South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program

Transcription

1 South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program Country: REGIONAL (SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS) Project Overview The lessons learned from this early and extended GEF project are very well discussed by Hunnam (2002) and Baines et al (2002). The operational challenges of regional projects in the Pacific are considerable because of the large number of island countries with small populations and consequently limited numbers of skilled people; large distances and poor communications; and coordination challenges between regional organisations and the regional offices of global organisations. Throughout the early to mid 1990s the SPBCP was the largest single nature conservation initiative in the Pacific. It presented large operational challenges for organisations inexperienced at operating at this scale. The execution of the project was hampered by problems of direction, coordination and implementation. Program concept and design The initial design of the project was directed towards devising and demonstrating effective and culturally appropriate approaches to the conservation of the ecology and biodiversity of the South Pacific. This reflected the general lack of success of previous conservation efforts that focused on designation of State protected areas and had inadequate regard for local participation, cultural factors or ecological sustainability of resource uses. This concept remains highly relevant, even critical, to the maintenance of biodiversity, habitat and ecosystem processes in the South Pacific. The intended approach of the programme was to work through country lead agencies to trial community-based conservation and sustainability. In the field and at the community level the programme established Conservation Area Community Committees that employed Conservation Area Support Officers (CASOs). Again, the design concept was sound in its intention to link country and local community management and to develop local capacity through support officers. The design provided for a Technical and Management Advisory Group to provide overall guidance and linkage with global expertise. Program Outcomes The program was executed by the South Pacific Environment Programme (SPREP) working with lead agencies designated by countries and ad hoc Conservation Area

2 Advisory Committees. A Program management officer in SPREP headed a small team responsible for day to day management. The CASOs were the only in-country personnel paid by the Program. The system of management advice and supervision for SPBCP was complex. On-going supervision was provided by the Apia office of the Implementing Agency UNDP. A Multipartite Review (MPR) comprising the implementing agency UNDP, the executing agency SPREP and participating countries met annually. This was intended to provide coordination and direction to SPBCP. The Technical Management and Advisory Group also The program evaluation of SPBCP concluded: The MPR is judged not to have been effective as governing body to the SPBCP. No instances have been identified of it having issued clear directions or provided correcting influences on the Programme implementation. There was a distinct sense of lack of ownership of the SPBCP by the MPR. The membership of the TMAG comprised individuals with relevant expertise. It was an advisory group that met annually immediately preceding the MPR.. There was confusion over the role of members of TMAG who were referred to as representatives of their agencies. Despite the annual nature of TMAG UNDP officers looked to it for help in direct supervision of SPREP s execution of SPBCP. Management advice and supervision were inadequate. Roles and responsibilities of the various bodies were not clearly established. The only ongoing advisory stream was through UNDP as implementing agency. This appears to have focused very largely on financial and process reporting. The annual meetings of MPR and TMAG were insufficient for providing well informed guidance on implementation of so extensive a program. SPBCP was a very large project for SPREP. It overlapped significantly with core functions and had a budget that accounted for about 25% the SPREP annual budget. The SPBCP Manager was a senior officer in the SPREP staffing structure and the program evaluation notes many instances where the SPBCP and SPREP roles were conflated, including the SPBCP Manager acting as SPREP Director and the SPBCP management team being required to become involved in activities that were not part of SPBCP. The role of the key paid field personnel the Conservation Area Support Officers was confused. The project document provided for the CASOs to work to the Conservation Areas Coordinating Committee and the country lead agency. Almost all the CASOs were seen as SPBCP employees operating under the instructions of the SPBCP management. The Program evaluation commented that this was contrary to the intention of the project document and undermined the roles of the CACCs and country lead agencies.

3 Project Implementation A significant problem was serious confusion over management roles and accountability processes. The project documents clearly allocated responsibility to the SPBCP Management Unit and system for activity planning, monitoring, and reporting systems for each of the in-country CA projects. The system introduced was based on UNDP s National Execution (NEX) guidelines and SPREP procedures. These would be cumbersome for a reasonably resourced lead agency. They were very difficult in the context of remote community based field conservation area projects. There was ongoing difficulty with stop-start project activity because of quarterly cash-flow interruptions. The consequent losses of momentum dissipated community commitment to the projects. The project document provided a clear staged process for working with local communities to establish a Conservation Area and achieve an endorsed management plan. Despite this, under the implementation arrangements each CA proposal had then to be developed into a comprehensive Project Preparation Document under the UNDP protocols. This was a particular and resource consuming and contributed to a growth in the administrative expenditures from a predicted 30% to an actual 52% of total budget while expenditures for Conservation Area establishment fell from a budgeted 21.9% to an actual 7.9% and for Income Generating activity development from 23.8% to 4.5%. The Program evaluation of SPBCP noted: Considerable effort and resources were needed to compile each PPD. They were set up as master plans or blueprints, addressing every conceivable aspect of the situation and reaching management decisions for a wide range of the issues likely to arise during the course of the CA Project. Not only did the time and money spent on PPDs detract from the expected community focus, the PPDs can be said to have pre-empted the intended community-based participatory planning process for CA Projects. The result of the plethora of reporting and budgeting requirements was that a large amount of unnecessary expense in money and time was required to keep the Programme going administratively. There was constant tension between the Secretariat and CA Projects over lack of suitable reports and cash flow problems. The blame for poor reporting seemed to fall, often unfairly, on CASOs. Yet the basic problem was a dysfunctional system. Conservation and Biodiversity Management The project concept addresses sustainable ecosystem based management concentrating on areas and ecosystem processes of high conservation significance. In the course of the project the species conservation component became more substantial and the Program Evaluation commented that The focus on rare and endangered species conservation restricted scope for presenting conservation in an ecosystem context, as a result of which opportunities to present species protection needs in a context meaningful to Pacific islanders were missed.

4 Transition Strategies and Income Generating Activities The SPBCP project document indicated that the community Conservation Areas could not be expected to be completely self sustaining by the end of the project. The implication was that substantial progress should have been made towards self sustainability. Although conceived as a 5 year project SPBCP was extended to 10 years but by the time it concluded had made limited progress with transition strategies for the CAs. Baines et al 2002 noted that the SPBCP defined 8 indicators of preparedness for transition. A. Funding available and predictable. B. Community commitment. C. A supportive or neutral stakeholder involvement. D. Adequate conservation capacity at the community level. E. Effective partnership for co-management with key technical agencies. F. Transparency in project management. G. Equitable sharing of project benefits and costs. H. The area s targeted biodiversity values are well protected and under effective management. 11 of the CAs could be rated against these indicators in the Program Evaluation, 4 of these met 4 or less and 2 achieved the highest score of 7. The Program Evaluation noted: The presentation of funding as the first item indicated the foregone decision that no CA would be sustainable in its absence. While this may have reflected the facts.it implies an acceptance of a continuing dependence on external funding. This is unfortunate as it distracted attention from the real issues of sustainability. Six projects were listed as meeting criterion A. A crucial element of sustainability is the development and maintenance of income generating activities independent of external government or program funding. The most usual approach is through ecotourism which can be effective as in the case of the Palau Rock Islands but vulnerable to political discord, as in the Solomons and Fiji, and to external factors such as cost of travel, and personal security concerns. The Program Evaluation noted: the need to involve an experienced and empathetic private sector operator from the beginning of the project to guide the development and to direct visitors to the area. It also reflected on the difficulties faced by and poor track record of community owned businesses. A general lesson from this is the need for careful focus on achieving project design, skilled personnel, and implementation of income generation and transition strategies. Depending on the starting basis, education and training for development of the local skills base is likely to require a program of a decade or more..

5 Baines, G., Hunnam, P., Rivers, M-J., and Watson, B. (2002) South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme: Terminal Evaluation Mission, Final Report. UNDP, New York. 76pp Hunnam, P. (2002). Lessons learned in Conservation for People and Projects in the Pacific Islands Region. UNDP, New York. 14pp