NO.1I GF- MARCH 1998 LSSON 0 S NOTES We welcome you to this first issue of the series of GEF Lessons Notes published by the Monitoring and Evaluation team in the GEF secretariat. These Notes will be a dissemination vehicle for lessons emerging from evaluation studies, annual implementation reviews, and other material of broad rele- vance to the GEE The initial numbers in the series result largely from the Study of GEF Project Lessons' and the 1997 Project Implementation Review2. We plan to publish between four and six GEF Lessons Notes per year The series is aimed primarily at project designers, managers and evaluators in GEF implementing and executing agencies. To make sure we are meeting your needs and providing the kind of information that is most useful to you, we invite yourfeedback on this and future editions of the Notes, and suggestions on how we can improve it. Stakeholder involvement is a main feature of the GEF, and this has brought a wide range of new play- ers into GEF-funded projects. None are more important than the communities these projects seek to benefit and whose behavior often, they seek to change to lessen adverse impacts on the global environ- ment. This issue of GEF Lessons Notes focuses on lessons learned from experience in building part- nerships between GEF-supported projects and communities. -Jarle Harstad GEF Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator BUILDING PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITIES The conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity can succeed in most places only in coop- Why is this eration with the people who inhabit areas of high diversity and earn a living from these resources, important? Community attitudes and behaviors are also critical to the success of other activities carried out to achieve global environmental benefits, including ones that address pollution of international waters and seek to promote alternative sources of energy. Therefore, the effectiveness and sustainability of such GEF projects will depend on their ability to understand and form productive partnerships with these communities. A key element in building partnerships is for those involved in designing or implementing a project Understanding to work hard to understand the communities with which 1hey work. Taking this seriously can radically communities is change the way organizations interact with communities. P)roject implementers need to actively seek the essential views of various groups in the community, and learn how they came to hold the attitudes they have and 1 This study, conducted by Resource Futures International of Ottawa, Canada, was commissioned by GEF's Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Coordinator in April 1997. Ir synthesizes lessons learned to date from projects financed during GEF's Pilot Phase. A summary report of this study is available from the GEF Secretariat (see con- tact information on page 4 of this GEF Lessons Notes). 2 Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) are carried out annually by the GEF implementing agencies and sec- retariat. They have two purposes: (1) to examine the status of GEF projects, especially with regard to implemen- tation progress and the prospects of achieving global environmental benefits, and (2) to identify lessons leamed from GEF experience. See page 4 of this GEF Lessons Notes for information on how to obtain a copy of the 1997 PIR report. GEF Lessons Notes how decisions are made. The impact of messages the project is trying to convey needs to be care- fully assessed to ensure that they are being perceived by the community in the way intended. This can be difficult, since communities are often complex and diverse, leadership is not necessarily clear, and communications with outsiders are sometimes channeled through members who may not fully represent community views. It is also important to understand communities' past experience with outsiders and how that shapes their expectations about the project. For example, the Conservation of Dana Wildlands and Azraq Wetland project in Jordan found that an earlier approach to management of the Dana Reserve led surrounding communities to see the reserve as a threat to their traditional rights. In Papua New Guinea, the Biodiversity Conservation and Resource Managment project discovered that the pres- ence of an industrial logging company in the project area led communities to expect rewards from participating in the project in exchange for little work on their part. Projects must Although GEF projects are designed to achieve global environmental benefits, community-based address community projects must also be able to address community priorities and provide benefits to community needs members. Project designers and implementers have to be realistic about where and when it is pos- sible to do this. Project activities need to be based on sound science, but project experience under the GEF to date shows that socio-economic criteria are often more important in determining the chances to succeed. In fact, one of the first lessons from the experience of the Papua Identifying Alternative Income Sources in the New Guinea project is that the feasibility Dana Wildlands, Jordan of addressing communities' social and economic needs should determine the In this GEF project, carried out by a Jordanian NGO, the Royal Society for the selection of sites for biodiversity conser- Conservation of Nature, a variety of activities that were alternatives to grazing and hunting vation projects. In some areas, the combi- in the Dana Reserve were designed and implemented jointly by the reserve managers and nation of social, economic, institutional the community. They include jobs in managing the reserve itself, growing and preserving and political factors may make sustain- organic fruits and vegetables, and producing handicrafts (e.g., jewelry, camel hair rugs) able conservation unworkable. using local materials, as well as sharing reserve entrance fees with local communities and developing sustainable agricultural activities in a newly-created buffer zone. Working A major threat to biodiversity is often a together with the community, and giving them a role in decision-making about potential community's economic dependence on new sources of income, helped the project to gain trust and acceptance and to overcome activities that deplete these resources or substantial initial community resistance. destroy their habitats. Thus, identifying alternative sources of income that con- serve or sustainably use biological resources is very important. Several GEF projects have successfully addressed this need. One example is the Dana Wildlands and Azraq Wetland project in Jordan (see box). Another is the Seychelles Biodiversity Conservation project, which retrained artisans who produced souvenirs from shells of threatened turtles, and directly involved them in designing the training program. Economic needs are not the only ones projects can address. For example, the Choc6 Biodiversity project in Colombia responded to the interest of indigenous groups in participating more broadly in national political issues when it included them in project coordination mechanisms. The nature of A conclusion reached by those involved in the Papua New Guinea project is that the overall suc- interactions with cess of a conservation project is likely to be determined by the quality of social relations developed communities affects between project workers and local stakeholders. The way project staff interact with communities, partnerships 2 GEF Lessons Notes especially at the outset, is critical to gaining and keeping their respect, downplaying expectations, and inculcating self-help attitudes. Projects that display wea[th-e.g., four-wheel drive vehicles, import- ed food, "affluent" lifestyles of foreign advisors, luxurious facilities relative to local standards-are likely to reinforce community expectations of easy returns. While material incentives can provide tangible support for community priorities, experience in Education programs Papua New Guinea has shown that working patiently with communities to help them identify their help expand own alternative development options works better than offering quick returns which depend on exter- communities' nal resources but do not change communities' conviction for conservation. Based on this conclusion, options the GEF project there is placing considerable emphasis on community education programs. An effective way of educating commu- nities, and promoting dialogue with them, is by involving them in monitoring the Developing Coordination Mechanisms under the biophysical and socio-economic results Siodiversity Conservation in the Choc6 Region of the project. For example, respected Project in Colombia members of the community play an important role as park rangers in Jordan's Afrocolonbian and indigenous people's communities were incorporated in project decision- Dana Reserve, and act as witnesses to the making through their representation on the project management team. This team has effects of improved area management. become a mechanism for reaching agreement on development approaches and priorities, and for evaluating project results and impact. It improved the quality and ownership of project Unlike public awareness programs, activities and strengthened prospects for long-term sustainability. In addition, responsibili- which are appropriate when a basic con- ties for land use planning were delegated to working groups of local and regional gover- servation philosophy already exists, edu- ment institutions, community organizations and NGOs. The "Territorial Programs" devel- cation programs are often lengthy and oped by these groups gave focus to conservation planning and management and provided may not be able to achieve their effect in tools for resource use in the Choc6 region. time in places where threats to biodiversi- ty, such as clear-cutting of forests or mine development, can proceed rapidly. Identifying or developing vehicles for communities to interact with project staff and others can be Coordination extremely important to project success and sustainability. In Colombia, Afrocolombian and indige- mechanisms can nous people's communities were included in project maiagement and planning groups (see box). In help strengthen Jordan, the GEF project helped create a local organization, Friends of Azraq. For the first time, the partnerships Azraq's two villages felt empowered to address environmental issues related to the oasis. Previously, they did not cooperate with each other and could not prectly communicate with government water agencies. Friends of Azraq brought together potential adversaries-conservationists and agricultural interests-who debated issues and made policy decisions. The group ultimately became a strong advocate for rehabilitation and sustainable management of the wetland and surrounding area. In Uganda, the Mgahinga and Bwindi Park Conservation Trust Fund created with GEF support is man- aged by a board of nine trustees drawn from the governent park and forest services, NGOs, research institutions, private tourism companies, and local residents of the two parks. A steering committee of local government and community representatives and NGOs advises the board on interactions at the local level. Developing partnerships and understanding between outside staff and communities is not easy or Building partnerships straightforward. It takes a considerable amount of time, effort, modesty, persistence and resources, takes time and usually much more than was originally expected. Implementing agencies need to resist pressures for requires continual training and support GEF Lessons Notes rapid implementation in order to give project staff sufficient time to understand and build lasting part- nerships with communities. People and organizations (including NGOs) involved in community-based projects must have a collaborative, sensitive, and empowering attitude. In addition to technical knowl- edge, they need skills and training in listening, teamwork, conflict management, and social assessment. This is not a one-time process: project staff need constant support from implementing and executing agencies and freedom of action to flexibly work with and respond to communities. FEEDBACK AND SUGGESTIONS We hope this series will be a catalyst for an on-going dialogue on what is working, what is not, and how people involved in the GEF have found solutions to challenges that face all of us. A regular feature of the Notes will be a summary of input and feedback we receive from our readers. Therefore, we would like your reactions to this edition of GEF Lessons Notes, and your reflections on the questions listed below. We would also like your suggestions of future topics that would be of interest to you in your work with the GEF. Please send us an email at geflessons@gefweb.org-or contact Scott E. Smith, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer, at the address below to let us know: * Did you find this edition of GEF Lessons Notes helpful to you in your work? If not, what kind of information would have been more useful? * What are the implications of this experience for your activities? * What obstacles do you see in carrying them out? * What additional experience or examples can you share related to these lessons? * What else would you like to know about this or similar activities? * How can we meet your needs better in future editions of GEF Lessons Notes? OTHER GEF MONITORING AND EVALUATION PUBLICATIONS OF INTEREST Project Lessons Note No. 2, which focuses on lessons in encouraging private sector involvement in GEF projects, will soon be available. This and future editions of GEF Lessons Notes can be obtained from the GEF website (www.gefweb.org). If you would like to be on the mailing list for regular receipt of GEF Lessons Notes, please contact us at the coordinates below. Let us know whether you would like to receive an electronic version or a hard copy, and which language (English, French, or Spanish) you would prefer. In addition to the Notes series, the following publications of GEF's Monitoring and Evaluation pro- gram may be of interest to you: Project Implementation Review 1997 (January 1998) Summary Report of the Study of GEF Project Lessons (January 1998) Report of the Study of GEF's Overall Performance (February 1998) These are available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish. English versions may be obtained from GEF's website. For copies in all languages, contact our email address. GEF Secretariat Monitoring and Evaluation Program 1818 H Street, NW telephone: 202-473-1618 Washington, DC 20433 fax: 202-522-3240 email: geflessons@gefweb.org 4