technical paper no. w w~~~vtp3s8 work in progress odct.€¦ · the findings, interpretations, and...

WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPER NO. 383

w W~~~VTP3s8Work in progress

for public discussion ODct. oq Ahi

Experiences wNTithIntegrated-ConservationDevelopment Projectsin Asia

aPt 1i. ~~'" - ( OA

.~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ I .(/ .. ../ ..

. -,.h

.1~~~~~'/..1.S,,j..,

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

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 IncentivesReally Help?

No. 309 The World Bank/FOA/UNIDO/Industry Fertilizer Working Group, World and Regional Supply and DemandBalancesfor Nitrogen, Phosphate, and Potash, 1993194-1999/2000

No. 310 Elder and Cooley, editors, Sustainable Settlement and Development of the Onchocerciasis Control ProgrammeArea: 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: AHandbookfor 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 PowerGeneration Projects in Developing Countries

No. 326 Colletta, Balachander, and Liang, The Condition of Young Children in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Convergence ofHealth, Nutrition, and Early Education

No. 327 Vald6s and Schaeffer in collaboration with Martin, Surveillance of Agricultural Price and Trade Policies: AHandbookfor 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 LatinAmerica

No. 331 Sharma, Damhaug, Gilgan-Hunt, Grey, Okaru, and Rothberg, African Water Resources: Challenges andOpportunities for Sustainable Development

No. 332 Pohl, Djankov, and Anderson, Restructuring Large Industrial Firms in Central and Eastern Europe: An EmpiricalAnalysis

No. 333 Jha, Ranson, and Bobadilla, Measuring the Burden of Disease and the Cost-Effectiveness of Health Interventions: ACase 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 Bestin Development Diplomacy

No. 336 Francis, with Akinwumi, Ngwu, Nkom, Odihi, Olomajeye, Okunmadewa, and Shehu, State, Community,and LocalDevelopment 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 withIntegrated-ConservationDevelopment Projectsin Asia

M. A. SanjayanSusan ShenMalcolm JansenThe Work/BankWashington, D.C.

Copyright © 1997The International Bank for Reconstructionand Development/THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20433, U.S.A.

All rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaFirst printing October 1997

Technical Papers are published to communicate the results of the Bank's work to the development community withthe 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 citedin 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) andshould not be attributed in any manner to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations, or to members of its Board ofExecutive 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 theWorld 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 sentto 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 noncommercialpurposes, without asking a fee. Permission to copy portions for classroom use is granted through the CopyrightClearance 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 fromPublications, 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 andNatural 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 0-8213-4084-01. Economic development projects-Environmental aspects-Asia.

2. Sustainable development-Asia. I. Sanjayan, M. A., 1966-II. Shen, Susan. III. Title. IV. Series.HC415.E44J37 1997363.7'0095-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 ...................................................................... 1WEIGHING THE OPTIONS WHEN BEST TO USE AN ICDP ........................................................................ 3CONDITIONS NECESSARY FOR SUCCESSFUL ICDPS ........................................................................ 4

SELECTING APPROPRIATE ICDP SITES ........................................................................ 5PROJECT PREPARATION TIME AND PROCESS ........................................................................ 6TIMELY RELEASE OF FUNDS ........................................................................ 8

CHAPTER 2. GOING FORWARD WITH AN ICDP ........................................................................ 11

DEVELOPING SHARED OBJECTIVES ......................................................................... 11ESTABLISHING OWNERSHIP OF ICDP ...................................................................... 14LINKAGES WITH BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ........................................................................ 20

CHAPTER 3. MONITORING AND EVALUATING THE ICDP ..................................................................... 27

BENEFITS OF M&E ........................................................................ 27CONSTRAINTS 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 andsingular concept in this publication. For this participation of the local community is vital toreason, the authors hyphenate the words to the sustainability of a project. But the mainemphasize that it is not conservation through objective of the ICDP is that biodiversitydevelopment or conservation with conservation is the goal and socio-economicdevelopment 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 carefulof conservation goals and development needs thought must be given to when and where totogether. apply such an approach. Oftentimes, major

threats to biodiversity are not local people. InConserving biodiversity faces complex those cases, other measures will need to be

problems when the natural resources from the considered including better law enforcementland 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 andbiodiversity conservation and the socio- careful assessment of an area. This reporteconomic development of a community near looks at the experience of others and discussesprotected areas is the goal of integrated the many considerations in planning an ICDP.conservation-development projects (ICDP). Another document for further analysis ofActive participation of all stakeholders is findings and recommendations on ICDPs is thecritical to its success. Protected areas face forthcoming "Investing in Biodiversity: Aconstant threat from agricultural Review of Indonesia's Integrated Conservationencroachment, wildlife poaching, fuelwood and Development Projects," by the Worldand other forest collection including illegal Bank's Indonesia and Pacific Islands Countrylogging. 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 WorldProjects (ICDP) link the conservation of Bank managed biodiversity projects funded bybiodiversity in protected areas with social and GEF. A subsequent workshop was held ineconomic development of adjoining Padang, Indonesia in June 1994 jointlycommunities. ICDPs do this by providing sponsored by ASTEN and the Economicalternative sources of livelihood to those Development Institute (EDI) to obtaincommunities in or near the protected areas to feedback from Asia government staff, NGOs,reduce pressure on the exploitation of and project consultants on project designresources. ICDPs have been increasingly used issues. A third and final workshop which tookas a strategy for conserving biodiversity, place in early 1995 in Washington, DC,initially funded by non-governmental focused on a prevailing ICDP design issue oforganizations, but more frequently now by how to reconcile the needs of indigenousinternational bilateral and multilateral donor people and the goal of biodiversityorganizations. The establishment of the conservation. This report has been developedGlobal Environment Facility (GEF) in 1992 at the request of participants from the threewhich provides grant financing for workshops who felt that there was a need tointernational environmental concerns provided consolidate existing information on ICDPs, toan opportunity for the World Bank to become distill lessons learned in design andmore involved in assisting client countries in implementation, and to provide guidance fordeveloping programs and projects in future ICDP practitioners. It is not meant to bebiodiversity conservation. exhaustive in coverage; rather it is an effort to

stimulate critical thinking, provide the latestStarting 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 anddissemination notes on issues related to ICDPdesign and implementation in South and East Maritta Koch-WeserAsia regions. The first workshop, which was Chief, Asia Environment andattended by consultants, World Bank task Natural Resources Divisionmanagers and technical staff, focused on

v

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the from the World Bank, Esme Abedin, Ajitcontributions 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, AgiRichard Margolius, Raman Mehta, Scott Kiss, Augusta Molnar, Glenn Morgan, JessicaMcCormick, 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 InstituteGEF Global Environment FacilityFOMACOP Forest Management and Conservation Program (Lao PDR)ICAD integrated conservation and developmentICDP integrated conservation-development projectIUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural ParksKSNP Kerinci Seblat National Park (Indonesia)M&E monitoring and evaluationNGO non governmental organizationPA protected areaRRA rapid rural appraisalWB 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 areaintegrated 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 usedICDPs 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 everysituations that nation's conservation strategy. Today, manyconditions. In some situations, actions such as

enocee* bonay dmacto. n protected areas are under substantial pressure fromenforcement, boundary demarcation and PoetconsTvation education are necessary first steps to human-induced activities including agriculturalconsider before the introduction of an ICDP. This encroachment, fuelwood and minor forest productsection 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 areliving at or near a subsistence level and are unable

Defining ICDP to stop such activities. Oftentimes, their actionsare influenced by economies from distant urban

Perhaps the most succinct definition of ICDPs is centers or masterminded by a few affluentprovided by Wells and Brandon (1992): projects individuals reaping great benefits at the expense ofthat link biodiversity conservation in protected both local people and natural resources. Theareas with local socio-economic development. involvement and empowerment of local peopleThis linkage means that local people living in or and the improvement of their socio-economicnear the protected areas are given alternative condition is a necessary tool in conservation of thesources of livelihood that do not deplete the protected area.resources of the protected areas. ICDPs evolved Currently, there are various interpretations ofout of the failure of the traditional protection ICDP. The main commonality is that ICDP hasapproach to conservation in light of growing two important components: biodiversitypopulation pressures and heightened by unclear conservation and socio-economic development.tenure arrangements, poor enforcement and public Consequently, ICDPs have become "all things topolicy. Conservationists realized that local all people" and a number of labels have beencommunities have to be involved in conservation developed to meet the particular objectives of theefforts and their subsistence needs have to be project. For example, the World Wide Fund foraddressed. Nature-Nepal refers to such projects as

The term protected areas is used for all the "integrating conservation with developmentcategory I - X parks set by the International Union projectse and in Papua New Guinea, they arefor 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 tomet. It also tends to simplify cos5boi issues address the inmteraction of local communities andby providing a win-win sceniario t hat yet5 to protected areas, they could be broader in scope andprove achievable. It is also noteworthy that nmy deal with the impacts of economic developmentso-called ICDP or ICAD projects are not elly activities, e.g. mining, roads, dams, etc. Suchbiodivermity conservation projecs but ru activities have the potential to have significantdevelopment projects which are carried out imn impact on local people's subsistence livelihoodenvironmentally sustinable manner. This and on the protected area. A review of 21"greening" of rural development projects, although protected areas in Indonesia found that localworthwhile, may inadvertently divert scar fiuid conservon ranked behind roads, mining, loggingearmarked for biodiversity consrvation ox 2 e World Bank's(bo . ~ ..... and sponsored immigration.ThWol acsExpenences with ICDPs thus far have shown at India Ecodevelopent and Indonesia Kerincidirect linkap between tbe two components - Seblat National Park Projects are conceptuallyconservation 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 protectedalways remain biodiversity conservation, with reas, including, but not limited to those of localSOCio-economic development used as a tool aras inldn,btntlmie.otoeooasocio-c .o .sW a a tool . ............ . communities. However, there is little expenenceforachieving this objective. Thus, this publication so far in dealing with the larger regional concefnshyphenates 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-economicdevelopment activite which are critical to the sucom and sustainabillty of the projet Therefore, howmuch focus should there be on Xt social and economic development of the people impacting theprotected area? If too much emphasi Is placd on soclo-economic development, the ICDP eventuallybecomes a rural deveopment prjct wth a wea_ed biodersity conservation objcive. On the otherhand, social and economic condWions of the people living In or adjacent to the protected area must betaken 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. spendingfunds on socmeconomic devopmen versus spending on conservation measures aimed directly atbodiversity proteon. Howvr, by the accepted delnition of ICDPs as described in the above, almostall investments and actvits In an ICOP project should be aimed at biodiversily conservation. Evenwhen investments are made in acdvit desIned to promote the economic and social well-being of thelocal people, they can only be justilled - an ICDP (or use biodiversity conservation funding) if theultimate 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 butjust that acbtvits with Indirect links ned to be carefully selcted with a system in place ensuring thatthey do indeed enhance blodhvray.

Note: Unls Indicated, boxe orlgnstd by authr. 2World Bak. Invesn in BioWuNy (1997).&periec.u with Interated-Conrervation Dewlopment Projects in Asia

3

WVeighing the options kilometers to graze. Even within this initiallydefined 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 takenon a case-by-case basis. It is often easier to define as a two-kilometer belt along the periphery of thewhen 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 thethe use of ICDPs as a conservation tool, some protected area are relatively limited. In thisideal 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 immediatebiodiversity is from local people living in the local consumption such as fuelwood, fodder andimmediate vicinity of the protected area. In the medicinal plant gathering, small plot farming orIndia Ecodevelopment Project, the initial project hunting for locally consumed meat. However,development area, from where pressures and experiences have shown that ICDPs have not beenthreats to the protected areas emanate, is taken to effective in dealing with extensive loggingbe the 10-kilometer radius around the protected operations or agricultural activities designed toarea. Past studies have established that livestock, satisfy' the demands of an export market. Forwhich represent the greatest long range threat to example, in Indonesia, the large-scale cultivationprotected 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 inand around protected areas. Under certain circumstances, traditional conservation techniques thatemphasize boundary controls and enforcement of conservation regulations may be a better and morecost-effective method of protecting biodiversity. Following are some examples where ICDPs may not beappropriate.

- In areas where policy reform or public expenditure reform alone could be sufficient and politicallypossible 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 tolimit disturbances need not be included unless there is a reasonable possibility that future conflictswill 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 needto 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, forexample) or very high levels of conflict, ICDPs will not have enough time to work as it usually takesseveral years to establish connections between conservation and development.

Chapter 1. Deciding the Suitability of an ICDP

4

provides an enormous and lucrative source ofincome to both local people and their more distantbusiness employers. Development activities Conditions necessary forusually envisioned under ICDPs cannot adequately successful ICDPscompete with the income generated from this typeof 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 aarea unil comrehensve polcy and experiences of a number of projects in the Asiaarea until comprehensive policy and * **

institutional changes are in place. ICDPs should region. Complying with all these conditions wouldnot 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 asfor that to happen, national policies and priorities boundary patrols and enforcement of laws mustneed to change. Instead ICDPs should be used to also be supported to reduce immediate threatsprevent or at least slow down the irreplaceable to the area. It is only after stabilizing immediateerosion of biodiversity from the protected area. A threats that an ICDP has a reasonable chance ofrealistic time frame is needed for more succeeding and establishing itself (box 3).comprehensive policies to evolve, for education to * Expectations need to be managedtake 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 expectationsgenerate income from limited local need to be carefully managed and focused withdevelopment activities such as ecotourism, explicitly stated conservation objectives. Insubsistence farming, minor forest products and addition, past project preparation experiences haveagroforestry. However, it is important not to shown that unless funds are available early in theoverestimate the revenues generated from such planning stage, false expectations could buildactivities, particularly ecotourism. Too often false among the local communities making future workexpectations are raised among local communities with them much more difficult. Thus early releaseand local governments as to the level of economic of a small amount of funds could help to buildbenefits 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 andthe protected area authorities and the local financing. ICDP activities which rely on activepeople targeted by the ICDP. In countries where community participation take a long time tothe 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 programcannot be used, although this does not necessarily rather than a one-time project and appropriatemean that western-style participation is an financing mechanism beyond typical project life ofabsolute necessity for successful ICDP five years should be included during design. Aimplementation. For example, the China Nature component to develop a viable financingReserve Management Project is fostering co- mechanism for protected areas was included in themanagement through government facilitation of Indonesia Kerinci Seblat Project and Lao PDRcommunity 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 anexample of how managers of an ICDP are trying to address threats to the protected areas from extemaldevelopment activities. Some of the seven protected areas included in the project are under potentialthreat from proposed reservoir and irrigation conveyance systems, fisheries and other developmentactivities. These activities, which are largely expected to be located in the protected area peripherieshave the potential to undermine the conservation effectiveness of this project. To address theseconcerns, the India Ecodevelopment Project includes specific assurances from the national and stategovemments that they will not undertake activities which will undermine the objectives of the project. Toaccomplish this task, the national and state governments are expected to apply their own environmentalassessment regulations and additional standards that the project has outlined to asses the impact ofproposed external activities. Further, the provision of the National Environmental Protection Act can alsobe applied, where appropriate, to control and manage external development.

The Project has defined specific critera and procedures for ensuring compliance with the projectcovenant on regional development activities. Specifically, a set of criteria has been established to assistprotected area authorties determine whether biodiversity conservation and/or ecodevelopment activityhas been or may be undermined. The understanding is that if the government proceeds with an activitythat is deemed to have the potential to undermine conservation or the ecodevelopment strategy, projectfinancing could be withdrawn. In case the application of the criteria for determining potential impactcannot be resolved between the protected area authorities and the development agencies, a high-levelproject steering committee (which includes NGO representation) is responsible for mediation and conflictresolution. This project also includes funding for independent NGO studies and monitoring and as ameans of objectively identifying and suggesting solutions to potential conflicts between regionaldevelopment and biodiversity conservation.

Source: India Ecodevelopment Project, World Bank (1997).

- Funding agencies supporting ICDPs shouldhave the will to withdraw from the project if Selecting appropriateagreements, especially those dealing withconservation, are broken beyond repair. This ICDP siteswill not only reduce costs but will also send a clearmessage about the conservation priority of the In designing ICDPs, certain critical questions needICDP. Although several ICDPs under to be resolved. In particular, this requires theimplementation have reciprocal agreements selection of suitable sites and a detailed(contracts) between protected area managers and understanding of the real world based on extensivelocal communities, none are yet fully operational discussions with all the communities involved -- afor assessment of effectiveness. lengthy process if done properly.


6

The principles of conservation biology can be four years to design. In Indonesia, the eight monthapplied to maximize the biological suitability of preparation time was inadequate to fully consultthe site(s) selected for ICDP. A series of issues all the stakeholders and to develop a fundableneed to be addressed before an area is considered project proposal. An additional year and morefor 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 facingbooundary 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 projectthis however is even small fragmented areas may prpsal financed by a more-investinentcontain important refuge for particular species and proposal financed by the GEF Pre-Investmentin 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 existspiodiversity 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 projectselected should have broad biiversit preparation and the release of funds for

Availability of technical support, accessibility to implementation of the ICDP be minimized toAvalailtyof ecnialsupor, ccssiiltytomaintain momentum and enthusiasm of thethe protected area, NGO presence, infrastructure, stain (see andiscusiof the

and community support are all useful in ensuring stockholders (see following discussion). Ascaproject success. The structure and organization of result of the issues of timing and project cyclesthe community is also an important consideration being raised at the ICDP Workshop I

inselectinganICDPsite. (Washington, DC, 1995), a proposed model forin 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 projectFacility (GEF) ICDP projects take between two to preparation. First, there is often an urgent need to

act immediately in order to halt further


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 preparationgovernment need to be satisfied without long team cannot necessarily compensate fordelays. Third, there are limited resources inadequate preparation time. Greater efficiencyavailable for project preparation. Several simple might be achieved by having smaller teams butstrategies 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 makedrawbacks must be evaluated against any savings. frequent visits to guide the local preparation teamThe 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 enforcementsome relief are proposed below along with.

some frelief are proposed below alongwithAnother solution is the immediate enforcement ofpotential pitfalls. the required protected area management* Applying rapid rural appraisaL Rapid rural prescription to arrest degradation of biologicalappraisal (RRA) is one technique for shortening resources pending the design and implementationthe planning period. This method helps generate of the ICDP. This allows time to design a detailedlarge amounts of data in a brief time span participatory planning process without thefacilitating detailed micro-level planning within impending threat of a rapidly degrading protectedthe brief allotted time. The main drawback is that area. However, there is a danger that strictRRA misses seasonal and annual variation in the enforcement of the laws and regulations withoutbiological and socio-economic profiles of the area. corresponding development of alternativeIn addition, given the social stratification that resources would only heighten the antagonism ofexists in most of the countries of the region, RRA the local people toward the protected areais often an inadequate tool for capturing the management making the implementation of ainternal dynamics of decision making that exists successful ICDP rather uncertain. There is alsowithin any community. This handicap may be the added complication that once the protectedpartially overcome by involving local NGOs, area staff and managers are geared toward greaterwhenever 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 participatorydynamics 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 notcollection or detailed planning. However, generally recommended except in the most urgent

cases where a clear and present danger exists that aexperience from rural and community species or biological resource will disapeardevelopment 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. Anof problems, adoption of ineffective or approach that is being tried in India and elsewhereinappropriate solutions, and a lack of support from with some measure of success is to break up thelocal people are usually to blame. One possible planning phase into two parts. An initialsolution is to carefully target data collection along 'Indicative Planning' phase which lasts 6 to 12with concurrent analysis. This can reduce time months and a 'Detailed Planning' phase thatlags and prevent unnecessary information being occurs during implementation. The indicativeprocessed. plan is based on a study of a small sub-sample of


8

communities and the available information on the powers, and lack of accountability mechanisms forprotected area. The funding agency commits the government funds. Therefore, one criticalfunds based on the indicative plan but planning consideration for ICDPs is to establishdisbursement will occur in the implementation appropriate financial procedures:phase after village-based microplans have been .Devise an explicit delegation mechanismprepared. Benefits would be provided on the basisof 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 revolvingfunds 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 societiesin ICDPs requires the transfer of substantial that are delegated powers to plan, implement andfinancial and implementation responsibility to the finance project-related activities. Anotherlocal level. The extent to which financial possibility would be to delegate substantialresponsibility can be transferred is dependent on financial and approval authority to protected areathe flexibility available within the project managers so that they can effectively and timelyexecuting and financing agencies. Nevertheless, it discharge funds for community investmentis important to at least ensure that financial activities.

resources necessary for ICDP investments are * Release funds in a timely fashion so that workavailable in a timely and efficient manner, or else' ~~can proceed uninterrupted. This is particularlythe trust and goodwill of local communities may critical near the end of the year when ICDP fundsbe eroded. As a result of unmet expectations, theproject loses credibility. Although NGO-financed lapsingyprojects have the flexibility to ensure timelyrelease of funds, normal government financial and * Improve flexibility in the budget to support thebudgetary procedures often lead to long time lags wide range of activities that may be identified viabetween planning and implementation and require community assessments and as part ofa high transaction cost to beneficiaries. In surveys participatory planning.of public sector community programs, these delays U Ensure adequate transparency andand high transaction costs are often determined to accountability to prevent misuse of funds. This isbe the cause of project failure. Other reasons for important because of the flexible approach ICDPsfailure related to funding are insufficient funds, use to identify appropriate activities.lack of delegation/decentralization of financial


9

Box 4.

Using indicative planning in IndiaIn the India Ecodevelopment Project planning is a dynamic, ongoing process that runs concurrent toimplementation. Planning processes for such projects are usually participatory in nature usingparticipatory 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 throughfor 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 approvedand in the early stages of implementation. It is expected that based on the indicative plan, the financialsupport 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 forthemselves 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 smalland 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 entireregion. A preliminary indicative plan is then produced from these findings and is used for project approvaland guidance until micro- planning during implementation is complete. However, in a situation where thegeneral nature of the local interactions and impacts are already well understood, and there is agreementon processes, and budget levels based on comparable sites elsewhere, it may be possible to prepare anindicative plan without close interactions or sampling with villagers in ways that would not raiseexpectations and create frustrations involved with long project processing delays. Such indicative plansshould provide the following:

* basic information about the project area;

* identification of major management and development issues as it pertains to relieving pressures onthe 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 andsocio-economic characteristics and the availability of natural and social resources;

* participatory planning processes to be used to define investments and reciprocal commitments oflocal people;

* infrastructure inputs and support that might be required to implement suggested management anddevelopment 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 thenature of the problem rather than on detailed costing of specific activities that will not be known untilthe micro-planning stage during early implementation;

. biodiversity value of the protected area, the most threatened species and natural resources, and thefeasibility 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 theICDP, including financial, legal, policy and institutional mechanisms.



Chapter 2.

Going forward with an ICDP

If the conditions are met and the decision has been sources of income. Unfortunately, this is often notmade to pursue an ICDP, the following four issues clear to the numerous stakeholders involved in theshould 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 whichduring 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 Naturestakeholders; Reserve Management Project was extended and

* secure active community involvement and additional workshops scheduled because of a needpartial or joint ownership of the project; to clarify objectives between the various levels of

* establish clear linkages between the govemment, local communities, the World Bankdevelopment activities and conservation and GEF. In Vietnam, pre-preparation meetingsobjectives, 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 theproject preparation process. guidelines for the project and role of all those who

were to be involved in preparation. This processwas repeated throughout preparation to ensure

Developing shared common understanding.

objectives Strategies for achieving shared

The ICDP objective is the conservation ofbiological diversity, or more immediately, the * Conservation should be a transparent, notprotection of the integrity of protected areas. hidden agenda Although it may be tempting notSince this objective is implicit in the definition of to initially divulge the conservation agenda of theICDPs, it should always take precedence over project to local communities, such a strategy isother secondary objectives. However, ICDPs use dangerous and the potential pitfalls outweigh anysocio-economic development as a tool for marginal benefits. If such a strategy is attemptedfostering collaboration between protected area and it fails, a common vision will never bestaff 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 wasdifficult to develop shared objectives among all the parties especially within the (initial) 8-month projectpreparation 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 wasfurther 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 betweenthe 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 ofEnvironment, National Development Planning Coordination Board, Provincial (4) and District (9)Development Planning Coordination Boards with each involving 5-8 technical agencies, Localcommunities comprising of 1250 villages and 1,750,000 people (depending on the definition of projectarea), International conservation NGOs (5 - 10+), National umbrella conservation NGOs (5+), LocalNGOs (25+), International organizations (World Resources Institute, etc.), Private mining companies(10+), Logging companies (10+), Research Institutes, Dutch consulting firm, and several parties whoalthough 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 ofbiodiversity conservation -- over and over biodiversity conservation. ICDP projectagain. Some agencies (often regional documents often define biodiversity conservationdevelopment agencies) and NGOs (usually the as the protection of not only species and genemore anthropocentric ones) view the objective of pools but also the sustainability of life supportingICDPs 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 canis the case, an inherent conflict between be interpreted as one wishes, with little practicalconservation- and development-oriented policies relevance to project design and investments.will exist. Although good interactions may occur, Instead, biodiversity should be defined simply asa clear set of work objectives will have to be the diversity of species. It is implicit that in-situdefined. With biodiversity conservation as the species protection through conservation areaprimary 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 ecosystemsmechanism -- not objective -- to enhance automatically protected as a result of conservingbiodiversity conservation, inherent in the multiple species.definition of ICDP. It is critical that all parties, * Keep discussions on project objectivelocal governments, communities, NGOs, planning simple. There are inherent conflicts caused byagencies, and funding agencies understand this different objectives of different implementers. Iffrom 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 mainproject can no longer be considered an ICDP. thrust of consensus building may become


13

obscured. Thus, the focus should be on down-to- will make them eligible for ICDP developmentearth issues regarding implementation of project benefits.where consensus can be more easily found while The hardest problem with identifyingkeeping sight of the various agendas of the beneficiaries is to avoid fostering the impressiondifferent 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 isobjectives. Developing shared objectives should perhaps better to make all families below a certainnot be a static process but a continuing dynamic economic level beneficiaries to the project ratherprocess leading to a convergence of ideas than only those who are impacting the protectedparticularly regarding the scope and scale of the area as is being done in the Vietnam ICDP. Whiledevelopment activities. For example, the Indian this is less cost effective in the short run, it willMinistry of Environment and Forestry and the prevent the temptation by some people to increaseIndian Institute of Public Administration, the their impact on protected area in order to becomeprimary coordinating agency for the India beneficiaries. In addition, this also channels theEcodevelopment Project, wanted to avoid a rigid ICDP resources to that segment of the societyblueprint design. Therefore, they agreed to which is usually the least able to live withoutundertake an indicative planning approach to build impacting the protected area.consensus among stakeholders around a guiding Another selection method is to determine whoecodevelopment action plan that could be adjusted had a historical right of access to the areas nowthroughout 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 21 2- 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 areaSelecting 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 activitiesenvisioned under an ICDP can be difficult toanswer in projects where the protected area is Box 6.largely surrounded by dense population Building a common understanding ofsettlements involved in both legal and illegal project objectivesactivities. Even after demarcating the protectedarea it might not be possible to deal with the entirepopulation within this area. In many countries, the * Define and test objectives early on through apopulation 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 tothe protected area, it is difficult to segregate those further clarify and develop consensus forwho do from those who do not. Apart from the objectives.difficulty of correctly identifying these people, . Conduct orientation workshops tothere is the additional problem of seeming to communicate objectives to project staff, localreward only those who have, often illegally, stakeholders and concerned NGOs.threatened and degraded the protected area. Thiscan 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, enforcementoften 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 andindividuals, a proportion of the ICDP investment Establishing ownershipmust also be directed at community projects whichaddress the needs of the whole community. of ICDPUnless this happens, the project will not receivefull community support, especially from the richer With human populations burgeoning and pressuresand usually more powerful segments of the mounting on all sides of protected areas, it issociety. This alienation of certain segments can unrealistic and perhaps undesirable to expect suchcreate a serious obstacle to community cohesion areas to be managed in isolation from theand joint planning. surrounding communities. Involving local

* How much should they benefit? There is a communities in all stages of an ICDP and givingneed 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, andproposed 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 andbut should instead focus on subsistence level monitoring would also be more effective if italternative sources of income and resources to comes from within the community rather thanlocal people so as to enhance protection. The basic from an outside source such as the protected areaidea is to provide an alternate source of income authorities.not necessarily an incremental source of income. Of the three critical issues identified asThe 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, itproject ensures that better management of the has created much of the problems associated withprotected area does not result in a fall of incomes the Indonesia Kerini Seblat ICDP. It is importantfor the local communities or even results in a to know the mechanisms by which the ownershipmodest increase, the natural tendency of people is and community participation issue causesto seek further increments of income by difficulty.continuing to use protected area resources. The definition of ownership is not clear andTherefore, enforcement and improved subject to different interpretations. Realmanagement o f protected areas should runsmanagementl ofth protioectd c area sl ru. ownership can be best brought about if the project

is entirely prepared by the owner, possibly with noICDPs make the enforcement of conservation outside support. The question remains whether

laws and management prescriptions politically there should be unequivocal agreement on thefeasible. They do this by providing alternatives entire project design from the start among alland substitutes to the impacting communities, and parties. Ideally this should be the case butby giving them greater participation in the experience suggests that this usually does notmanagement of the protected area. Ideally, ICDPs occur. With ICDPs, the lack of clarity aboutalso establish a pattern of sustainable use of whom, and lack of capacity as to how, to arrangenatural resources so that the pressures on the ownership is not at all clear. In the case ofprotected area were voluntarily reduced by the Indonesia KSNP ICDP the terms of reference werelocal communities. However, there will always be not clear as to which party would be responsibleindividuals, and perhaps even small communities, for obtaining agreements regarding ownership.who will try to improve their immediate prospects Differences of opinion and deviating expectations


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 urbanmigration, where people leave rural areas in search of jobs and a better life. This potential jeopardy inICDP areas can be anticipated and minimized. In many cases, the land surrounding protected areas arehistorically neglected, relatively poor and less advantaged (in terms of economic indicators andinfrastructure). 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 ofinvestment available would satisfy a large migratory population. However, relying on restrictedinvestments 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 landareas - with titles, outside protected and peripheral areas; or (c) creating employment with financialincentives 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 unsustainabletechnologies; and external markets do not over-exploit the natural resources.

* The ICDP should substitute only those subsistence needs of local people that were currently metfrom 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 currentpopulation and migration trends. Measures such as land tenure should be provided to maintainstability. There should only be essential investments to divert pressures and discourage in-migrationto the protected area. Striking a balance may not always be easy to achieve in practice, but worthconsidering.

* In collaboration with the local, regional and national authorities, complementary investments shouldbe developed in regions not connected to the protected area. Such investments could include landtenure or development programs, agriculture and light industries. These investments do not have tobe 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 inworkshops from providing a consensus. conservation efforts

Letting the community decide on the design of Many concept papers on participation espouse thethe 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 notespecially in the long term. Assured legal land necessarily lead to a better project. Whiletitles and financial contribution by the community increased involvement is a valuable goal in its ownor the individuals are two possible ways of giving right, when considering successful biodiversitya sense of ownership. Where this is not possible, conservation, much thought needs to be given tofor example on land owned by the government, a the number of parties that should be involved. It isjoint management strategy with a memorandum of useful to think of "tiers" of stakeholders rangingunderstanding between the community and the from local groups to local governments, and on togovernment is sometimes adequate. national and international organizations.

Distinguishing their interests allows projects to


16

develop separate concurrent platforms for objectives, the project planners could then focusparticipation preventing chaos. on those activities most likely to divert pressures

Most projects rely on local committees to from the protected areas. Although this methodmanage participation, yet it is an unanswered has sometimes worked, potential pitfalls farquestion 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 tosingle sustained uniting interest with transparent the local communities they would hardly be in arules (for example a water-users association). This position to participate, let alone independentlyis especially true when such groups are built on manage the planning, implementation andexisting village organizations rather than as a monitoring of the project.stand-alone community group invented A more reasonable approach for involvingexclusively for the purpose of the project. local communities is to make the "rules of theFurthermnore, most projects envision ICDP game" very explicit right from the start. The localagreements that attain legal standing and can communities are told that the sole objective oftherefore draw on government enforcement these projects is to better conserve the park.mechanisms and handle and manage funds and However, what makes ICDPs different fromphysical 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 anintuitive understanding of conservation and in the project. Basic conditions are laid downecology, the idea of a strictly protected area is a defining the types of activities and investmentsnovel one. In addition, many local communities possible under the ICDP concept and localare 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 thethe land. Given the history of parks in many project.developing countries, the local populace is often Another option is to precede the projecthostile to overt conservation objectives. The planning activities with a detailed awarenessagenda of the villagers for development priorities campaign to raise the acceptability of conservationis usually very different from that envisioned by goals by the local communities. Whilethe conservation community. Typically, educational awareness can certainly play andevelopment activities chosen by local people are important role in changing priorities of ruralthose that maximize economic returns for the least communities, is not sufficient to bring aboutinvestment in time and effort which may lead to widespread change necessary for sustainableexhaustion of ICDP funds without any discernible biodiversity conservation.benefit to the park. Several strategies have been Participation in resource and biodiversitytried in Asian ICDPs to improve the level of conservation in exchange for protection activitiescommunity participation and build a true through ICDPs should be set in a larger context ofpartnership 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 scopeof any ICDP project to shape national or regional

One option used in some projects is for the policy, nevertheless, efforts to view the entireproject planners to initially not divulge the landscape in the context of conservation andconservation agenda of the project. Once the development should be encouraged. This couldvillagers have indicated their priorities lead to improved land use zoning, channeling ofindependently of the project's conservation productive investments and social services away


17

from the park boundaries, limiting activity such as Wildlife Service, the community officers veryroad development which could have an extremely soon became 'co-opted' by the communities andprofound 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 budgetaryflexibility to respond promptly and efficiently

Converting agencies traditionally concerned with to field-level requests. A lack of funds oftennatural resources management and conservation fieve vernmest lack f fulften

intoorgaizatons killd incommnityprevents government agencies from fulfillinginto organizations skilled in community contracts previously negotiated with villagersinvolvement 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 amany conservation agencies are weak, commitment to reduce resource degradation.understaffed, short on funds, and barely able to Agencies must have realistic ideas about what theycarry 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 thetackled when assessing organizational agreements.requirements.

* Projects using participatory methods will* Participatory methods do not work unless have a relatively steep learning curve. In suchICDP management can maintain a strong field situations detailed planning is not possible, orpresence and respond rapidly to requests from worse, not an efficient use of scarce resourcesthe 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 andimmense region. For example, in the India methods, and build in several "checkpoints" suchEcodevelopment Project, the senior park manager as annual meetings, community feedback, jointbegan making personal field visits to every single reviews, and field-level monitoring that cancommunity (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 participatorytransportation to reach sites is available and that techniques such as 'focused' participatory ruraltime and incentives are there to reach agreements appraisal, appreciative inquiry, that could providewith villagers. Most projects also depend on a relatively quick learning experience.forming village committees that can negotiate andsubsequently enforce agreements. Again, project * Early release of partial funds is essential forstaff must have the skills and time to work closely participatory projects because localwith committee members to achieve this goal. expectations are raised and momentum slowsThis requirement for greater field presence of easily unless commitments are delivered onsenior agency managers is especially acute during time. The long delays between designingthe 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 timelycommunity 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 onapproaches to participation. NGOs experienced in a pilot basis.community development (or as in China, localgovernments) could all be used to augmentorganizational participation skills, perhaps the bestoption in most cases. However, as in theCommunity 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 influencedresource management are relatively new. The by a modem world and their traditional lifestylesmost difficult issue with such an approach is are changing. As there is no reasonable way todetailing how agreements, and transgressions, will stop these changes, the best approach is to give thebe 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 ofactivities. Yet if government institutions are rapid change. Some restrictions on the use ofunable to deliver on their commitments (including modern technology particularly for hunting orenforcement), it is unlikely that villagers will harvesting of natural resources can also reducedeliver on theirs. Converting participation and immediate threats to biodiversity.ownership of a project into practice requires In some cases, where traditional inhabitants ofcareful review of methods and approaches. Most an area continue to live within a protected area inlocal communities are heterogeneous, and unless the same way as they lived historically withoutspecific 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 anexcluded. 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 communitiesand local willingness to abandon unsustainable fall somewhere within a continuum bounded byresource use. Positive incentives alone may not be the two extremes of either devastating their naturalenough. An agreed upon enforcement mechanism environment or living in complete harmony withshould 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 thathigh (i.e., growing cinnamon within the Kerinci will enable decision makers to proceedSeblat National Park in Indonesia), or external appropriately.resource pressures are very high (acute landscarcity in India and Sri Lanka), developing * Decisions must be based on good study andsaffectivelimity inIndand Sriusanka),dev ael g hard data. The last decade has seen severaleffective agreements limiting land use are scetii stde hthvecnicnlparticularly difficult and enforcement becomes scientific studies that have convincinglyeven 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 theimpacts of indigenous people on wildlife. Dr.

The impact of indigenous people on biodiversity Bennets studygfouseonte impactdof Demhas 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 theprotected areas mutually exclusive? In recent world. The study found that even the most remoteyears, there has been a polarization around thisissue. 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 technologiesartctivt orea. Sociooistsrbancetoe spd nral allowed the local people to dramatically shift theirpnthrotecte iar. .siologitsond cutwral hunting patterns to include very small animals

anthopolgiss inist n hrmon beteen (previously too costly to hunt) and nocturnalhumans and nature, that people, particularly (rvosytocsl ohn)adncua

animals (which had not been traditionally hunted).Other technologies such as chainsaws, roads, and


19

airplanes all have contributed to altering the may be many times greater than found just a fewinteractions between indigenous people and their years ago. The influx of recent immigrants intoenvironment. indigenous communities has also contributed to

* Education will help indigenous groups the burgeoning population problems and changesparticipate.inne ownership role. In many .in the shared values of the community. This

participate In new ownership role. In manyparts of the world the rights and needs of local increase in population size has led to much of theindigenous 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 conservationa 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 commonland stewards, indigenous groups and some NGOs goals can foster a partnership. However, this takeshave allied themselves with the conservation a long time to build. The joint management ofmovement so as to secure a power base in a quest Kakadu National Park in Australia (by localfor long neglected land titles. Unfortunately, this aboriginal groups and government protected areaputs a dangerous and unrealistic burden on both managers) is a model of participation andindigenous people and the conservation community involvement. The strong partnershipcommunity. Indigenous people want the power to between the aboriginal people and theshape their own future, but this right can only be conservation community has led to a veryeffectively exercised if decisions are made with amicable situation whereby local people are activefull knowledge of all the consequences. Self- stewards of the land and promote conservation indetermination is not necessarily contrary to return for tangible benefits. This result has onlyconservation goals. Thus the key to responsible been achieved after a decade and a half of intensedecision making is education. Improving the discussion between all the parties and may beknowledge 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. Theindigenous groups. Indigenous people are not a role of indigenous people, while important, usuallymonolithic entity and while some groups such as pales in comparison with the effect of massiyethe aboriginal Karen people in the Thailand- logging, agriculture, or mining. There may beMyanmar border appear to live without eroding cases where the indigenous people and thebiodiversity, other groups such as the Penan of conservation community want a relatively healthyIndonesia are extremely potent hunters who are a environment, though for different reasons. Underserious threat to biodiversity. When discussing the such circumstances, focusing on commonimpacts of people, it is important to identify which concerns as well as engaging in frank discussionsgroups are being considered. Even within groups about different ultimate objectives will help reducethere can be a variety of interactions with conflicts.biodiversity. For example, the Kuna Indians inLatin America have traditional practices of setting Resettlement outside of theaside native reserves. Although this is a widelyaccepted practice by the elders, it is increasingly protected areasunder 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 belived in small self-sustaining communities. taken to minimize their negative impact on theToday, with the advent of basic primary health strictly protected area. Clearly involuntqrycare 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 theused. 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 nopeople, but by redefining the boundaries of the alternative to resettling people in order to protectprotected area thus excluding human enclaves. critically threatened species. However, because

This strteysnllgiimtewhstringent resettlement is controversial, mostproject 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 forconsideration; biodiversity protection. In Thailand, the threat of

* new boundaries will not significantly reduce a resettlement option has been used by thethe 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 toecological value (e.g. main water source) is cooperate in containing certain destructivelost or compromised; activities such as grazing cattle inside the

* if the area is to be reduced, adequate land Sanctuary and the indiscriminate hunting ofcompensation is made elsewhere contiguous to wildlife. In this case just having resettlement as anthe protected area, and option expanded the tools available for dealing

* mechanisms are in place so that no new with encroachment and gave the parksettlements will occur within the park and superintendent considerable leverage with recentfurther erosion of the new boundary will be immigrants to the area.prevented.

* Voluntary resettlement. Efforts should be Linkages withmade to persuade the people to shift voluntarily. biodiversity conservationThis is only possible if significant incentives areprovided outside the protected area. The Essentially all investment activities in an ICDPprovision of infrastructure facilities services must have the ultimate purpose of protectingelsewhere may entice people to relocate. biodiversity. This link between conservation andResettlement 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 thisPlanning ICDPs should take place in the context of may be easy to achieve with certain activity suchoptions that would not involve resettlement. As a as employing local people as park rangers, itconsequence '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 canwishes 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 asmall part of the much bigger problem of Tackling the assumption thatencroachment. Any plan for resettlement shouldbe placed in the context of a more comprehensive nprogram to deal with other causes of biodiversityencroachment. For example, economic incentives Links between development and conservation areto clear land inside the protected area for often expected to come automatically to the ICDP


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 sustainableinfluence people to conserve biodiversity, or at management system for the conservation area byleast not destroy it. In the IUCN publication, providing direct benefits from ecotourism to theEconomics and Biological Diversity (McNeely, local people. In general, this project is considered1988), the use of economic inducements to convert a success. The amount of tourists coming into theover-exploitation of biological resources to area has increased dramatically. Some localsustainable use is strongly argued. Further, communities in the area understand that byMcNeely 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, aenvironmentalists, NGOs and even agencies like vast area surrounding the National Park wasthe World Bank. It is the fundamental premise on declared a game management area with awhich ICDPs are built. However, it is an proportion of safari hunting revenues left in theassumption 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 licensesustainable resource use by a farmer trying to use money is given directly to local communities (notless water or a forester hoping to achieve better via any cenkal goverment) allows th lolforest 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 levelmore problematic. Economic incentives may not hunting (limited hippopotamus meat for food) isbe 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 directlyand Brandon 1992). The common assumption is related to the health of the protected area. Ifthat most individuals have fixed-income needs and wildlife numbers plummet in Amboseli because ofif these can be met through development then encroachment by cattle herders, tourists will opt toifthese candiiul will cease thgher dev ntrctven visit other parks. Similarly if the Luangwa regionthese individuals will cease their destructiveexeinshghlvsofpaig,aarhutgactivity. However, the economic needs of most experiences high levels of poaching safari huntingindividuals are not fixed; people are usually roney will go down as trophy spectmens becomestriving for greater security and not just to increase rare. Thus, i these two cases the links are cleartheir personal wealth. Therefore, people will andverydirect.continue the illegal activities in conjunction with Unfortunately, not all areas have problems thatreceiving economic benefits from development. can be solved with such clearly linked

The idea of incentives will not work unless development activity, and often local communitieslocal 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 gnot 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 proposedto 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 areaStrong 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 establishbe established, not just assumed, the ease with the concept of links in the minds of local peoplewhich links are established depends heavily on the because such infrastructure development has notype of socio-economic activity envisioned within tangible connection to biodiversity conservation.

the ICDP. In Annapurna Conservation Area


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 ofa school or health clinic adequate and appropriate compensation for a communities loss of access to aprotected area?

One project provided a health clinic as compensation for reducing encroachment. While encroachmentdid go down for a few years, it soon returned to the orginal level and then even surpassed it. When theproject managers met with the local people to find out why the backward slide, they were told that thecommunity now wanted a school. Should the project now build a school, and if encroachment continuesshould the governing agencies take the school away? This is a real issue that results from real humanattitudes and must be anticipated when establishing links between the needs of the community and theneeds of the environment.

Even activities with benign environmental income sharing; safari hunting; hiring and trainingimpacts or with fuzzy links to conservation, cannot of local anti-poaching guards; using localadequately influence people to protect businesses for park improvements like installingbiodiversity. For example, in The Nature fences, and limited harvesting of minor forestConservancy ICDP in Latin America, the products.following development activities are planned: D tgoat cheese manufacturing, guinea pig rearing, conservation? If the biodiversity in the protectedtrout farming, ecocultural tourism and land usezoning. Of these activities, only land use zoning area were to be seriously jeopardized, would thathoning. Oteasurableativditiers, y landuservong be reflected in the success of the proposedhas any meaube biodiveritycnertion activity? If 'no' is the answer, then linkages beingobjective while the rst allshave tind nt proposed are indirect and answers to severaldirect, linkage to biodiversity conservation. It IS

- . - ~~~~questions need to be addressed:interesting to note that trout farming could belinked via stream quality and watershed quality * If linkage to conservation is not direct, doesbut this was not done in this ICDP. As a investment provide adequate incentives to bringconsequence, it is doubtful if these activities will about changes to specific behaviors that threatenactually 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 thethat 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 thisfeasibility and eligibility criteria for proposed condition of biodiversity and the impact of theinvestments. This can quickly separate activities proposed activity?with strong links from the more problematic fuzzy U What are the sanctions for non-compliancelink activities. This check also provide some and the rewards for compliance when indirectsafeguards to ensure that the original concept of investments are used? Remember, with indirectusing indirect investment to improve biodiversityconservation is maintained (box 9). Examples of investments, rewards and sanctions must besuch activities could include ecotourism with explicitly prescribed.


23

Box 9.Examples of direct and indirect linkages analysis

Objectives Investments Feasibility CommentsReducing * tree and fodder plantations Direct linkage. Undetermined sustainability for thegrazing and * pasture regeneration plantations but cattle breed improvement is a provenlivestock use * cattle breed improvement strategy. This is a major problem so its worth trying

amelioration strategies.Reducing * tree plantations Direct. Joint forest management and naturalfuelwood * forest regeneration regeneration provide good efficiency if strongcollection & * solar cookers & stoves enforcement is in place. Energy conservationsale technologies are also a good idea as they address the

root problem.Poaching and * anti poaching squads Direct linkage. Enforcement employing local peopletimber * community protection and the community works because they derive directsmuggling * vehicles, & communication benefits from protecting biodiversity.Improving * waste management Generally direct provided local people are genuinelyvisitor 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 establishmanage non * improve collection sustainability of harvest levels.timber forest * reduce harvest impactsproduct useReduce phase out current leases These activities are not subsistence level activities, butindustrial land * stop further development large-scale commercial activities beyond the scope ofand 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 participatoryof 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 toin forest aquaculture, handicrafts, be created. Using enforcement, monitoring, rewardemployment jewelry making, food system, sanctions, and explicit Memorandums of

processing, recycling, Understanding, it is possible to use these activities forsewing, and marketing. biodiversity conservation. However, feasibility analysis

* improve agriculture: water is complicated and good management is labor andtanks, water conservation time intensive.

_______________ techniques, horticulture.

Reduce wildlife * improve PA habitat Direct links. Joint participatory management can havedepredation of * fencing a high potential for improving PA-people relations.crop and * community patrolling Studies need to be conducted to determine effectivelivestock. * village support via prevention and compensation mechanisms.

compensation for lost crops Compensation should be direct and quick.or animals. I



24

* How will the interactions of the local Understanding, but maintained and enforced bycommunities with the protected area management the protected area management plan. In a scenariochange as a result of the proposed activities and that focuses exclusively on having a stronginvestments? protected area management plan, it would make

the enforcement of conservation laws politically

Establishing tradeoffs and administratively easier, and somewhat lessarbitrary with some alternatives to unsustainable

When socio-economic development activities that resource use. In reality, most ICDPs that havedo not have an apparent connection to prominent ICDP investment activities and strongconservation (such as small business enterprises, protected area management plans are perhapshealth and educational facilities) are envisioned, it destined to fall in between these two extremes.is important to establish a tradeoff in the minds ofthe local community. That is a tradeoff betweenthe ICDP benefits to the community and their Linkage outside the protectedcommitment to desist from degrading the areaprotected area. Such a tradeoff should be As critical habitat and the range of many speciescategorized in a memorandum of understanding, often falls outside the strictly protected area, ICDPalso known as community agreement or activity in the periphery of the protected areas canconservation contract. This type of memorandum play a very important part in protectinghas been generally successful in joint forest biodiversity. Enforcement using park guards maymanagement programs, though not fully tested work reasonably well in the protected area but inwith ICDPs. However, a problem with the vast area covered by the peripheral zones, theirmemorandums of understanding is that they effectiveness in stopping illegal activity is greatlybecome more difficult to enforce after the project reduced. The usual approach to this problem is tofunding has stopped and the community sees no provide tax incentives to the communities in returnfinancial incentive to continue abiding by their for them limiting their exploitative use ofconditions. It therefore becomes imperative that resources. For example, those people residingthe community recognizes that inherent with the within an experimental zone do not have to payeconomic benefits is the primary objective to agricultural tax if they agree not to cut fire woodconserve the integrity of the land. or extend their farm lands. However, at times

when the tax has been paid, illegal encroachmentStrengthening 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 controlmust have a strong, clear plan for management of activity beyond the protected areas are when localthe protected area. Ideally, ICDP plans should people are actively involved in enforcementhave two sections, one that deals with the measures. The India Ecodevelopment Project usesinvestments directed at interaction between local local people through direct participation inpeople and the protected area, and another that patrolling and poaching control. The Chinadeals with strengthening the protected area Nature Reserves Management Project covers fivemanagement capacity, which in part is meant to nature reserves that face a great deal of pressureenhance 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 ofof sustainable use of natural resources in and co-management of the protected area's resources.around protected areas and a voluntary reductionof the pressures on the protected area. This is a developing an interactive process of jointpattern that is established with a Memorandum of management of the areas natural resources and


25

designing contracts that define responsibilities and introducing this process have been minimal withbenefits for each party. It is expected that local general acceptance in China. The Ministry ofgovernment will sanction these contracts and Forestry has been instrumental in shaping thisresolve conflicts between the parties. Joint process during the preparation missions and isplanning will be used to develop resource using a similar strategy in some of its agroforestrymanagement plans and receive community project in the Yunnan Province. A disadvantageinvestment grants to be used to meet critical needs of this process is that it requires a long time frameconsistent with these plans. Thus far, problems in and may not be immediate enough to reverse some

of the degradation already occurring.


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 Chinaand essential component of a completed ICDP Nature Reserves Management Project. These twobecause if done right, it is valuable regardless ICDPs have developed preliminary monitoring andwhether the project succeeds or fails. There are evaluating plan which are being tested at present.two reasons why this is so. First, ICDPs arerelatively new with not much of a track recordbeyond the planning or early implementationphase. Because of their complexity and multiple Benefits of monitoringshareholders, ICDPs use a disproportionately largeshare of the limited funds available for and evaluationconservation. This means that in order to preventcostly mistakes from happening over and over The environment is dynamic with biological andagain, a strong, but cost-effective monitoring and social changes occurring continuously through outevaluation system must be in place. Second, the the life span of the ICDP. Similarly, economiccomplexity of ICDPs means that failure can and political changes can also occur during thehappen at any time for a variety of reasons. several years it takes to complete an ICDP. TheMonitoring and evaluating will enable project staff true impact of the project may be masked by theseto identify early warning signs of possible failure confounding factors and without a monitoringand take appropriate steps to circumvent the program success or failure cannot be trulyproblem. evaluated. Monitoring programs can alert project

In this section, we do not discuss specific managers about approaching problems during themonitoring techniques (remote sensing, ground life of the project. This early warning system cantransects, 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 andReferences at end of chapter.) Instead, the focus is sometimes confounding factors can go into aon identifying issues for consideration when particular conservation outcome. Monitoring candesigning the monitoring and evaluating keep track of each concern and determine whichcomponent of an ICDP. More detailed particular factors are worthwhile considering. Ainformation 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&Ecostly mistakes.

Two different kinds of measurements should Typical M&E programs are frequently not usefulbe 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&Eobjectives of the project (often the development programs are ignored and often underfunded iscomponents to reduce pressures on the protected that they are not always helpful, being tooarea). Impact indicators measure attainment of the academic and impractical to implement. Whenlong term (5-15 years) conservation objectives. project staff are overworked and usually behind

Performance indicators prpvides information schedule, M&E is dropped from the priorityto ICDP managers helping them determine which agenda.components are succeeding and which are not. Many projects try to integrate monitoring intoThis 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 oftendynamic management technique where the future dropped from the daily schedule with the hope ofdirections 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 forexperimental paths various aspects of data collection and analysis

Many ICDPs use a form of adaptive leading to incomparable data being collected withmanagement when pilot projects are first initiated a great deal of overlap and some gaps. This isand whose outcome later determines the especially critical in community monitoringcomponents and scope of the follow up project. programs that typically involved many individualsM&E is necessary for the impartial assessment from the community to collect primary biologicalneeded at the end of the pilot phase if lessons and sociological information. Special, periodiclearned are to be implemented in the main project. monitoring events with designated staff to carryPerformance indicator are most useful during the out all monitoring is often a better option thanearly planning and implementation stages of the asking the field staff to put aside a few minutesproject. each day.

Impact indicators provide information about It is important that each M&E task be carriedwhether 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 ownershipmet. Although data is collected throughout the life and minimizing costs to use local staff or localof the project, impact indicators come to a head at communities. These two goals are not mutuallythe end of the project. These indicators are useful exclusive and, as much as possible, local peopleto future project planners as they determine should be trained to identify and monitorwhether past projects have achieved their overall biological and sociological indicators. As localconservation objective. people learn how to gather and analyze data, they

gain valuable skills for participatory naturalresource management and are empowered as aresult, particularly if there are perceived linksbetween the data that is collected and the decisionsthat 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 theuse of very costly monitoring plans. Indicators

M&E design should not only be quantifiable but alsounambiguous.

When and what to monitor Currently used techniques forMonitoring should answer the question: are the monitoring and evaluationmanagement interventions in the area effective inaddressing biodiversity conservation? It is The framework used in the Lao PDR Forestadvisable to monitor indicators only when Management Component of the Forestnecessary to detect significant changes. That is Management and Conservation Programbecause monitoring is costly and needs to be kept (FOMACOP) is shown in Box 10. This project'sto a minimum, but not so infrequently as to miss objective is to institute sustainable village-basedsignificant changes. Monitoring should be done at forest management and promote alternativea fixed interval where possible to keep the analysis livelihood to improve the living standards ofsimple and systematic. Monitoring is critical at villagers and reduce the pressures to exploit thethe beginning of the project (to collect baseline forest.data) and at the end of the project (to determine The framework suggested below is anoverall impact). Monitoring indicators should amalgamation of experiences in developing M&Eideally highlight emerging or real problems in components in several projects:biodiversity conservation and draw attention to theeffectiveness of management policies and actions. Clearly outline major and minor priorities ofEvaluation of data should take place continually as the project and which components needit is collected. Evaluation should not be left until monitorig.the end of the project because then the results * Concentrate on specific areas which havecannot 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 trueshould be given to selecting key indicators targeted effects of various project components or theat particular objectives of the ICDP. If one effects of new socio-economic, political or evenobjective 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 carefullythen an indicator to measure the success or failure because cost effectiveness and impact of M&Eof 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 andsigns of fire intolerant species of plants on a bi- the level of expertise necessary to monitor eachannual 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 indicatorsa 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 andObjective Key indicators Verifiable Measures Responsibility for

verificationForest Extent to which policy * Dissemination of forest laws. Review existing lawsmanagement and legislation support * Dissemination of environmental and organizationalpolicy forest management guidelines. arrangements by

supervision mission andFOMACOP mgnt.

Strong Increase in the skill & * Number of training courses and Training records,human knowledge of forestry training staff. evaluations, monthlyresource staff and villagers. * Range of topics covered. progress reports, andcapacity 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, andvillagers in and practice * Changes in quality of trees, interviews of villagers.pilot area. sustainable forestry. vegetation, harvest levels and

Improving access to unauthorized extraction offorest resources. forest products.

. Increase in the proportion ofvillage 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 villagestandards sustainable forest activities. organizations, andimprove in management is in . Change in the number of monthly progress reportthe pilot place. people depending of the forest. by FOMACOP, Forestareas * 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 forit can be adopted and understood easily. M&E the end of the project and supply this informationinformation needs to be relevant to the needs and as part of an adaptive management strategyuses 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 collectrelevance is understood by the collectors and users e

, . ,, . \\ ~~~~~~~~~existing information including indigenousOf the minormation. of the infortnation. knowledge. If interpreted correctly, indigenous* Identify multiple control areas (that do not knowledge can be a vast storehouse of baselinebenefit from the project activities) as well as fixed data.treatment areas (that can be returned to repeatedly * Statistical rigor should be maintained duringduring the life of the project and beyond) so that the evaluation process; without it data will remainadequate comparisons can be made to determineeffect of the project over time.

* Focus on incremental indicators, i.e. indicatorsthat increase in the level of output or income dueto project activities.


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 Implementation1. The preliminary identification of potential ICDP target areas should be carried out on

the basis of regional and local data and established criteria2. 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 institutionsb. existing development and environmental programsc. funding sources

Step II. Warm-up and Indicative Phase1. The major players in this step are implementing agencies (governments both local and

national), funding agencies, project design teams and NGOs. During warm-up thefollowing should be accomplished:

a. objectives and concepts of the ICDP in general and as it pertains to theparticular project in question need to be elucidated;

b. terms of reference need to be defined and this should include the level ofdetail 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-economicconditions as well as establish a criteria or rationale for identifying and zoningprospective protected areas;

b. identify the sectors, institutions, and individuals who will be involved in theICDP;

c. identify the process by which participatory investment decisions will be madefor village or community level investments once implementation begins;

d. list the types of activity likely to be approved for implementations as well asthe 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 projectsites (e.g. villages);

f. identify training needs and hold training programs in ICDP process andplanning;

g. develop a detailed implementation plan which includes a time frame forobjectives of the ICDP to be accomplished as well as a description of anyparticipatory approach to be used. This plan must take into consideration anyexisting provincial or local development plans and integrate those activitiesproposed to any extent possible;

h. identify any critical issue that could hinder smooth implementation of theICDP.

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 Period1 . 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 projectappraisal 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-upactivities between the initial preparation stage and the full implementation phase.Tlhis stage is important not only because the expectations of local people have beenbuilt up during indicative planning but also because village institutions that havealready been mobilized need to be sustained. In addition, momentum withingovernment 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 theproject as a complement to project funds;

b. public awareness programs conducted through workshops, forums and limitedadvertising should be executed in order to build the credibility of, andconfidence in, the implementing parties. This program can also includetraining, conservation education and extension where appropriate;

c. existing capacity of local institutions should be utilized to swiftly implementprotection of the most critical areas in the protected area system andcommission studies necessary for project implementation;


33

d. the resolution of any critical issues as well as addressing potential conflictsthat 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 towork criteria).

b. work outline plan would have been followed successfully.c. everything is in place to start the next phase (implementation) smoothly.

Step IV. ImplementationImplementation follows disbursement of funds. It is a phase that contains concurrentvillage-level participatory planning and implementation of activities that fit under thegeneral objectives of the ICDP. Work in biodiversity conservation is an inherently longterm process and most nations and their respective institutions are simply not geared upto do such long term work. Therefore implementation of projects can take many years, asmuch as ten years. Thus, the implementation step can be carried out in two or morephases. However, all parties, particularly the donor agencies and host government mustbe 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 ProjectCountry: ChinaObjective: Enhancing biodiversity conservation management through new approaches to organization,planning, skill development, information management, and local participation. Strengthen theinstitutional framework for nature reserve management. Five biologically rich nature reserves are thefocus 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 harvestingpractices and strengthening the organizational capacity of the Ministry of Forestry.Implementation timeframe: Conceived October 1991; preparation began September 1992, approvalreceived June 1995; implementation started July 1995; project closes June 2002 for a totalimplementation period of 7 years.Finance plan: $22.6 million ($18.8 from GEF) with $333.4 million credit associated WB project.

Project title: Ecodevelopment ProjectCountry: IndiaObjective: Project targets seven protected areas in India. The project has five basic objectivesincluding: (a) improving PA management by strengthening institutional capacity; (b) villageecodevelopment 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 administrationand 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 ProjectCountry: IndonesiaObjective: To develop a model for large-scale ICDP program for the Kerinci Seblat National Park andimprove conservation awareness nationally. Project would improve boundary demarcation, train farnergroups and promote new enterprises that do not conflict with biodiversity as well as enhance concessionmanagement 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 ProjectCountry: Lao PDRObjective: 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 atraining program for foresters, ecologists, and conservation staff. Project also establishes a conservationtrust fund to identify andsecure 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 WBproject

Project title: Conservation Management of Priority Protected AreasCountry: PhilippinesObjective: This project enhances biodiversity in ten biologically rich sites and would do this byimproving infrastructure and site development, establishing community based management structures,develop boundary demarcation, promote non-destructive economic activities in the buffer zones, andenhance monitoring.Implementation timeframe: Conceived 1991, preparation began 1992, approved mid-1994, andimplementation 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 ProjectCountry: ThailandObjective: The project enhances the entire forest complex rather than specific parks. The projectpromotes biodiversity conservation activities such as a national conservation plan and biologicalinventories. Project uses several information gathering techniques from local groups to satellite imagesto establish legal demarcation of protected areas. A trust fund is also established to support NGOactivities that fall under the overall project framework.Implementation timeframe: Conceived 1990, preparation began 1991, not yet approved pendingratification of Biodiversity Convention. Small pilot community activities have been ongoing throughother funding sources.


Annex 3.

ICDP selected readings

Biodiversity Support Program. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation Network 1996 Annual Report: Storiesfrom 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 anorganization that undertakes numerous, small, well-planned ICDPs. Twenty ongoing projectsdescribed 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 inLatin America as it details the situation in those parks.

Brandon, K., and M. Wells. 1992. "Planning for People and Parks: Design Dilemmas." WorldDevelopment. 20:557 - 570. Washington, DC.

Discusses the evolution and performance of ICDP projects and the conceptual tradeoffs inherent inlinking conservation and development.

Brown, M., and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1992. Designing Integrated Conservation and DevelopmentProjects. Biodiversity Support Program, WWF-US, Washington, DC.

Key issues in designing ICDPs, components and implementation of ICDPs. Several case studiesalso discussed, particularly the Annapurna Conservation Project, Nepal.

Kiss, A. (ed). 1990. "Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation inAfrica." World Bank Technical Paper 130. Washington, DC.

Predating the term ICDP, this well-edited technical document discusses local participation inwildlife management. It is based on a workshop and focuses on the practical implication ofinvolving local communities in management and conservation. Fourteen African case studies arediscussed 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 theDefense of Tropical Biodiversity. New York: Oxford University Press.

The whole book is worth reading but the most important chapter is one on policy and practicalconsideration 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 theprinciple of decentralizing biodiversity conservation to the local level in order to improve efficiencyand 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 statisticalmethods. An excellent "must have" reference although too detailed for all but the most activeparticipants.

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 theWorld'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 inLarge Tropical Landscapes.

An interesting book with numerous Central and South American case studies that attempts to discussthe role of indigenous people in conservation efforts. Importantly, this book also details the impactof local people on an areas biodiversity.

Singh, S. 1995. Integrated Conservation Development Projectsfor Biodiversity Conservation: TheAsia 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 inAsia. Essentially a report of the "Workshop on Biodiversity Conservation Projects, Developmentand Strategy - Asia Pacific Region," held in Padang, Indonesia, June 1994.

Wells, M., and K. E. Brandon. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management withLocal 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 indepth look into an ongoing World Bank/GEF ICDP.

Western, D., and R. M. Wright (eds). 1994. Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community-basedConservation. 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 implementingconservation programs in developing nations.


39

Worah, S., and D. S. Svendsen (1995). Workshop on Introduction to Integrated Conservation andDevelopment 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: ParticipatoryTools 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 tolocal communities and villages. Part II is the useful document.

World Bank, Indonesia and Pacific Islands Country Department. 1997. Investing in Biodiversity. AReview 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 underimplementation. This report is a useful reference document because it details specific techniquesand consideration used in a large and complex ICDP that attempts to concurrently work at both anational and village level.

World Wide Fund - United States. 1995. "Linking Conservation and Human Needs: Creating EconomicIncentives." Workshop I of the ICDP Review. Bacalar, Mexico.

This is the proceedings from a workshop focusing on economic incentives for conservation. Theworkshop reviews different types of economic incentives including agro-ecological production,conservation-based enterprises, and compensation through social services. Report produces lots ofquestions but few answers.

World Wide Fund - United States. 1995. "Local Knowledge and Social Organization: Foundations forBiodiversity Conservation." Workshop II of the ICDP Review. Puerto Princesa, The Philippines.

Report synthesizes the exchanges between various workshop participants discussing the role of localpeople 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 policiesdesigned to promote ICDPs. Not published at the time of writing.

Annex 3

Annex 4.

Selected organizations engagedin analytical ICDP work

Africa Wildlife Foundation U. S. Agency for International Development1717 Massachusetts Ave, NW Washington, DC 20523Washington, DC 20036 USAID is involved in many conservation-Tel: 202 265 8393 development programs worldwide. [email protected] have conducted an assessment of USAID

Currently undertaking many small local supported ICDPs based on six case studiescommunity-based conservation projects in (Thailand, Nepal, Madagascar, Sri Lanka,Africa. Costa Rica, and Jamaica).

Biodiversity Support Program World Wide Fund - Asiac/o World Wide Fund Contact person: Sejal Worah1250 24th St., NW ([email protected]@internet)Washington, DC 20037 Asian Institute of TechnologyTel: 202 861 8370 GPO Box 2754

The Biodiversity Conservation Network is Bangkok 10501, Thailandadministered by the Biodiversity Support Publishing the proceedings of three regionalProgram and undertakes several ICDPs in ICDP training workshops.the Asia/Pacific region. Twenty case studiesare reviewed in the recent annual report. World Wide Fund - United States

1250 24th St., NWThe Nature Conservancy Washington, DC 20037Parks in Peril Program Tel: 202 223 69711815 North Lynn Street Actively involved in implementing ICDPsArlington, VI 22209 and currently producing the proceedings ofTel: 703 841 5300 four internal workshops on economic

Initiated in 1990, TNC is working in incentives, cultural issues, linkages, andpartnership with local organizations to build conservation impacts.their capacity to undertake ICDPs in theLatin America and Caribbean region.

41

Distributors of COLOMBIA GERMANY ISRAEL NEPAL PORTUGAL SWEDENInfoenlace 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 1305Apartado 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: [email protected]

local distributor before placing an E-mail: [email protected] NETHERLANDS ROMANIAorder. 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 30Oficina 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 LausanneAs. Cordlba 1077 AbidjanO4 106 82 Athens Fax: (972 3)5461442 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (40 1) 312 4000 Tel: (41 21)341-32291120 Buenos Aires Tel: (225)246510:246511 Tel: (30 1)364-1926 E-mail: [email protected] URL:hotp:/Awww.woddonline.nt-lindeboo Fax: (41 21) 341-3235

Tel: (54 1)1015-354 Fax: (225)250567 Fax: (301)364-8254 RUSSIAN FEDERATIONPalestinian Authorty/Middle East NEW ZEALAND lsdatelstvo <Ves Mir, ADECO Van Diermen EditionsTechniques

Fax: (541) 815-8156 CYPRUS HAITI Index Intonmation Services EBSCO NZ Ltd. 9a, Lolpachniy Peroulok Ch. de Lacuez 41

AUSTRALIA, FIJI, PAPUA NEW GUINEA Centertor Applied Research Cuhtre Dihusion PO.B. 19502 Jerusalem Private Mail Bag 99914 Moscow 101831 CHl807 Blonay

SOLOMON ISLANDS, VANUATU AND 6 Cyprus College 5, Rue Capois Tel: (972 2)6271219 New Market Tel: (7 095) 917 07 49 Tel: (41 21) 943 26073

WESTERN SAMOA ' 6, Diogenes Street, Engomi C.P 257 Fax: (972 2(6271634 Auckland Foo: (7 095) 917 92 59 Faa: (41 21) 043 3605PO. Box 2006 Pod-au-Prnce Tel:(649)524-8119

D.A. IntWhnation Ser vces Nicosia Tel: (509) 23 9260 ITALY Fax: (64 9) 524-8067 SINGAPORE, TAIWAN, THAILAND648 or3se Tel: (357 2)44-1730 Fax: (509) 23 4858 Licosa Commissionaria Sansoni SPA MYANMAR, BRUNEI Central Books Distribution

icta3132 Fax: (3572)46-2051 Via Duca DiCalaba, 1/1 NIGERIA Asahgate Publishing Asia Pacdic Pte. Ltd. 306 Silom Road

Tlo (61392107777 HONGKONG MACAO CasellaPostaleS52 University Press Limited 41 Kallang Pudding Road #04-03 Bangkok 10500Fax: (61) 3 9210 7788 CZECH REPUBLIC Asia 2000 Ltd. 50125 Firenze Three Crowns Building Jericho Golden Wheel Building Tel: (66 2) 235-5400E-mait: service @dadirect.com.au National Intomiabion Center Sales & Circulation Deparlment Tel: (55) 645-415 Private Mail Bag S095 Singapore 349316 Fax: (66 2)237-0321

URL: http://www.dadirecl.csm.aa pmodeina, Konviktska 5 Seabird House, unit 11 01 -02 Fan: (55) 641 -257 lbadan Tel: (65) 741-5100CS-11357 Prague 1 22-28 Wyndham Street, Central E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (23422)41-1356 Fax: (65) 742-9356 TRINIDAD & TOBAGO,

AUSTRIA Tel: (42 2) 2422-9433 Hong Kong URL: htpiwww .thbcc.itlticosa Fax: (234 22) 41-2056 E-mail: [email protected] AND THE CARRIBBEANGAroTd and G Fax: (42 2) 2422-1484 Tel (852) 2530-1409 Systematics Studies UnitGenolhbdrande 2. URL: htspilvww .nis.czt Fax: (852) 2526-1107 JAMAICA NORWAY SLOVENIA 9 Wa9s StreetWeihburggasse 2e E-mail: [email protected] tan Randle Publishers Ltd. NIC Into A/S Gospodarski Vestnik Publishing Group Curepe

A-10t t Wien DENMARK URL: httpJ/www .asia2000.com.hk 206 Old Hope Road, Kingston 6 Book Department, Postboks 6512 Ellerslad Dunajska cesta 5 Trinidad, West Indies

Fel: (43 1) 512-47-31-0 SamfundsLitteralur Tel: 876-927-2085 N-0606 Oslo 1000 Lubliana Tel: (809) 662-5654Fax:(43t)o512e47-31-29 senoems AlI6 11 HUNGARY Fax: 876-977-0243 Tel: (47 22)97-4500 Tel: (386 61)1338347:1321230 Fax: (809)662-5654URL.: holp://ww .gerold.co/al.online DK-1970 Frededksberg C Euro Into Service E-mail: [email protected] Fax: (47 22) 97-4545 Fax: (386 61)133 80 30 E-mail: [email protected]

BANGLADESH Tel: (45 31) 351942 Margtszgeli Europa Haz E-mail: repansekj(gvesunik.siMicre Industris DevelapreentFaa: (45 31) 357822 H-1 138 Budapest JAPAN PAKISTAN UGANDA

MicroIndusceaies Deve(pment URL- hFap:wwws315 .cbs.dk Tel: (36 1)111 6061 Eastemn Bok Service Mirza Book Agency SOUTH AFRICA, BOTSWANA Gustro Ltd.AssistanceSoaety(MIDAS) Fax: (361)3025035 3-13 Hongo 3-chome, Bunkyo-ku 65, Shahrah-e-Quaid-e-Azam Forsingle titles: PO Box 9997, Madhvani Building

Houser5 Road 16 ECUADOR E-mail: [email protected] Tokyo 113 Lahore 54000 Oxtord Universiy Press Southem Africa Plot 16/4 Jinja Rd.Dhanmondi R1 Area Libd Mundi Tel: (81 3) 3818-0861 Tel: (92 42) 735 3601 Vasco Boulevard, Goodwood KampalaDheka (8802) 326427Libren Ilntemacional INDIA Fax: (813)3818-0864 Fax: (92 42) 576 3714 PO. Box 12119, Ni City 7463 Tel: (256 41)251 467Tel: (8802)326427 PO. Box 17-01-3029 . Allied Publishers LId. E-mail: [email protected] CapeTown Fax: (25641)251468

Juan Leon Mera 851 751 Mount Road URL: htupi/www .bekkoame.orjp/-svl-ebs Oxtord University Press Tel: (27 21) 595 4400 E-mail: [email protected]

BELGIUM Otuo Madras- 600 002 5 Bangalore Town Fax: (27 21) 5954430Jean De Lanno Tel: (593 2) 521-606; (593 2) 544-185 Tel: (91 44) 852-3938 KENYA Sharae Faisal E-mail: [email protected] UNITED KINGDOMAn. du Roy 202 Faa (593 2) 504-209 Fax: (91 44) 852-0649 Atrica Book Service (EA.) Ltd. PO Box 13033 Microinto Ud.

1060 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] Quaran House, Mfangano Street Karachi-75350 Forsubscriotion otders: PO. Box 3, Aton, Hampshire GU34 2PG

101: (32B2s538-516 E-mail: [email protected] INDONESIA PO. Box 45245 Tel: (92 21) 446307 Intemational Subscription Service EnglandFel: (32 2) 538-08169Emi:lbiu~irmnicme Pi. Indira Limeted Nairohi Faa: (92 21) 4547640 PO. Boo 41005 Tel: (44 1420) 86848Fax: (32 2)5384841 EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF Jalan Borobudur 20 Tel: (2542)223641 E-mail: [email protected] Craighall Fax: (44 1420)89889

BRAZIL Al Ahram Distidbution Agency PO. Box 181 Fax: (254 2) 330 272 Johannesburg 2024 E-mail: wbank@ ukminto.demon.co,uk

Publicac6es Tecnicas Intemacionais Ltda. Al Galaa Street Jakarta 10320 Pak Baok Corporation Tel: (2711)880-1448 URL: htp:/vww.microinto.co.uk

Run Peixoto Gomide, 209 Cairn Tel: (62 21) 390-4290 KOREA, REPUBLIC OF Asiz Chambers 21, Qeeen's Road Fax: (27 11) 880-624801409 Sau Paust, SP Tel: (20 2) 578-6083 Fax: (62 21) 3904289 Daepon Trading Co. LId. Lahore E-mail: [email protected] VENEZUELA

Tel: (55 11)259-6644 Fax: (202)578-6833 P.O. Box 34, Youida, 706 Seoun Bldg Tel: (92 42) 636 3222;6360885 Tecni-eencia Libros, S.A.

Fax: (55 11) 258-6990 IRAN 44-6 Youido-Dong, Yeongchengpo-Ku Fax: (92 42) 636 2328 SPAIN Centre Cukla Comercial TamancoE-mail: post(masterfp6 uo0.tbr The Middle East Observer Kelab Sara Co. Publishers Seoul E-mail: [email protected] Mundi-Prensa Libros, S.A. Nivel C2, CaracasURma httpANwwuol.ub .r 41, Sherit trmel Khaled Eslamboli Ave., 6th Street Tel: (82 2) 785-1631/4 Castelo 37 Tel: (58 2) 959 5547; 5035: 0016

Caro Deatroz Alley No. 8 Fax: (822) 784-0315 PERU 28001 Madrid Fax: (58 2) 959 5636Tel: (20 2) 393-9732 PO. Box 15745-733 Editorial Desarrolb SA Tel: (34 1) 431-3399Fax: (202)393-9732 Tehran 15117 MALAYSIA Apartado 3824, Uima 1 Fax: (34 1)575-3998 ZAMBIA

5369u CPaublshn RoaLd. Tel: (98 21( 8717818:;871810D4 University ot Malaya Cooper-ative Tel: (51 14) 285380 E-mail: libreria8mundo)rensa.es University Bookshop, Universfty ot Zambia5369OCanotekrRoad FINLAND Fax: (9821)8712479 BDokshop,ULniled Fax: (51 14)286628 URL: h6fp:11www.mundiprensa.es/ Great East Road Campus

O4tawa, Onlano KIJ 9,13 Akaleeminen Kirdakauppa E-mail: [email protected] PO. Box 1127 P.O. Boa32379Tel: (613) 745-2665 PO. Box 128 Jabn Pantai Baru PHILIPPINES Mundi-Prensa Barcelona Lusaka

a: o)er depl@notbokscom FIN-00101 Helsinki KowIabrPubiters 59700 KualaiLmrur IclemaBonal Booksource Cenler Inc. Consel de Centa 391 Tel: (260 1)252576

URL: httpil/ ww.renoutbooks.cem Tel: (3580)121 4418 PO. Box 19575-511 Tel: (603) 756-00 1127-A Antipolo St Barangay. Venezuela 08009 Barcelona Fax: (260 1)253 952Far: (35860)`121-4435 TbIhrn Fax:. (60 3) 755-4424 Makati City 191: (34 3) 488-3492

CHINA E-mail: [email protected] Tel: (98 21) 258-3723 Tel: (63 2) 896 6501; 6505; 6507 Fax: (34 3) 487-7659 ZIMBABWE

China Fhnacial & EcDnomic URL: htilp:/www .akateeminen.com/ Fax: (98 21) 258-3723 MEXICO Fax: (63 2) 896 1741 E-mail: [email protected] Longman Zimbabwe (Pvt.)UdINFOTEC Toutle Road, Ardheneie

Publishing House FRANCE IRELAND Av. San Femando No.37 POLAND SRI LANKA, THE MALDIVES PO. Box ST1258. Da F Si Dong oIe World Bank Publications Govemment Supplies Agency Col. Todello Guena Intemational Publishing Service Lake House Bookshop Southeron

Be- (6610) 333-8257 66, avenue dI1ena Olig an tSolathair 14050 Mexico, D. Ul. Piekna 31/37 100, Sir Chittalam Gardmer Mawatha HarareFan (6619) 6333-8257 75116 Parts 4-5 Harcoun Road Tel: (52 5) 624-2800 00-677 Warzawa Comnbo 2 Tel: (263 4) 6216617Fax: (86 10) 6401-7365 Tel: (33 1) 40-69-30-56/57 Dubln 2 Fax: (52 5) 624-2822 Tel: (48 2) 628-6089 Tel: (8 1) 32105 Fax: (263 4) 621670

Fax: (331) 40-69-30-68 Tek (3531)661-3111 E-mal:in/tslecOrtnnet.mx Fax: (48 2)621-7255 Fax: (8 1) 432104Fax: (3531) 475-2670 URL: http-J/rnnet.mx E-mat: books%ipsrikp.atmr.com.pl E-mail: LHLOsr.lanka.net

URL httn/ANwW un wnwqM nlrntovn0l

RECENT WORLD BANK TECHNICAL PAPERS (continued)

No. 339 Andrews and Rashid, The Financing of Pension Systems in Central and Eastern Europe: An Overview of Major Trends andTheir Determinants, 1990-1993

No. 340 Rutkowski, Changes in the Wage Structure during Economic Transition in Central and Eastern Europe

No. 341 Goldstein, Preker, Adeyi, and Chellaraj, Trends in Health Status, Services, and Finance: The Transition in Central andEastern Europe, Volume I

No. 342 Webster and Fidler, editors, Le secteur informel et les institutions de microfinancement en Afrique de l'Ouest

No. 343 Kottelat and Whitten, Freshwater Biodiversity in Asia, with Special Reference to Fish

No. 344 Klugman and Schieber with Heleniak and Hon, A Survey of Health Reform in Central Asia

No. 345 Industry and Mining Division, Industry and Energy Department, A Mining Strategyfor Latin America and the Caribbean

No. 346 Psacharopoulos and Nguyen, The Role of Government and the Private Sector in Fighting Poverty

No. 347 Stock and de Veen, Expanding Labor-based Methods for Road Works in Africa

No. 348 Goldstein, Preker, Adeyi, and Chellaraj, Trends in Health Status, Services, and Finance: The Transition in Central andEastern Europe, Volume II, Statistical Annex

No. 349 Cummings, Dinar, and Olson, New Evaluation Proceduresfor a New Generation of Water-Related Projects

No. 350 Buscaglia and Dakolias, Judicial Reform in Latin American Courts: The Experience in Argentina and Ecuador

No. 351 Psacharopoulos, Morley, Fiszbein, Lee, and Wood, Poverty and Income Distribution in Latin America: The Story of the1980s

No. 352 Allison and Ringold, Labor Markets in Transition in Central and Eastern Europe, 1989-1995

No. 353 Ingco, Mitchell, and McCalla, Global Food Supply Prospects, A Background Paper Prepared for the World Food Summit,Rome, November 1996

No. 354 Subramanian, Jagannathan, and Meinzen-Dick, User Organizationsfor Sustainable Water Services

No. 355 Lambert, Srivastava, and Vietmeyer, Medicinal Plants: Rescuing a Global Heritage

No. 356 Aryeetey, Hettige, Nissanke, and Steel, Financial Market Fragmentation and Reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 357 Adamolekun, de Lusignan, and Atomate, editors, Civil Service Reform in Francophone Africa: Proceedings of a WorkshopAbidjan, January 23-26, 1996

No. 358 Ayres, Busia, Dinar, Hiiji, Lintner, McCalla, and Robelus, Integrated Lake and Reservoir Managerment: World BankApproach and Experience

No. 360 Salman, The Legal Frameworkfor Water Users' Associations: A Comparative Study

No. 361 Laporte and Ringold. Trends in Education Access and Financing during the Transition in Central and Eastern Europe.

No. 362 Foley, Floor, Madon, Lawali, Montagne, and Tounao, The Niger Household Energy Project: Promoting Rural FuelwoodMarkets and Village Management of Natural Woodlands

No. 364 Josling, Agricultural Trade Policies in the Andean Group: Issues and Options

No. 365 Pratt, Le Gall, and de Haan, Investing in Pastoralism: Sustainable Natural Resource Use in Arid Africa and the Middle East

No. 366 Carvalho and White, Combining the Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches to Poverty Measurement and Analysis:The Practice and the Potential

No. 367 Colletta and Reinhold, Review of Early Childhood Policy and Programs in Sub-Saharan Africa

No. 368 Pohl, Anderson, Claessens, and Djankov, Privatization and Restructuring in Central and Eastern Europe: Evidenceand Policy Options

No. 369 Costa-Pierce, From Farmers to Fishers: Developing Reservoir Aquaculturefor People Displaced by Dams

No. 370 Dejene, Shishira, Yanda, and Johnsen, Land Degradation in Tanzania: Perception from the Village

No. 371 Essama-Nssah, Analyse d'une repartition du niveau de vie

No. 373 Onursal and Gautam, Vehicular Air Pollution: Experiences from Seven Latin American Urban Centers

No. 374 Jones, Sector Investment Programs in Africa: Issues and Experiences

No. 375 Francis, Milimo, Njobvo, and Tembo, Listening to Farmers: Participatory Assessment of Policy Reform in Zambia'sAgriculture Sector

No. 377 Walsh and Shah, Clean Fuels for Asia: Technical Options for Moving toward Unleaded Gasoline and Low-Sulfur Diesel

No. 382 Barker, Tenenbaum, and Woolf, Governance and Regulation of Power Pools and System Operators: An InternationalComparison

No. 385 Rowat, Lubrano, and Porrata, Competition Policy and MERCOS UR

No. 386 Dinar and Subramanian, Water Pricing Experiences: An International Perspective

4i^\

THE WORLD BANK

I lS I S I 'S -ck. I \.\\.

\\.VI,ihM,ioi. I).( :. 24.i. l S \

I'L'Ivphol%c: 202-4 77-1234

1%icjiml1c: 2112-4 771-3')l

I1 c.\: \IC 'I 641 I .; \\ O11.)1 LI,\ k

I IC\ \ 24( 4 2 S R41 4 1)R I I\\ k

(b I ldN-LY.I: I '\'(I .1-)I.\1 K

x Si IIN(l ;,I().\I)(

I\o-lil \\,tI: \\.I1 : ),IjItdiI 0-8211408I4-0

ISBN 0-821 3-4084-0

technical paper no. w w~~~vtp3s8 work in progress odct.€¦ · the findings, interpretations, and...

Documents