strategies available for tackling the various management and development issues; * types of resource and income-generating activities feasible in the area, given the local ecological and socio-economic characteristics and the availability of natural and social resources; * participatory planning processes to be used to define investments and reciprocal commitments of local people; * infrastructure inputs and support that might be required to implement suggested management and development plans, especially in terms of human resources development; * levels of financial support that might be required, based on the size of the population involved and the nature of the problem rather than on detailed costing of specific activities that will not be known until the micro-planning stage during early implementation; . biodiversity value of the protected area, the most threatened species and natural resources, and the feasibility of development activities designed to ameliorate the threats to the protected area; . outline of the process that would be followed during detailed planning and implementation of the ICDP, including financial, legal, policy and institutional mechanisms. Source: India Ecodevelopment Project, World Bank (1997). Chapter 1. Deciding the Suitability of an ICDP Chapter 2. Going forward with an ICDP If the conditions are met and the decision has been sources of income. Unfortunately, this is often not made to pursue an ICDP, the following four issues clear to the numerous stakeholders involved in the should be considered. Although there are other design and implementation of an ICDP. concerns, an ICDP will not succeed unless all four Without this clarity, conflicts will inevitably of the following issues are adequately addressed arise during preparation or implementation which during preparation: in turn may foster mutual distrust among the The need to -- parties and lengthen the project time (box 5). In * develop shared objectives between all the China project preparation time for the Nature stakeholders; Reserve Management Project was extended and * secure active community involvement and additional workshops scheduled because of a need partial or joint ownership of the project; to clarify objectives between the various levels of * establish clear linkages between the govemment, local communities, the World Bank development activities and conservation and GEF. In Vietnam, pre-preparation meetings objectives, and were held to bring together the major players and * select appropriate sites and retain flexibility in discuss the goals and objectives, as well as the project preparation process. guidelines for the project and role of all those who were to be involved in preparation. This process was repeated throughout preparation to ensure Developing shared common understanding. objectives Strategies for achieving shared The ICDP objective is the conservation of biological diversity, or more immediately, the * Conservation should be a transparent, not protection of the integrity of protected areas. hidden agenda Although it may be tempting not Since this objective is implicit in the definition of to initially divulge the conservation agenda of the ICDPs, it should always take precedence over project to local communities, such a strategy is other secondary objectives. However, ICDPs use dangerous and the potential pitfalls outweigh any socio-economic development as a tool for marginal benefits. If such a strategy is attempted fostering collaboration between protected area and it fails, a common vision will never be staff and local people in conservation efforts. achieved because of mistrust. This issue is more Socio-economic development also provides the fully discussed later in this chapter. local people with alternative but sustainable 11 12 Box 5. Experience from Kerinci Seblat ICDP Preparation Given the number of potential stakeholders in the Kerinci Seblat National Park (KSNP) ICDP, it was difficult to develop shared objectives among all the parties especially within the (initial) 8-month project preparation period. Project scope, details of planning, role and responsibility of the major stakeholders, terms of reference for the consultants all took time to discuss and agree upon. The KSNP ICDP was further complicated by the fact that NGOs appeared to be reluctant or unable to appoint representatives. In addition, the consulting firm undertaking project preparation was unable to handle the tension between the Government of Indonesia and the World Bank regarding appropriate regional development activities. The following stakeholders were all actively involved in and contributed to the design of the KSNP ICDP: Global Environmental Facility, The World Bank, Ministry of Forestry, Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Environment, National Development Planning Coordination Board, Provincial (4) and District (9) Development Planning Coordination Boards with each involving 5-8 technical agencies, Local communities comprising of 1250 villages and 1,750,000 people (depending on the definition of project area), International conservation NGOs (5 - 10+), National umbrella conservation NGOs (5+), Local NGOs (25+), International organizations (World Resources Institute, etc.), Private mining companies (10+), Logging companies (10+), Research Institutes, Dutch consulting firm, and several parties who although not included in this list want to be involved and included in the process because of their long- term activities in the area i.e., BIOTROP and French Institutes. Preparation was extended another year to reconcile some conceptual differences and refine activities. C Clearly state the primary objective -- * Clearly outline the meaning and measure of biodiversity conservation -- over and over biodiversity conservation. ICDP project again. Some agencies (often regional documents often define biodiversity conservation development agencies) and NGOs (usually the as the protection of not only species and gene more anthropocentric ones) view the objective of pools but also the sustainability of life supporting ICDPs as finding a consensus on the balance and systems (communities, ecotypes, ecoregions, priorities of conservation and development. If this ecosystems, etc.) and other abstract terms that can is the case, an inherent conflict between be interpreted as one wishes, with little practical conservation- and development-oriented policies relevance to project design and investments. will exist. Although good interactions may occur, Instead, biodiversity should be defined simply as a clear set of work objectives will have to be the diversity of species. It is implicit that in-situ defined. With biodiversity conservation as the species protection through conservation area primary goal, then this objective can overrule all management would then be the highest priority, others. Development is thus classified as a with communities, landscapes, and ecosystems mechanism -- not objective -- to enhance automatically protected as a result of conserving biodiversity conservation, inherent in the multiple species. definition of ICDP. It is critical that all parties, * Keep discussions on project objective local governments, communities, NGOs, planning simple. There are inherent conflicts caused by agencies, and funding agencies understand this different objectives of different implementers. If from the very beginning. The primary objective is abstract concepts (intrinsic value of biodiversity, non-negotiable and deviation means that the ethics etc.) are used during discussion, the main project can no longer be considered an ICDP. thrust of consensus building may become Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 13 obscured. Thus, the focus should be on down-to- will make them eligible for ICDP development earth issues regarding implementation of project benefits. where consensus can be more easily found while The hardest problem with identifying keeping sight of the various agendas of the beneficiaries is to avoid fostering the impression different groups (box 6). that the ICDP is an amnesty scheme which not * Using a dynamic process to develop shared only forgives, but rewards the culprits. It is objectives. Developing shared objectives should perhaps better to make all families below a certain not be a static process but a continuing dynamic economic level beneficiaries to the project rather process leading to a convergence of ideas than only those who are impacting the protected particularly regarding the scope and scale of the area as is being done in the Vietnam ICDP. While development activities. For example, the Indian this is less cost effective in the short run, it will Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the prevent the temptation by some people to increase Indian Institute of Public Administration, the their impact on protected area in order to become primary coordinating agency for the India beneficiaries. In addition, this also channels the Ecodevelopment Project, wanted to avoid a rigid ICDP resources to that segment of the society blueprint design. Therefore, they agreed to which is usually the least able to live without undertake an indicative planning approach to build impacting the protected area. consensus among stakeholders around a guiding Another selection method is to determine who ecodevelopment action plan that could be adjusted had a historical right of access to the areas now throughout the life of the project. A participatory proposed as strictly protected from human use. preparation process, involving a sample of However, the determination of rights to access, potential stakeholders and 38 meetings over a 212- when they are not legally recorded, is difficult. year period, was used to define objectives, scope Ordinarily, proximity to the resource is taken as a and scale of the project. basis for legitimacy of access. This would mean that people living in and around a protected area Selecting beneficiaries of ICDP would often be seen as having a greater right to the U Who should benefit? The question of who resources than those living further away. Thus, should benefit from the development activities envisioned under an ICDP can be difficult to answer in projects where the protected area is Box 6. largely surrounded by dense population Building a common understanding of settlements involved in both legal and illegal project objectives activities. Even after demarcating the protected area it might not be possible to deal with the entire population within this area. In many countries, the * Define and test objectives early on through a population living in and around protected areas series of workshops involving government, might run into the hundreds of thousands and local people and NGOs. although all these people might not directly impact * provide periodic draft project documents to the protected area, it is difficult to segregate those further clarify and develop consensus for who do from those who do not. Apart from the objectives. difficulty of correctly identifying these people, . Conduct orientation workshops to there is the additional problem of seeming to communicate objectives to project staff, local reward only those who have, often illegally, stakeholders and concerned NGOs. threatened and degraded the protected area. This can outrage some of the people and encourage Source: ASTEN/EDI Workshop, Pedang, others to purposefully flout the law and degrade Indonesia (1995). the protected area with the expectation that this Chapter 2. Goingforward with an ICDP 14 although proximity certainly facilitates access, it is at the cost of future benefits. Again, enforcement often not the best basis for legitimizing it. is critical to prevent this and the subsequent When targeting development activity, apart unraveling of agreements that is sure to follow. from those aimed at specific households and individuals, a proportion of the ICDP investment Establishing ownership must also be directed at community projects which address the needs of the whole community. of ICDP Unless this happens, the project will not receive full community support, especially from the richer With human populations burgeoning and pressures and usually more powerful segments of the mounting on all sides of protected areas, it is society. This alienation of certain segments can unrealistic and perhaps undesirable to expect such create a serious obstacle to community cohesion areas to be managed in isolation from the and joint planning. surrounding communities. Involving local * How much should they benefit? There is a communities in all stages of an ICDP and giving need to carefully determine the scope and scale of them joint responsibility for the project is crucial socio-economic development activity. The to its successful planning, implementation, and proposed activity should not be so lucrative as to monitoring. People who have a stake in a project attract new settlers to the protected area (box 7) are less likely to derail it. Enforcement and but should instead focus on subsistence level monitoring would also be more effective if it alternative sources of income and resources to comes from within the community rather than local people so as to enhance protection. The basic from an outside source such as the protected area idea is to provide an alternate source of income authorities. not necessarily an incremental source of income. Of the three critical issues identified as The limitations are that it cannot replace high- necessary for successful ICDPs (clear objectives, income generating activities such as cinnamon ownership, and linkage), the ownership issue is crop growing or poaching. However, even if the probably the most complicated of all. In fact, it project ensures that better management of the has created much of the problems associated with protected area does not result in a fall of incomes the Indonesia Kerini Seblat ICDP. It is important for the local communities or even results in a to know the mechanisms by which the ownership modest increase, the natural tendency of people is and community participation issue causes to seek further increments of income by difficulty. continuing to use protected area resources. The definition of ownership is not clear and Therefore, enforcement and improved subject to different interpretations. Real management o f protected areas should runs managementl ofth protioectd c area sl ru. ownership can be best brought about if the project is entirely prepared by the owner, possibly with no ICDPs make the enforcement of conservation outside support. The question remains whether laws and management prescriptions politically there should be unequivocal agreement on the feasible. They do this by providing alternatives entire project design from the start among all and substitutes to the impacting communities, and parties. Ideally this should be the case but by giving them greater participation in the experience suggests that this usually does not management of the protected area. Ideally, ICDPs occur. With ICDPs, the lack of clarity about also establish a pattern of sustainable use of whom, and lack of capacity as to how, to arrange natural resources so that the pressures on the ownership is not at all clear. In the case of protected area were voluntarily reduced by the Indonesia KSNP ICDP the terms of reference were local communities. However, there will always be not clear as to which party would be responsible individuals, and perhaps even small communities, for obtaining agreements regarding ownership. who will try to improve their immediate prospects Differences of opinion and deviating expectations Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 15 Box 7. The "magnet syndrome" Socio-economic development around the periphery of the protected area may lead to increased in- migration of people thereby heightening pressures on the protected area. It is analogous to urban migration, where people leave rural areas in search of jobs and a better life. This potential jeopardy in ICDP areas can be anticipated and minimized. In many cases, the land surrounding protected areas are historically neglected, relatively poor and less advantaged (in terms of economic indicators and infrastructure). Thus, if ICDP inputs are restricted mainly to the lands adjacent to the protected areas (provided that this does not include large infrastructure components), it is unlikely that the levels of investment available would satisfy a large migratory population. However, relying on restricted investments alone will not be enough and some of the following steps may be necessary to prevent the "magnet syndrome." * People should be encouraged to move voluntarily from protected areas and the peripheral lands. This could be done by: (a) not providing them with any services; (b) providing them alternative land areas - with titles, outside protected and peripheral areas; or (c) creating employment with financial incentives elsewhere. Keeping in mind that traditional/ancestral rights of usage should be respected, as long as methods of usage are historically consistent and do not rely on unsustainable technologies; and external markets do not over-exploit the natural resources. * The ICDP should substitute only those subsistence needs of local people that were currently met from the protected area (as in the case of shifting cultivation). * A census of people living or using the protected area should be undertaken to determine current population and migration trends. Measures such as land tenure should be provided to maintain stability. There should only be essential investments to divert pressures and discourage in-migration to the protected area. Striking a balance may not always be easy to achieve in practice, but worth considering. * In collaboration with the local, regional and national authorities, complementary investments should be developed in regions not connected to the protected area. Such investments could include land tenure or development programs, agriculture and light industries. These investments do not have to be part of the ICDP; they should come from national development plans or donor assistance. Source: Singh, S. (1995). of the project prevented the various meetings and Community participation in workshops from providing a consensus. conservation efforts Letting the community decide on the design of Many concept papers on participation espouse the the project significantly helps in giving them a view that more participation is better participation. sense of ownership, but it is rarely enough, This is false. More participation does not especially in the long term. Assured legal land necessarily lead to a better project. While titles and financial contribution by the community increased involvement is a valuable goal in its own or the individuals are two possible ways of giving right, when considering successful biodiversity a sense of ownership. Where this is not possible, conservation, much thought needs to be given to for example on land owned by the government, a the number of parties that should be involved. It is joint management strategy with a memorandum of useful to think of "tiers" of stakeholders ranging understanding between the community and the from local groups to local governments, and on to government is sometimes adequate. national and international organizations. Distinguishing their interests allows projects to Chapter 2. Goingforward with an ICDP 16 develop separate concurrent platforms for objectives, the project planners could then focus participation preventing chaos. on those activities most likely to divert pressures Most projects rely on local committees to from the protected areas. Although this method manage participation, yet it is an unanswered has sometimes worked, potential pitfalls far question as to how effective such committees can outweigh any benefits. Such an approach in enforcing agreements or in iong- undermines the crucial condition of building trust term participatosy designs. Experience suggests which is so essential for sustainable ICDPs. Also, that local organizations will work where there is a if the real objective of the project is not known to single sustained uniting interest with transparent the local communities they would hardly be in a rules (for example a water-users association). This position to participate, let alone independently is especially true when such groups are built on manage the planning, implementation and existing village organizations rather than as a monitoring of the project. stand-alone community group invented A more reasonable approach for involving exclusively for the purpose of the project. local communities is to make the "rules of the Furthermnore, most projects envision ICDP game" very explicit right from the start. The local agreements that attain legal standing and can communities are told that the sole objective of therefore draw on government enforcement these projects is to better conserve the park. mechanisms and handle and manage funds and However, what makes ICDPs different from physical assets. earlier strategies for conservation is that it seeks to do this by ensuring that the local communities, Often, conservation as we know It, IS not wh deen onteprsfrcranbscnes necessarily a priority with local communities. who depend on the parks for certam basc needs, Although many indigenous comr .unities have an are not negatively affected and are fully involved Although many indigenous communities have an intuitive understanding of conservation and in the project. Basic conditions are laid down ecology, the idea of a strictly protected area is a defining the types of activities and investments novel one. In addition, many local communities possible under the ICDP concept and local are not necessarily indigenous ones, and recently communities are then encouraged to participate in settled groups have typically less connection with the identification of the specific activities of the the land. Given the history of parks in many project. developing countries, the local populace is often Another option is to precede the project hostile to overt conservation objectives. The planning activities with a detailed awareness agenda of the villagers for development priorities campaign to raise the acceptability of conservation is usually very different from that envisioned by goals by the local communities. While the conservation community. Typically, educational awareness can certainly play an development activities chosen by local people are important role in changing priorities of rural those that maximize economic returns for the least communities, is not sufficient to bring about investment in time and effort which may lead to widespread change necessary for sustainable exhaustion of ICDP funds without any discernible biodiversity conservation. benefit to the park. Several strategies have been Participation in resource and biodiversity tried in Asian ICDPs to improve the level of conservation in exchange for protection activities community participation and build a true through ICDPs should be set in a larger context of partnership in the conservation of biodiversity. maro-planning Ahough it is beyonte op Thes hav ben me wit liitedsuccss.macro-plannmng. Although it is beyond the scope of any ICDP project to shape national or regional One option used in some projects is for the policy, nevertheless, efforts to view the entire project planners to initially not divulge the landscape in the context of conservation and conservation agenda of the project. Once the development should be encouraged. This could villagers have indicated their priorities lead to improved land use zoning, channeling of independently of the project's conservation productive investments and social services away Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 17 from the park boundaries, limiting activity such as Wildlife Service, the community officers very road development which could have an extremely soon became 'co-opted' by the communities and profound effect on future threats to the park. their evident needs, and end up using project resources to meet those needs, paying little regard Organizational requirements for to any actual conservation benefits. ICDP participation . Projects need to have the budgetary flexibility to respond promptly and efficiently Converting agencies traditionally concerned with to field-level requests. A lack of funds often natural resources management and conservation fieve vernmest lack f fulften intoorgaizatons killd incommnityprevents government agencies from fulfilling into organizations skilled in community contracts previously negotiated with villagers involvement is certainly a lofty goal Its difficulty providing for individual or group incentives (i.e. should not be underestimated, particularly when pumps, medical services) in exchange for a many conservation agencies are weak, commitment to reduce resource degradation. understaffed, short on funds, and barely able to Agencies must have realistic ideas about what they carry out their primary tasks. Five major issues can actually deliver and have mechanisms in place (as identified by the ICDP workshops) must be to ensure that they can uphold their part of the tackled when assessing organizational agreements. requirements. * Projects using participatory methods will * Participatory methods do not work unless have a relatively steep learning curve. In such ICDP management can maintain a strong field situations detailed planning is not possible, or presence and respond rapidly to requests from worse, not an efficient use of scarce resources the communities. This can be particularly since major revisions are to be expected. Instead, daunting in large projects which often cover an projects should describe their overall concepts and immense region. For example, in the India methods, and build in several "checkpoints" such Ecodevelopment Project, the senior park manager as annual meetings, community feedback, joint began making personal field visits to every single reviews, and field-level monitoring that can community (over 100 villages) in the project area. reformulate their approach as experience is gained. Such commitment requires that adequate In addition, there are a range of participatory transportation to reach sites is available and that techniques such as 'focused' participatory rural time and incentives are there to reach agreements appraisal, appreciative inquiry, that could provide with villagers. Most projects also depend on a relatively quick learning experience. forming village committees that can negotiate and subsequently enforce agreements. Again, project * Early release of partial funds is essential for staff must have the skills and time to work closely participatory projects because local with committee members to achieve this goal. expectations are raised and momentum slows This requirement for greater field presence of easily unless commitments are delivered on senior agency managers is especially acute during time. The long delays between designing the initial design stage. participatory ICDPs and the availability of funds to begin field operations are a recipe for breeding * A different mix of skills and incentives are local-level cynicism, disinterest and antagonism. needed within the organization to foster Some of this can be alleviated by the timely community participation. This can be achieved release of limited funds to push through a few non- by hiring new staff and re-training existing staff on controversial components of the project, at least on approaches to participation. NGOs experienced in a pilot basis. community development (or as in China, local governments) could all be used to augment organizational participation skills, perhaps the best option in most cases. However, as in the Community Wildlife Program of the Kenya Chapter 2. Going forward with an ICDP 18 Enforcing actions by all indigenous people, have an essential role in participants maintaining the integrity of ecosystems. Most participatory approaches to conservation and Many indigenous groups are now influenced resource management are relatively new. The by a modem world and their traditional lifestyles most difficult issue with such an approach is are changing. As there is no reasonable way to detailing how agreements, and transgressions, will stop these changes, the best approach is to give the be enforced. Most agreements imply a level of people the opportunity to shape their own future, government efficiency not always visible in other and also educate them as to the consequences of activities. Yet if government institutions are rapid change. Some restrictions on the use of unable to deliver on their commitments (including modern technology particularly for hunting or enforcement), it is unlikely that villagers will harvesting of natural resources can also reduce deliver on theirs. Converting participation and immediate threats to biodiversity. ownership of a project into practice requires In some cases, where traditional inhabitants of careful review of methods and approaches. Most an area continue to live within a protected area in local communities are heterogeneous, and unless the same way as they lived historically without specific measures are taken from the onset, significant interaction with the world outside, traditionally marginalized social groups will be there seems little reason to consider them an excluded. imminent threat to the biodiversity of the protected Concern exists about the lack of evidence area. Very few such communities, however, demonstrating the link between positive incentives remain today and most indigenous communities and local willingness to abandon unsustainable fall somewhere within a continuum bounded by resource use. Positive incentives alone may not be the two extremes of either devastating their natural enough. An agreed upon enforcement mechanism environment or living in complete harmony with should also be established. In cases where the it. This sensitive issue must be handled with care. profits from illicit use of forest resources are very Several recommendations are suggested that high (i.e., growing cinnamon within the Kerinci will enable decision makers to proceed Seblat National Park in Indonesia), or external appropriately. resource pressures are very high (acute land scarcity in India and Sri Lanka), developing * Decisions must be based on good study and saffectivelimity inIndand Sriusanka),dev ael g hard data. The last decade has seen several effective agreements limiting land use are scetii stde hthvecnicnl particularly difficult and enforcement becomes scientific studies that have convincingly even more important. documented the relationships between wildlife and humans, much of which has been negative. Specifically, several ecologists such as Kent Indigenous people living in Redford, Liz Bennett, John Robinson, James Gibb, protected areas and Russell Mittermeir have focused on the impacts of indigenous people on wildlife. Dr. The impact of indigenous people on biodiversity Bennets studygfouseonte impactdof Dem has not yet been fully realized and will certainly tecnolgis i n the indigenou pope, need more scientific study. Are people and . . even those living in very remote regions of the protected areas mutually exclusive? In recent world. The study found that even the most remote years, there has been a polarization around this issue. Environmentalists often push for all human villagers in Boreo and Sarawak had shotgun activity or 'disturbance' to be stopped in a shells and flashlights. Just these two technologies artctivt orea. Sociooistsrbancetoe spd nral allowed the local people to dramatically shift their pnthrotecte iar. .siologitsond cutwral hunting patterns to include very small animals anthopolgiss inist n hrmon beteen (previously too costly to hunt) and nocturnal humans and nature, that people, particularly (rvosytocsl ohn)adncua animals (which had not been traditionally hunted). Other technologies such as chainsaws, roads, and Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 19 airplanes all have contributed to altering the may be many times greater than found just a few interactions between indigenous people and their years ago. The influx of recent immigrants into environment. indigenous communities has also contributed to * Education will help indigenous groups the burgeoning population problems and changes participate.inne ownership role. In many .in the shared values of the community. This participate In new ownership role. In many parts of the world the rights and needs of local increase in population size has led to much of the indigenous people are often overlooked by conflicts seen between the conservation governments. Indigenous people usually do not community and indigenous people. have legal ownership of land and this makes them Indigenous people and the conservation a powerless constituency in the eyes of local community often have very different agendas. governments. By taking the role of responsible Recognizing this and focusing on the common land stewards, indigenous groups and some NGOs goals can foster a partnership. However, this takes have allied themselves with the conservation a long time to build. The joint management of movement so as to secure a power base in a quest Kakadu National Park in Australia (by local for long neglected land titles. Unfortunately, this aboriginal groups and government protected area puts a dangerous and unrealistic burden on both managers) is a model of participation and indigenous people and the conservation community involvement. The strong partnership community. Indigenous people want the power to between the aboriginal people and the shape their own future, but this right can only be conservation community has led to a very effectively exercised if decisions are made with amicable situation whereby local people are active full knowledge of all the consequences. Self- stewards of the land and promote conservation in determination is not necessarily contrary to return for tangible benefits. This result has only conservation goals. Thus the key to responsible been achieved after a decade and a half of intense decision making is education. Improving the discussion between all the parties and may be knowledge base of indigenous people can ensure unique. that they make decisions based on a more U Find common ground. In some places rapid comprehensive understanding of the facts. commercial exploitation of natural resources is the 0 Recognize the diversity and change within main factor responsible for biodiversity loss. The indigenous groups. Indigenous people are not a role of indigenous people, while important, usually monolithic entity and while some groups such as pales in comparison with the effect of massiye the aboriginal Karen people in the Thailand- logging, agriculture, or mining. There may be Myanmar border appear to live without eroding cases where the indigenous people and the biodiversity, other groups such as the Penan of conservation community want a relatively healthy Indonesia are extremely potent hunters who are a environment, though for different reasons. Under serious threat to biodiversity. When discussing the such circumstances, focusing on common impacts of people, it is important to identify which concerns as well as engaging in frank discussions groups are being considered. Even within groups about different ultimate objectives will help reduce there can be a variety of interactions with conflicts. biodiversity. For example, the Kuna Indians in Latin America have traditional practices of setting Resettlement outside of the aside native reserves. Although this is a widely accepted practice by the elders, it is increasingly protected areas under threat by the new younger generation. In areas where recent immigrants living within the A few decades ago many indigenous people protected area are not indigenous, steps need to be lived in small self-sustaining communities. taken to minimize their negative impact on the Today, with the advent of basic primary health strictly protected area. Clearly involuntqry care and limited modern goods, population sizes resettlement should be avoided where possible, Chapter 2. Going forward with an ICDP 20 and alternate strategies or 'soft options' should be cinnamon growing needed to be removed in the used. case of Indonesia KSNP ICDP since it is the main * Redefine boundaries. In some cases, the source of encroachment. exclusion of human settlements form within a * Keeping resettlement as a viable option. protected area can be effected, not by moving the Sometimes despite best efforts, there is no people, but by redefining the boundaries of the alternative to resettling people in order to protect protected area thus excluding human enclaves. critically threatened species. However, because This strteysnllgiimtewhstringent resettlement is controversial, most project managers have been reluctant to * original boundaries of the protected area were recommend resettlement as a possible strategy. arbitrarily defined without any biogeographic This significantly reduces the available options for consideration; biodiversity protection. In Thailand, the threat of * new boundaries will not significantly reduce a resettlement option has been used by the the quantity or quality of available habitat; superintendent of the Huay Kha Khaeng Wildlife * no main migratory route or area of critical Sanctuary to induce recent encroachers to ecological value (e.g. main water source) is cooperate in containing certain destructive lost or compromised; activities such as grazing cattle inside the * if the area is to be reduced, adequate land Sanctuary and the indiscriminate hunting of compensation is made elsewhere contiguous to wildlife. In this case just having resettlement as an the protected area, and option expanded the tools available for dealing * mechanisms are in place so that no new with encroachment and gave the park settlements will occur within the park and superintendent considerable leverage with recent further erosion of the new boundary will be immigrants to the area. prevented. * Voluntary resettlement. Efforts should be Linkages with made to persuade the people to shift voluntarily. biodiversity conservation This is only possible if significant incentives are provided outside the protected area. The Essentially all investment activities in an ICDP provision of infrastructure facilities services must have the ultimate purpose of protecting elsewhere may entice people to relocate. biodiversity. This link between conservation and Resettlement is considered 'voluntary' if it is development must not only be present but must driven by the wishes of each local household. also be perceived by the community. While this Planning ICDPs should take place in the context of may be easy to achieve with certain activity such options that would not involve resettlement. As a as employing local people as park rangers, it consequence 'voluntary' resettlement does not becomes much more difficult to perceive the links. require strict scheduling because it is driven by the There are many socio-economic activities that can wishes of local people rather than by an external be linked to an ICDP. There is no simple answer 'event.' to establishing transparent links, but several issues a Dealing with encroachment. The need to should be considered: move people out of the target area is usually only a small part of the much bigger problem of Tackling the assumption that encroachment. Any plan for resettlement should be placed in the context of a more comprehensive n program to deal with other causes of biodiversity encroachment. For example, economic incentives Links between development and conservation are to clear land inside the protected area for often expected to come automatically to the ICDP Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 21 project. This is because of the assumption that Project (Nepal), an ICDP sponsored by multi- certain incentives (socio-economic benefits) will donors and NGO, developed a sustainable influence people to conserve biodiversity, or at management system for the conservation area by least not destroy it. In the IUCN publication, providing direct benefits from ecotourism to the Economics and Biological Diversity (McNeely, local people. In general, this project is considered 1988), the use of economic inducements to convert a success. The amount of tourists coming into the over-exploitation of biological resources to area has increased dramatically. Some local sustainable use is strongly argued. Further, communities in the area understand that by McNeely proposes that for conservation to work it reducing grazing to preserve the conservation area, must be promoted through economic incentives. they will still retain economic benefits. Similarly, This argument has gained rapid favor among many in the South Luangwa National Park in Zambia, a environmentalists, NGOs and even agencies like vast area surrounding the National Park was the World Bank. It is the fundamental premise on declared a game management area with a which ICDPs are built. However, it is an proportion of safari hunting revenues left in the assumption that really has not been fully tested. local community for job creation and anti- Incentives will work in promoting more poaching patrols. The link where safari license sustainable resource use by a farmer trying to use money is given directly to local communities (not less water or a forester hoping to achieve better via any cenkal goverment) allows th lol forest regeneration. Using economic incentives to community to justify preservation of the core park exclude people from a protected area is much area. In addition, some local subsistence level more problematic. Economic incentives may not hunting (limited hippopotamus meat for food) is be strong enough to keep people from exploiting a allowed in certain areas. In both these examples, common resource such as a protected area (Wells the activity envisioned under the ICDPs is directly and Brandon 1992). The common assumption is related to the health of the protected area. If that most individuals have fixed-income needs and wildlife numbers plummet in Amboseli because of if these can be met through development then encroachment by cattle herders, tourists will opt to ifthese candiiul will cease thgher dev ntrctven visit other parks. Similarly if the Luangwa region these individuals will cease their destructiveexeinshghlvsofpaig,aarhutg activity. However, the economic needs of most experiences high levels of poaching safari hunting individuals are not fixed; people are usually roney will go down as trophy spectmens become striving for greater security and not just to increase rare. Thus, i these two cases the links are clear their personal wealth. Therefore, people will andverydirect. continue the illegal activities in conjunction with Unfortunately, not all areas have problems that receiving economic benefits from development. can be solved with such clearly linked The idea of incentives will not work unless development activity, and often local communities local people recognize that ICDP payments are in argue for economic benefits that may have much lieu of previous access to the protected area, and more tenuous lmks (box 8) Durig the l g not in addition to it. In addition, the people must phase of the World Bank/GEF Conservation of Priority Protected Areas Project in the Philippines, understand that there exists an even heavier price it was revealed that a main activity being proposed to pay in long-term benefits derived from the land (by the local government) under the socio- if illegal activities continue, economic development part of the project is the construction of a small airport in a pristine area Strong links vs. fuzzy links with no roads. With this sort of infrastructure While it is important to realize that links need to development, it becomes much harder to establish be established, not just assumed, the ease with the concept of links in the minds of local people which links are established depends heavily on the because such infrastructure development has no type of socio-economic activity envisioned within tangible connection to biodiversity conservation. the ICDP. In Annapurna Conservation Area Chapter 2. Goingforward with an ICDP 22 Box 8. The problem of indirect linkages Will a community reduce the use of a protected area in return for community benefits? Is the provision of a school or health clinic adequate and appropriate compensation for a communities loss of access to a protected area? One project provided a health clinic as compensation for reducing encroachment. While encroachment did go down for a few years, it soon returned to the orginal level and then even surpassed it. When the project managers met with the local people to find out why the backward slide, they were told that the community now wanted a school. Should the project now build a school, and if encroachment continues should the governing agencies take the school away? This is a real issue that results from real human attitudes and must be anticipated when establishing links between the needs of the community and the needs of the environment. Even activities with benign environmental income sharing; safari hunting; hiring and training impacts or with fuzzy links to conservation, cannot of local anti-poaching guards; using local adequately influence people to protect businesses for park improvements like installing biodiversity. For example, in The Nature fences, and limited harvesting of minor forest Conservancy ICDP in Latin America, the products. following development activities are planned: D t goat cheese manufacturing, guinea pig rearing, conservation? If the biodiversity in the protected trout farming, ecocultural tourism and land use zoning. Of these activities, only land use zoning area were to be seriously jeopardized, would that honing. Oteasurableativditiers, y landuservong be reflected in the success of the proposed has any meaube biodiveritycnertion activity? If 'no' is the answer, then linkages being objective while the rst allshave tind nt proposed are indirect and answers to several direct, linkage to biodiversity conservation. It IS - . - ~~~~questions need to be addressed: interesting to note that trout farming could be linked via stream quality and watershed quality * If linkage to conservation is not direct, does but this was not done in this ICDP. As a investment provide adequate incentives to bring consequence, it is doubtful if these activities will about changes to specific behaviors that threaten actually change attitudes about biodiversity and the biodiversity of the adjacent protected area? provide an incentives for conservation. * Is there widespread agreement on specific measures to increase biodiversity conservation as a Determining eligibility and result of indirect benefits? feasibility of ICDP activity m What measurable improvements to When faced with a plethora of possible activities biodiversity conservation will result from the that can be envisioned under an ICDP, certain proposed activity or investment? questions should be answered as a general * What mechanisms are in place to monitor this feasibility and eligibility criteria for proposed condition of biodiversity and the impact of the investments. This can quickly separate activities proposed activity? with strong links from the more problematic fuzzy U What are the sanctions for non-compliance link activities. This check also provide some and the rewards for compliance when indirect safeguards to ensure that the original concept of investments are used? Remember, with indirect using indirect investment to improve biodiversity conservation is maintained (box 9). Examples of investments, rewards and sanctions must be such activities could include ecotourism with explicitly prescribed. Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 23 Box 9. Examples of direct and indirect linkages analysis Objectives Investments Feasibility Comments Reducing * tree and fodder plantations Direct linkage. Undetermined sustainability for the grazing and * pasture regeneration plantations but cattle breed improvement is a proven livestock use * cattle breed improvement strategy. This is a major problem so its worth trying amelioration strategies. Reducing * tree plantations Direct. Joint forest management and natural fuelwood * forest regeneration regeneration provide good efficiency if strong collection & * solar cookers & stoves enforcement is in place. Energy conservation sale technologies are also a good idea as they address the root problem. Poaching and * anti poaching squads Direct linkage. Enforcement employing local people timber * community protection and the community works because they derive direct smuggling * vehicles, & communication benefits from protecting biodiversity. Improving * waste management Generally direct provided local people are genuinely visitor use * building visitor center involved in construction, education and tourism. Fair * conservation education revenue sharing is an important concern. * ecotourism Improve and * cultivate some products Direct if carefully done with studies to establish manage non * improve collection sustainability of harvest levels. timber forest * reduce harvest impacts product use Reduce phase out current leases These activities are not subsistence level activities, but industrial land * stop further development large-scale commercial activities beyond the scope of and water use ICDP intervention and need to be addressed at the policy level. Reduce impact . dialogue with tribal groups This activity can only be reduced using a participatory of cultural use approach which conserves cultural heritage. With goodwill on both sides a solution can be found. Reduction in * income generation: This comprises the bulk of the indirect links activity. number of duck/pig farming, ironsmith, To reduce the dependence on the timber industry, people involved poultry, apiculture, people have to be given alternative jobs which need to in forest aquaculture, handicrafts, be created. Using enforcement, monitoring, reward employment jewelry making, food system, sanctions, and explicit Memorandums of processing, recycling, Understanding, it is possible to use these activities for sewing, and marketing. biodiversity conservation. However, feasibility analysis * improve agriculture: water is complicated and good management is labor and tanks, water conservation time intensive. _______________ techniques, horticulture. Reduce wildlife * improve PA habitat Direct links. Joint participatory management can have depredation of * fencing a high potential for improving PA-people relations. crop and * community patrolling Studies need to be conducted to determine effective livestock. * village support via prevention and compensation mechanisms. compensation for lost crops Compensation should be direct and quick. or animals. I Source: India Ecodevelopment Project, World Bank (1997). Chapter 2. Goingforward with an ICDP 24 * How will the interactions of the local Understanding, but maintained and enforced by communities with the protected area management the protected area management plan. In a scenario change as a result of the proposed activities and that focuses exclusively on having a strong investments? protected area management plan, it would make the enforcement of conservation laws politically Establishing tradeoffs and administratively easier, and somewhat less arbitrary with some alternatives to unsustainable When socio-economic development activities that resource use. In reality, most ICDPs that have do not have an apparent connection to prominent ICDP investment activities and strong conservation (such as small business enterprises, protected area management plans are perhaps health and educational facilities) are envisioned, it destined to fall in between these two extremes. is important to establish a tradeoff in the minds of the local community. That is a tradeoff between the ICDP benefits to the community and their Linkage outside the protected commitment to desist from degrading the area protected area. Such a tradeoff should be As critical habitat and the range of many species categorized in a memorandum of understanding, often falls outside the strictly protected area, ICDP also known as community agreement or activity in the periphery of the protected areas can conservation contract. This type of memorandum play a very important part in protecting has been generally successful in joint forest biodiversity. Enforcement using park guards may management programs, though not fully tested work reasonably well in the protected area but in with ICDPs. However, a problem with the vast area covered by the peripheral zones, their memorandums of understanding is that they effectiveness in stopping illegal activity is greatly become more difficult to enforce after the project reduced. The usual approach to this problem is to funding has stopped and the community sees no provide tax incentives to the communities in return financial incentive to continue abiding by their for them limiting their exploitative use of conditions. It therefore becomes imperative that resources. For example, those people residing the community recognizes that inherent with the within an experimental zone do not have to pay economic benefits is the primary objective to agricultural tax if they agree not to cut fire wood conserve the integrity of the land. or extend their farm lands. However, at times when the tax has been paid, illegal encroachment Strengthening protected area still occurred suggesting that this incentive alone management is not enough. To achieve the objective of conservation, an ICDP The most successful attempts to control must have a strong, clear plan for management of activity beyond the protected areas are when local the protected area. Ideally, ICDP plans should people are actively involved in enforcement have two sections, one that deals with the measures. The India Ecodevelopment Project uses investments directed at interaction between local local people through direct participation in people and the protected area, and another that patrolling and poaching control. The China deals with strengthening the protected area Nature Reserves Management Project covers five management capacity, which in part is meant to nature reserves that face a great deal of pressure enhance the capacity to deal with the interactions. from communities living outside the protected ,this two-pronged plan areas, in the peripheral zones. Therefore, the would allow the communities to establish a pattee project endeavors to build an interactive process of of sustainable use of natural resources in and co-management of the protected area's resources. around protected areas and a voluntary reduction of the pressures on the protected area. This is a developing an interactive process of joint pattern that is established with a Memorandum of management of the areas natural resources and Experiences with Integrated-Conservation Development Projects in Asia 25 designing contracts that define responsibilities and introducing this process have been minimal with benefits for each party. It is expected that local general acceptance in China. The Ministry of government will sanction these contracts and Forestry has been instrumental in shaping this resolve conflicts between the parties. Joint process during the preparation missions and is planning will be used to develop resource using a similar strategy in some of its agroforestry management plans and receive community project in the Yunnan Province. A disadvantage investment grants to be used to meet critical needs of this process is that it requires a long time frame consistent with these plans. Thus far, problems in and may not be immediate enough to reverse some of the degradation already occurring. Chapter 2. Goingforward with an ICDP Chapter 3. Monitoring and evaluating the ICDP Developing monitorable indicators and the implementation, such as the Philippines - subsequent evaluation of the data is an important Conservation of Priority Protected Areas or China and essential component of a completed ICDP Nature Reserves Management Project. These two because if done right, it is valuable regardless ICDPs have developed preliminary monitoring and whether the project succeeds or fails. There are evaluating plan which are being tested at present. two reasons why this is so. First, ICDPs are relatively new with not much of a track record beyond the planning or early implementation phase. Because of their complexity and multiple Benefits of monitoring shareholders, ICDPs use a disproportionately large share of the limited funds available for and evaluation conservation. This means that in order to prevent costly mistakes from happening over and over The environment is dynamic with biological and again, a strong, but cost-effective monitoring and social changes occurring continuously through out evaluation system must be in place. Second, the the life span of the ICDP. Similarly, economic complexity of ICDPs means that failure can and political changes can also occur during the happen at any time for a variety of reasons. several years it takes to complete an ICDP. The Monitoring and evaluating will enable project staff true impact of the project may be masked by these to identify early warning signs of possible failure confounding factors and without a monitoring and take appropriate steps to circumvent the program success or failure cannot be truly problem. evaluated. Monitoring programs can alert project In this section, we do not discuss specific managers about approaching problems during the monitoring techniques (remote sensing, ground life of the project. This early warning system can transects, statistical procedures, Global Positioning greatly help managers negotiate potential pitfalls. System etc.). Several documents already do this in Conservation of biodiversity is multi- a much more comprehensive manner. (See M&E disciplinary, meaning that many different and References at end of chapter.) Instead, the focus is sometimes confounding factors can go into a on identifying issues for consideration when particular conservation outcome. Monitoring can designing the monitoring and evaluating keep track of each concern and determine which component of an ICDP. More detailed particular factors are worthwhile considering. A information is available through projects under good M&E program is particularly useful in 28 failure, future projects can avoid making the same Constraints to M&E costly mistakes. Two different kinds of measurements should Typical M&E programs are frequently not useful be included in an M&E program. Performance enough to justify the expense (time and resources) indicators measure attainment of the short-term necessary to sustain them. The reason why M&E objectives of the project (often the development programs are ignored and often underfunded is components to reduce pressures on the protected that they are not always helpful, being too area). Impact indicators measure attainment of the academic and impractical to implement. When long term (5-15 years) conservation objectives. project staff are overworked and usually behind Performance indicators prpvides information schedule, M&E is dropped from the priority to ICDP managers helping them determine which agenda. components are succeeding and which are not. Many projects try to integrate monitoring into This type of data feeds well into adaptive the daily work routine of participating organiza- management techniques. Adaptive management is tions. This means that monitoring is often dynamic management technique where the future dropped from the daily schedule with the hope of directions of the project is determined based on the catching up sometime in the future. In addition, trial and error outcomes of a variety of different stakeholders are usually responsible for experimental paths various aspects of data collection and analysis Many ICDPs use a form of adaptive leading to incomparable data being collected with management when pilot projects are first initiated a great deal of overlap and some gaps. This is and whose outcome later determines the especially critical in community monitoring components and scope of the follow up project. programs that typically involved many individuals M&E is necessary for the impartial assessment from the community to collect primary biological needed at the end of the pilot phase if lessons and sociological information. Special, periodic learned are to be implemented in the main project. monitoring events with designated staff to carry Performance indicator are most useful during the out all monitoring is often a better option than early planning and implementation stages of the asking the field staff to put aside a few minutes project. each day. Impact indicators provide information about It is important that each M&E task be carried whether the overall objectives of the project out by someone qualified to undertake the job at (biodiversity conservation for ICDPs) have been hand. However, it is also important for ownership met. Although data is collected throughout the life and minimizing costs to use local staff or local of the project, impact indicators come to a head at communities. These two goals are not mutually the end of the project. These indicators are useful exclusive and, as much as possible, local people to future project planners as they determine should be trained to identify and monitor whether past projects have achieved their overall biological and sociological indicators. As local conservation objective. people learn how to gather and analyze data, they gain valuable skills for participatory natural resource management and are empowered as a result, particularly if there are perceived links between the data that is collected and the decisions that are later made. Experiences with Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia 29 might seem obvious, but many potentially good Tips for more effective indicators are not measurable except through the use of very costly monitoring plans. Indicators M&E design should not only be quantifiable but also unambiguous. When and what to monitor Currently used techniques for Monitoring should answer the question: are the monitoring and evaluation management interventions in the area effective in addressing biodiversity conservation? It is The framework used in the Lao PDR Forest advisable to monitor indicators only when Management Component of the Forest necessary to detect significant changes. That is Management and Conservation Program because monitoring is costly and needs to be kept (FOMACOP) is shown in Box 10. This project's to a minimum, but not so infrequently as to miss objective is to institute sustainable village-based significant changes. Monitoring should be done at forest management and promote alternative a fixed interval where possible to keep the analysis livelihood to improve the living standards of simple and systematic. Monitoring is critical at villagers and reduce the pressures to exploit the the beginning of the project (to collect baseline forest. data) and at the end of the project (to determine The framework suggested below is an overall impact). Monitoring indicators should amalgamation of experiences in developing M&E ideally highlight emerging or real problems in components in several projects: biodiversity conservation and draw attention to the effectiveness of management policies and actions. Clearly outline major and minor priorities of Evaluation of data should take place continually as the project and which components need it is collected. Evaluation should not be left until monitorig. the end of the project because then the results * Concentrate on specific areas which have cannot be used to improve existing management. relevance for management decisions or are directly It is impossible to monitor all impacts of a linked to the main objectives of the project. complex project effectively. Therefore, care * Establish baseline conditions so that the true should be given to selecting key indicators targeted effects of various project components or the at particular objectives of the ICDP. If one effects of new socio-economic, political or even objective of the ICDP is to reduce uncontrolled biological changes can be assessed. fires set by pastoralists inside the protected area, * Select indicators to be monitored carefully then an indicator to measure the success or failure because cost effectiveness and impact of M&E of this fire reduction component could be an depends almost entirely on selecting appropriate examination area for signs of recent fires and for indicators. Indicators should also be ranked and signs of fire intolerant species of plants on a bi- the level of expertise necessary to monitor each annual basis via a ground transect survey. one assessed. Periodically assess indicators to Clearly, each objective can have several ensure their biological or sociological relevance. potential indicators and it is important to establish As conditions change, once appropriate indicators a screening criteria to determine the best ones. may no longer be useful. Easily measurable indicators are important. This Chapter 3. Monitoring and Evaluating the ICDP 30 Box 10. Sample Monitoring and Evaluation Framework Method and Objective Key indicators Verifiable Measures Responsibility for verification Forest Extent to which policy * Dissemination of forest laws. Review existing laws management and legislation support * Dissemination of environmental and organizational policy forest management guidelines. arrangements by supervision mission and FOMACOP mgnt. Strong Increase in the skill & * Number of training courses and Training records, human knowledge of forestry training staff. evaluations, monthly resource staff and villagers. * Range of topics covered. progress reports, and capacity Increased training * Number of villagers trained in field visits by capacity skills to be used in the field. FOMACOP mgnt. Sustainable Improve knowledge for . Increase in area mapped and Monthly reports, post- forestry by sustainable forestry inventoried. logging surveys, and villagers in and practice * Changes in quality of trees, interviews of villagers. pilot area. sustainable forestry. vegetation, harvest levels and Improving access to unauthorized extraction of forest resources. forest products. . Increase in the proportion of village forestry area. Improved Changes in benefits to * Changes in supply of wood and Harvest sales records, living villagers after increase in employment in records of village standards sustainable forest activities. organizations, and improve in management is in . Change in the number of monthly progress report the pilot place. people depending of the forest. by FOMACOP, Forest areas * Increase in alternative activities department and village I__________ I________ practiced in the area organizations. Source: Lao PDR Forest Management and Conservation Project, World Bank (1995). * M&E systems must be simple enough so that * Continually assess trends without waiting for it can be adopted and understood easily. M&E the end of the project and supply this information information needs to be relevant to the needs and as part of an adaptive management strategy uses of the key stakeholders. Monitoring will not designed to improve the project during its life. be conducted properly (if at all) unless its u A thorough search should be done to collect relevance is understood by the collectors and users e , . ,, . \\ ~~~~~~~~~existing information including indigenous Of the minormation. of the infortnation. knowledge. If interpreted correctly, indigenous * Identify multiple control areas (that do not knowledge can be a vast storehouse of baseline benefit from the project activities) as well as fixed data. treatment areas (that can be returned to repeatedly * Statistical rigor should be maintained during during the life of the project and beyond) so that the evaluation process; without it data will remain adequate comparisons can be made to determine effect of the project over time. * Focus on incremental indicators, i.e. indicators that increase in the level of output or income due to project activities. Experiences with Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia Annex 1. Preparation and implementation cycle As recommended by ICDP Workshop II, Pedang, Indonesia, 1995, sponsored by EDI/ASTEN, the World Bank. Step I. Preliminary Identification of Areas for Project Implementation 1. The preliminary identification of potential ICDP target areas should be carried out on the basis of regional and local data and established criteria 2. An identification of current institutional capacity for design and implementation and an assessment of the available data should also be completed. 3. Identification of linkages (both existing and potential) between the following should be undertaken: a. sectors and institutions b. existing development and environmental programs c. funding sources Step II. Warm-up and Indicative Phase 1. The major players in this step are implementing agencies (governments both local and national), funding agencies, project design teams and NGOs. During warm-up the following should be accomplished: a. objectives and concepts of the ICDP in general and as it pertains to the particular project in question need to be elucidated; b. terms of reference need to be defined and this should include the level of detail expected during forthcoming data collection; c. assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of local institutions. 2. During the indicative phase the following should be accomplished: a. collect representative data on biological, geographical, and socio-economic conditions as well as establish a criteria or rationale for identifying and zoning prospective protected areas; b. identify the sectors, institutions, and individuals who will be involved in the ICDP; c. identify the process by which participatory investment decisions will be made for village or community level investments once implementation begins; d. list the types of activity likely to be approved for implementations as well as the proposed duration of the activities; 31 32 e. develop cost estimates and mechanisms by which funds will be administered; both at national and district level including distribution of funds at the project sites (e.g. villages); f. identify training needs and hold training programs in ICDP process and planning; g. develop a detailed implementation plan which includes a time frame for objectives of the ICDP to be accomplished as well as a description of any participatory approach to be used. This plan must take into consideration any existing provincial or local development plans and integrate those activities proposed to any extent possible; h. identify any critical issue that could hinder smooth implementation of the ICDP. 3. At the end of this period the following will have been achieved: a. some data will have been collected and field experience gained; b. outline work plan will have been prepared; c. indicative plan (i.e. detailed outline of what is anticipated during the defined time) worked out; d. project design that can be appraised and approved for financing. Step III. Bridging Period 1 . A strong recommendation that came out of ICDP Workshops I and II was that the entire project preparation cycle be shortened, especially the period between project appraisal and implementation. If this cannot be achieved, a bridging period (Step III), should be introduced. This step is a transition phase for limited project start-up activities between the initial preparation stage and the full implementation phase. Tlhis stage is important not only because the expectations of local people have been built up during indicative planning but also because village institutions that have already been mobilized need to be sustained. In addition, momentum within government agencies and any relevant NGOs needs to be maintained.' 2. Using the indicative plan developed in Step II, the following should be accomplished: a. funding sources should be requested so as to finance early components of the project as a complement to project funds; b. public awareness programs conducted through workshops, forums and limited advertising should be executed in order to build the credibility of, and confidence in, the implementing parties. This program can also include training, conservation education and extension where appropriate; c. existing capacity of local institutions should be utilized to swiftly implement protection of the most critical areas in the protected area system and commission studies necessary for project implementation; Experiences with Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia 33 d. the resolution of any critical issues as well as addressing potential conflicts that may arise and threaten to delay future implementation work. 3. At the end of this period the following will have been achieved: a. funding will be allocated (although perhaps in incremental stages according to work criteria). b. work outline plan would have been followed successfully. c. everything is in place to start the next phase (implementation) smoothly. Step IV. Implementation Implementation follows disbursement of funds. It is a phase that contains concurrent village-level participatory planning and implementation of activities that fit under the general objectives of the ICDP. Work in biodiversity conservation is an inherently long term process and most nations and their respective institutions are simply not geared up to do such long term work. Therefore implementation of projects can take many years, as much as ten years. Thus, the implementation step can be carried out in two or more phases. However, all parties, particularly the donor agencies and host government must be committed to such inherently long term projects if ICDPs are to succeed. Annex I Annex 2. Case study focus at the ICDP workshops Below are the six ICDPs that were discussed as case studies in the workshops conducted in Washington, DC (1995) and in Pedang, Indonesia, (1995). Project title: Nature Reserves Management Project Country: China Objective: Enhancing biodiversity conservation management through new approaches to organization, planning, skill development, information management, and local participation. Strengthen the institutional framework for nature reserve management. Five biologically rich nature reserves are the focus of this project and are the recipients of grants, special research programs, and training for the staff. Natural forest management in the surrounding area is enhanced by improving on current harvesting practices and strengthening the organizational capacity of the Ministry of Forestry. Implementation timeframe: Conceived October 1991; preparation began September 1992, approval received June 1995; implementation started July 1995; project closes June 2002 for a total implementation period of 7 years. Finance plan: $22.6 million ($18.8 from GEF) with $333.4 million credit associated WB project. Project title: Ecodevelopment Project Country: India Objective: Project targets seven protected areas in India. The project has five basic objectives including: (a) improving PA management by strengthening institutional capacity; (b) village ecodevelopment to reduce negative impacts of local people and involve them in conservation efforts; (c) education and impact monitoring programs for the PAs; (d) overall enhancement of administration and policy framework, and (e) preparation of future biodiversity projects. Implementation timeframe: Conceived January 1991, preparation approved March 1992, implementation in 1997 with disbursements ending in 2002. Finance plan: $20 million GEF grant with $28 million IDA credit. Project title: Kerinci Seblat ICDP Project Country: Indonesia Objective: To develop a model for large-scale ICDP program for the Kerinci Seblat National Park and improve conservation awareness nationally. Project would improve boundary demarcation, train farner groups and promote new enterprises that do not conflict with biodiversity as well as enhance concession management and community forestry. Implementation timeframe: Conceived in 1991, preparation started 1992, project approved in 1996, implementation began 1996 with disbursements ending in 2002. Finance plan: $15 million approved under GEF pilot phase associated with a $19.1 million WB loan. 35 36 Project title: Forest Management and Conservation Project Country: Lao PDR Objective: The project focuses on the establishment and management of four PAs, and includes surveys, inventories, infrastructure development, and salaries. Buffer zones are also to be established as well as a training program for foresters, ecologists, and conservation staff. Project also establishes a conservation trust fund to identify and secure long term financing for the operation of PAs. Implementation timeframe: Conceived in 1991, preparation started 1992, project approved 1994, implementation started 1995 for 5 years. Finance plan: $ 5 million (approved under GEF pilot phase) with a $15.3 million associated WB project Project title: Conservation Management of Priority Protected Areas Country: Philippines Objective: This project enhances biodiversity in ten biologically rich sites and would do this by improving infrastructure and site development, establishing community based management structures, develop boundary demarcation, promote non-destructive economic activities in the buffer zones, and enhance monitoring. Implementation timeframe: Conceived 1991, preparation began 1992, approved mid-1994, and implementation started late 1994 for 6 years. Finance Plan: $ 20 million approved under GEF pilot phase associated with $281 million WB project. Project title: Conservation Forest Area, Protection, Management and Development Project Country: Thailand Objective: The project enhances the entire forest complex rather than specific parks. The project promotes biodiversity conservation activities such as a national conservation plan and biological inventories. Project uses several information gathering techniques from local groups to satellite images to establish legal demarcation of protected areas. A trust fund is also established to support NGO activities that fall under the overall project framework. Implementation timeframe: Conceived 1990, preparation began 1991, not yet approved pending ratification of Biodiversity Convention. Small pilot community activities have been ongoing through other funding sources. Experiences with Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia Annex 3. ICDP selected readings Biodiversity Support Program. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation Network 1996 Annual Report: Stories from the Field and Lessons Learned. World Wildlife Fund-United States (WWF-US), Washington, DC. Evaluation of enterprise oriented community based conservation in the Asia/Pacific region by an organization that undertakes numerous, small, well-planned ICDPs. Twenty ongoing projects described in this annual report. Brandon, K., K. Redford, S. Sanderson, eds. 1997. The Peril in Parks: Parks in Peril. Island Press. This book is currently in press and should be a good reference for anyone working on ICDPs in Latin America as it details the situation in those parks. Brandon, K., and M. Wells. 1992. "Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas." World Development. 20:557 - 570. Washington, DC. Discusses the evolution and performance of ICDP projects and the conceptual tradeoffs inherent in linking conservation and development. Brown, M., and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1992. Designing Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Biodiversity Support Program, WWF-US, Washington, DC. Key issues in designing ICDPs, components and implementation of ICDPs. Several case studies also discussed, particularly the Annapurna Conservation Project, Nepal. Kiss, A. (ed). 1990. "Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa." World Bank Technical Paper 130. Washington, DC. Predating the term ICDP, this well-edited technical document discusses local participation in wildlife management. It is based on a workshop and focuses on the practical implication of involving local communities in management and conservation. Fourteen African case studies are discussed by the people intimately involved with the projects. This document is often cited and a "must read" for anyone planning ICDPs in Africa. Kramer, Randall, Carel van Schaik, Julie Johnson, (eds). 1997. Last Stand: Protected Areas and the Defense of Tropical Biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press. The whole book is worth reading but the most important chapter is one on policy and practical consideration in land use strategies for biodiversity conservation written by Katrina Brandon. Lutz, E., and J. Caldecott (eds) 1996. Decentralization and Biodiversity Conservation. World Bank, Washington DC. Ten case studies from Africa, Asia, and South America are discussed in detail to illustrate the principle of decentralizing biodiversity conservation to the local level in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Case studies are well documented in this excellent reference document. 37 38 Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1996. Measures of Success: A Systematic Approach to Designing, Managing, and Monitoring Community-Oriented Conservation Projects. Biodiversity Support Program- WWF-US, Washington, DC. A detailed guide to designing, managing, and measuring the impact of ICDP. A comprehensive, well-written document discussing techniques for monitoring and evaluation, including statistical methods. An excellent "must have" reference although too detailed for all but the most active participants. McNeely. 1988. Economics and Biological Diversity. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. McNeely, J.A., K.R. Miller, W.V. Reid, R.A. Mittermeier, and T.B. Werner. 1990. Conserving the World's Biological Diversity. International Union for Conservation of Nature, World Resource Institute, Conservation International, World Wide Fund, and World Bank. Gland, Switzerland and Washington, DC. Redford, K. H., and J. A. Mansour (eds). 1996. Traditional Peoples and Biodiversity Conservation in Large Tropical Landscapes. An interesting book with numerous Central and South American case studies that attempts to discuss the role of indigenous people in conservation efforts. Importantly, this book also details the impact of local people on an areas biodiversity. Singh, S. 1995. Integrated Conservation Development Projectsfor Biodiversity Conservation: The Asia Pacific Experience. Indian Institute of Public Administration, New Delhi, India. This report essentially describes some of the main issues involved in the preparation of ICDPs in Asia. Essentially a report of the "Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation Projects, Development and Strategy - Asia Pacific Region," held in Padang, Indonesia, June 1994. Wells, M., and K. E. Brandon. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management with Local Communities. The World Bank, Washington, DC. The first comprehensive document on ICDPs as they relate to international development agencies. Numerous case studies cited and evaluated. A primary document for anyone contemplating ICDPs. Wells, M. P. 1997. Indonesia ICDP Study: Interim Report of Findings. The World Bank, Washington, DC. This detailed report summarizes the Indonesia ICDP project based on field visits. It gives an in depth look into an ongoing World Bank/GEF ICDP. Western, D., and R. M. Wright (eds). 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-based Conservation. Island Press, Washington, DC. An excellent book that focuses on rural societies and the conservation of biodiversity in rural areas. It provides an overview of the debate over sustainable development, poverty, and conservation. Several cases studies are discussed. An essential resource to planning and implementing conservation programs in developing nations. Experiences with Integrated Conservation-Development Projects in Asia 39 Worah, S., and D. S. Svendsen (1995). Workshop on Introduction to Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (Part I & II). WWF ICDP Training Program, Bangkok, Thailand. Two reports on how to conduct workshops to introduce the ICDP concept to local NGOs in Asia. Problems with the workshop and techniques that worked well are discussed. Worah, S., D. S. Svendsen, and C. Ongleo. 1996. Workshop on Planningfor ICDPs: Participatory Tools and Processes (Part I & II). WWF ICDP Training Programme, Bangkok, Thailand. Two workshop reports on particular techniques that can be used to introduce the ICDP concept to local communities and villages. Part II is the useful document. World Bank, Indonesia and Pacific Islands Country Department. 1997. Investing in Biodiversity. A Review of Integrated Conservation and Development Projects. Washington, DC. World Bank, South Asia Department. 1996. Staff Appraisal Report of the India Ecodevelopment Project. World Bank, Washington, DC. The India Ecodevelopment Project is a classic example of a large ICDP currently under implementation. This report is a useful reference document because it details specific techniques and consideration used in a large and complex ICDP that attempts to concurrently work at both a national and village level. World Wide Fund - United States. 1995. "Linking Conservation and Human Needs: Creating Economic Incentives." Workshop I of the ICDP Review. Bacalar, Mexico. This is the proceedings from a workshop focusing on economic incentives for conservation. The workshop reviews different types of economic incentives including agro-ecological production, conservation-based enterprises, and compensation through social services. Report produces lots of questions but few answers. World Wide Fund - United States. 1995. "Local Knowledge and Social Organization: Foundations for Biodiversity Conservation." Workshop II of the ICDP Review. Puerto Princesa, The Philippines. Report synthesizes the exchanges between various workshop participants discussing the role of local people and indigenous knowledge in conservation. Abundant information but poorly organized. World Wide Fund - United States. 1996. "The Enabling Environment for ICDPs: Policies, Institutions, and Ethical Dilemmas at Local, National, and International Levels." Workshop IlI of the ICDP Review. Washington DC. This concept paper briefly discusses the outcome of workshop to discuss institutions and policies designed to promote ICDPs. Not published at the time of writing. Annex 3 I Annex 4. Selected organizations engaged in analytical ICDP work Africa Wildlife Foundation U. S. Agency for International Development 1717 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20523 Washington, DC 20036 USAID is involved in many conservation- Tel: 202 265 8393 development programs worldwide. They awfwash@igc.apc.org have conducted an assessment of USAID Currently undertaking many small local supported ICDPs based on six case studies community-based conservation projects in (Thailand, Nepal, Madagascar, Sri Lanka, Africa. Costa Rica, and Jamaica). Biodiversity Support Program World Wide Fund - Asia c/o World Wide Fund Contact person: Sejal Worah 1250 24th St., NW (wwficdp@ait.ac.th@internet) Washington, DC 20037 Asian Institute of Technology Tel: 202 861 8370 GPO Box 2754 The Biodiversity Conservation Network is Bangkok 10501, Thailand administered by the Biodiversity Support Publishing the proceedings of three regional Program and undertakes several ICDPs in ICDP training workshops. the Asia/Pacific region. Twenty case studies are reviewed in the recent annual report. World Wide Fund - United States 1250 24th St., NW The Nature Conservancy Washington, DC 20037 Parks in Peril Program Tel: 202 223 6971 1815 North Lynn Street Actively involved in implementing ICDPs Arlington, VI 22209 and currently producing the proceedings of Tel: 703 841 5300 four internal workshops on economic Initiated in 1990, TNC is working in incentives, cultural issues, linkages, and partnership with local organizations to build conservation impacts. their capacity to undertake ICDPs in the Latin America and Caribbean region. 41 Distributors of COLOMBIA GERMANY ISRAEL NEPAL PORTUGAL SWEDEN Infoenlace Lidc. UNO-Vedag Yozmot LOerature Ltd. Everest Media Intemational Services (P) Ltd. Livrada Portugal Wennergren-Williams AB W orld Bank Carrera6No.51-21 PoppelsdorterAlleeS5 PO. Box 56055 GPO Box 5443 Apartado 2681, RuaDoCarmo70-74 PO. Box 1305 Apartado Aereo 34270 53115 Bonn 3 Yohanan HasandLar Street Kathmandu 1200 Lisbon S-17t 25 Solna Publications SantatI de Bogotl, D.C. Tel: (49 228) 949020 Tel Aviv 61560 Tel: (977 1)472 152 Tel: (1) 347-4982 Tel:(488)705-97-50 Prices and credit terms vary'from Tel: (57 1) 285-2798 Fax: (49 228) 217492 Tel: (972 3) 5285-397 Fax: (977 1) 224 431 Fax: (1) 347-0264 Fax: (46 8) 27-00-71 countryountrountry. Consult your Fax: (571) 285-2798 URL: hop:/Ivww.uno-vedag.de Fax: (972 3) 5285-397 E-mail: mail@wwi.se local distributor before placing an E-mail: unovedag@aol.com NETHERLANDS ROMANIA order. COTE DIVOIRE R.O.Y lntemational De Lindeboom/lnOr-Pubtikaties Compani De Librari Bucuresti S.A. SWITZERLAND Center d'Edition et de Diffusion Atricaines GREECE PO Box 13056 PO. Box 202, 7480 AE Haaksbergen Str. Lipscani no. 26, sector 3 Librairie Payol Service Instiutionnel ARGENTINA (CEDA) Papasotidou S.A. Tel Aviv 61130 Tel: (31 53) 574-0004 Bucharest Cotes-de-Montbenon 30 Oficina del Libro N ntemacional 04 B.P 541 35, Stoumara SIr, Tel: (9723)5461423 Fax: (31 53) 572-9296 Tel: (40 1)613 9645 1002 Lausanne As. Cordlba 1077 AbidjanO4 106 82 Athens Fax: (972 3)5461442 E-mail: lindeboo@woddonline.nl Fax: (40 1) 312 4000 Tel: (41 21)341-3229 1120 Buenos Aires Tel: (225)246510:246511 Tel: (30 1)364-1926 E-mail: royil@netvision.nel.il URL:hotp:/Awww.woddonline.nt-lindeboo Fax: (41 21) 341-3235 Tel: (54 1)1015-354 Fax: (225)250567 Fax: (301)364-8254 RUSSIAN FEDERATION Palestinian Authorty/Middle East NEW ZEALAND lsdatelstvo