natural resource governance, and poverty … · natural resource governance, ... to customary law,...

Natural Resource Governance, Sustainability and Poverty Reduction Proceeding of the Global Learning Workshop Colombo, Sri Lanka, 20‐25 September 2010

Compiled by Asoka de Silva and Ranjith Mahindapala

Reviewed by Diana de Alwis, Patti Moore and Jordi Surkin

International Union for Conservation of Nature

Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction Project Proceedings of the Global Learning Workshop, September 2010, Sri Lanka

i

Funded by UKaid from the Department of International Development

Disclaimer

Any views expressed in this book are those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of

the authors’ institutions or the financial donor of this project.

Cited as:

Asoka de Silva and Ranjith Mahindapala (compiled), Diana de Alwis, Patti Moore and Jordi Surkin (eds.). 2011. Natural Resource Governance, Sustainability and Poverty Reduction‐ Proceeding of the Global Learning Workshop. The UKaid from DFID’s GTF and IUCN. Gland, Switzerland

Cover photo: Local people’s livelihood in Puttalam Lagoon, Sri Lanka by IUCN


ii

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1

2. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS ..........................................................................................................................2

2.1. Workshop Inauguration ........................................................................................................................2

2.2. Workshop Objectives ............................................................................................................................3

2.3. Results, Challenges and Lessons to Date .............................................................................................3

2.3.1. Global and Protected Areas Components .................................................................... 3

2.3.2. Sri Lanka Component .................................................................................................... 4

2.3.3. Bangladesh Component ................................................................................................ 6

2.3.4. Drylands Component .................................................................................................... 8

2.3.5. Lebanon – Syria Component ........................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.6. Nepal Component ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.7. Bolivia – Peru Component .............................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.8. Mozambique – South Africa Component ..................................................................... 9

2.3.9. Benin Component ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.10. Governance Issues and Challenges ........................................................................ 15

2.3.11. Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Progress ................................... 16

2.4. Lessons, Best Practices and Impacts ................................................................................................. 16

2.4.1. Challenges and Bottlenecks of Natural Resources Governance ................................. 16

2.4.2. Lessons, Best Practices and Effective Tools and Actions of Natural Resources Governance 17

2.4.3. Project impacts and M&E ........................................................................................... 19

2.4.4. Opportunities, Policy Process and the Way Forward ................................................. 21

2.5. Improving Project Planning and Implementation ............................................................................ 24

The final sessions of the workshops focused on strengthening project reporting and financial

arrangements as well as communications. ........................................................................... 24

2.5.1. Mechanisms for Improved Reporting ......................................................................... 24

2.5.2. Communications Actions and Governance of Natural Resources Portal ................... 25

2.5.3. Financial Reporting and Planning ............................................................................... 26


iii

2.6. Governance Challenges and Lessons in Puttalam Lagoon ................................................................ 27

2.7. Workshop Evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 28

Annex 1: Programme for the Inauguration ................................................................................................... 33

Annex 2: Programme for the Workshop ..................................................................................................... 34

Annex 3: List of Participants ........................................................................................................................ 41

Annex 4: Programme for the Field Visit ...................................................................................................... 44

Annex 5: Principles of Governance .............................................................................................................. 47


iv

ABREVIATION

ABS Access and Benefit Sharing

AFD French Development Agency

CA Constituent Assembly

CBO Community‐based Organization

CIHR Conservation Initiative on Human Rights

CIW Cultural Indicators of Well‐being

CNR Centre for Natural Resource Studies

CORDaid Catholic organization for relief and development

CSO Civil Society Organization

FFJ Forum for Justice

GTF Governance and Transparency Fund

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

M & E Monitoring and Evaluation

MSP Multi‐stakeholder Platform

NFEJ Nepal Federation of Environmental Journalists

NGO Non‐governmental Organization

NRM Natural Resources Management

NTFP Non‐timber forest product

PA Protected area

PES Payment for Environmental Services

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

UKaid DFID The UKaid from the Department for International Development

UP Union Parishad

UzP Upazilla Parishad


1

1. INTRODUCTION The project Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction, funded by the UKaid from the Department for International Development’s (DFID) Governance and Transparency Fund, has been implemented by IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) since November 2008. The project is managed by the Office of the Senior Adviser on Social Policy at IUCN Headquarters and being implemented in thirteen countries in Asia, Africa and South America (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Bolivia and Peru) through local/regional IUCN offices and partner organizations. Each of these components addresses governance and poverty reduction in different ways, including development of cultural indicators of human well‐being, community‐based ecotourism, fisheries management, participatory management of natural resources, awareness raising, policy influencing and others. There are also two global components coordinated by IUCN headquarters. One is aimed at offering tools and guidance for improving natural resource governance, including the application of rights‐based approaches, and the other supports improvements of protected areas (PAs) governance with emphasis on community empowerment, indigenous territories, participation and livelihood security in Eastern and Southern Africa and South America.

Although the project has been in operation since late 2008, there had not been an opportunity for each of these components to meet and exchange ideas and learning emerging from the project implementation. The project is also at its midpoint, which is an opportune time for reflection on key project issues in an effort to consolidate and revise project implementation, as applicable. Considering the above circumstances, a Global Learning Workshop was organised in Colombo, Sri Lanka from 20 – 24 September, 2010 (both days inclusive). The workshop brought together 24 representatives from 14 countries from national and regional IUCN offices, implementing partners, international cooperation agencies and government representatives.

The workshop was inaugurated with a keynote addressed by Judge Christopher G Weeramantry, former Vice President, International Court of Justice, The Hague (1990‐2002) (see Annex 1 for the programme). The Workshop Programme is at Annex 2 and the List of Participants is at Annex 3 of the Proceedings. The workshop concluded with a field visit to Puttalam Lagoon area, a project site implemented by IUCN Sri Lanka. The field visit programme is at Annex 4.

The main objectives of the workshop were as follows:

1. Increase the level of understanding of each components’ objectives, activities and results to date; 2. Promote a learning exchange between project implementers and staff on issues of natural

resources governance, livelihoods, rights, and others; 3. Strengthen the knowledge base on governance, livelihoods, poverty reduction, rights and others

issues through the exchange of ideas and identification of lessons; 4. Contribute to the improvement of project implementation and coordination including technical

assistance from IUCN Headquarters, monitoring, planning, communications, administration, finance and other areas.

5. Identify priorities and to develop recommendations for future steps to consolidate natural resources governance efforts initiated by the project as well as others; and

6. Provide participants with greater understanding of local governance conditions through a field visit.


2

2. WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 2.1. Workshop Inauguration

The workshop commenced on 20 September 2010 with a formal inauguration session. In keeping with the tradition, the workshop was inaugurated by lighting of the Traditional Oil Lamp by the invitees, and rendering of the National Anthem. The participants were welcomed by Dr. Ranjith Mahindapala, Country Representative of IUCN Sri Lanka.

Mr. Gonzalo Oviedo, Senior Advisor for Social Policy of IUCN Headquarters in Switzerland made a brief presentation on the project, stressing that while decisions about the sustainable use of natural resources are fundamental, there has to be justice in how such decisions are made.

Mr. Ananda Wijesuriya, representing the Chair of IUCN Sri Lanka National Committee, welcomed the guests, and mentioned that the present forum is a good opportunity to look into the experiences of other countries and share the knowledge on resolving natural resource governance issues.

Ms. Padmini Batuwitage, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment, representing Dr. R H S Samaratunga, Secretary, Ministry of Environment, said that natural resource governance cannot be seen in isolation, but requires collective action and co‐operation.

Prof. N. Selvakkumaran, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo, highlighted the critical issues that have resulted from constitutional reforms before and after 1987 in Sri Lanka especially in relation to the levels of devolution of administration and implementation, where a high degree of uncertainty exists at various levels on the modus of operation.

Presenting five central issues for Sri Lanka, he said that firstly, people affected must be able to participate in decision making; second, there is a dire need to have access to knowledge; third, they should have the right to know the reasons for a decision that affects them (whether it is informed decision or arbitrary decision); fourth, the need to have an effective mechanism for vigorous implementation of a decision; and finally the need for easy access to state services and justice.

Delivering the keynote address, Judge Dr. Christopher G. Weeramantry, expressed deep concern about the damage to the environment for short term gains. There is a profound wisdom in religions in relation to customary law, which he referred to as environmental wisdom. In Sri Lanka, the principles of trusteeship of natural resources were decreed more than 2,000 years ago makes it obligatory for decisions to be made without inflicting any harm on the hundreds of generations to come. Quoting from scriptures of various religions, he showed the commonality of environmental wisdom in all religions. Hence humanity was not an organization but an organism, and all are common citizens of a common planet.

The address of the Hon. Anura Priyadharshana Yapa, Minister of Environment, who was unable to be present at the inaugural session due to unavoidable circumstances, was read by Mr. W.A. Wijesooriya, Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment. The Hon. Minister, while expressing regrets in not being able to be present at this meeting, expressed pleasure that IUCN had chosen Sri Lanka to host this global workshop.

Although the country has well established legal and institutional frameworks covering almost all sectors of economy to safeguard the country’s natural resources and environment, yet various issues of governance continue to crop up. Nevertheless, conscious attempts have been made to empower and facilitate sustainable community management of natural resources, opportunities for community organizations to deal with environmental matters effectively are yet not very effective. The issues relating to these are complex and need careful and intensive deliberations.


3

Referring specifically to the Sinharaja Forest the largest pristine tract of lowland rainforest in Sri Lanka, the first site to be declared a World Heritage site, and more recently declared world heritage site of the Central Highlands comprising the Peak Wilderness Sanctuary, the Horton Plains and the Knuckles Forest range, he said the issues relating to natural resource governance have been of concern, because of the existence of generations old communities of rural people in the peripheral areas of these Heritage sites.

Although Sri Lanka has well established legal and institutional frameworks covering almost all sectors of economy to safeguard the country’s natural resources and environment, yet various issues of governance continue to crop up. Nevertheless conscious attempts have been made to empower and facilitate sustainable community management of natural resources, opportunities for community organizations to deal with environmental matters effectively are yet not very effective. The issues relating to these are complex and need careful and intensive deliberations.

2.2. Workshop Objectives

The first session of the workshop commenced with introductory remarks by the facilitator, Mr. Anandalal Nanayakkara, in which he explained the workshop objectives, indicating how these objectives relate to the overall project planning.

Explaining further the objectives, he said that there was a need to increase the level of understanding of each component of the project. The workshop is also anticipated to promote a learning exchange between project implementers and staff, while strengthening the knowledge base on governance and livelihoods. Other objectives of the workshop include the strengthening of the knowledge base on governance, improvements to project implementation and co‐ordination, identification of good practices and developing recommendations for future steps, and enhance participants understanding of good governance.

The first technical presentation was by Mr. Gonzalo Oviedo on the Project Governance Framework. Displaying the project organizational flow chart, he explained the operational and implementation strategy of the project. The project is being implemented in 13 countries from Africa, Asia, South America and Middle East. Each component is expected to address key issues concerning governance, livelihoods and community rights. Overall the project is implemented in a diversity of ecosystems as well as social, cultural and political situations.

2.3. Results, Challenges and Lessons to Date The first workshop session focused on presentations from each component on challenges, results and

lessons to date.

2.3.1. Global and Protected Areas Components

Context and Challenges:

Mr. Jordi Surkin, Project Officer of the IUCN GTF Governance Project, presented on the Global and Protected Areas components. He explained that the work of these two components focuses on: project Management and technical support; building capacities for good governance; developing and adapting knowledge and tools, and promoting an enabling policy environment for natural resource governance.

The objective of the protected areas component is: Enhanced equity and participative protected area decision‐making in selected countries, including fair sharing of benefits and greater livelihood security. The objective of the global component is to promote and facilitate technical, policy and learning support


4

on cross cutting issues (rights, governance, gender, cultural rights) related to governance of natural resources.

The main challenges we face from the global perspective is that each component addresses governance, livelihoods and rights in its own particular way. The project is implemented in a diversity of ecosystems, social, cultural and political contexts and scales. We know how important governance is for ensuring conservation and more equitable livelihoods, yet progress towards improving natural resource governance has been very slow.

Achievements and Results:

These main achievements of these two components are:

• Work with the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights, to integrate and promote good governance of natural resources and PAs as well as Rights Based Approaches.

• Developed project portal with natural resources governance library. Developed content for IUCN Rights Based Portal.

• Draft versions of tools (Perception study, rights based impact assessment and framework, governance framework)

• Supported development of standards linked to rights and governance in different policy fora. • Initiated process of identification and documentation of lessons (draft of case studies and others) • Organized and helped implement learning and capacity building events (global learning workshop,

SA governance workshop) • Developed new project planning, monitoring and finance instruments to track progress. • Publication on governance issues in areas of overlap between indigenous territories and PAs in

South America.

Lessons:

Some key lessons learned so far include:

• We are producing or will produce important results for governance, rights, livelihoods and natural

resource management. Together we need to do a better job of documenting and demonstrating this as well as disseminating this knowledge.

• We need to build a common understanding of governance of natural resources • Good governance requires building trust among stakeholders over time. • There is no single recipe for good governance. • All actors, especially government institutions, need to be committed • To achieve improvements in governance there need to be positive impacts on livelihoods • Governance is a process and a step by step approach may be necessary.

Next Steps:

Finally he pointed out that in the future the Global and Protected areas components will focus their efforts on strengthening learning and communication, project planning, policy influencing and scaling up lessons and tools, and ensuring that project’s good natural resource governance actions are sustainable and lead to reduction of rural poverty.

2.3.2. Sri Lanka Component



5

The Sri Lanka component report was presented by Ms. Diana de Alwis. She explained that their implementation approach is bottom up and combines building partnerships with capacity building. This component is implemented in four zones with high levels of natural resource degradation, which affect poor communities. There are two lagoon sites (Puttalam and Periyakalapu Lagoons) where fishing is the main livelihood activity of most families. The two other sites are forest areas (Peak Wilderness Forest and the Nilgala Forest Reserve) that are important because they provide a diversity of environmental services that benefit the population in the lower basin and are essential for survival of communities in these areas.

The general management issues in the two forest sites include damage caused by wild animals to cultivations, failure of relevant agencies to evaluate and monitor conflicts with wildlife, unclear forest demarcation, and absence of a comprehensive permit system for non‐timber forest product (NTFP) collection. On the other hand, the key management issues in the two lagoon ecosystems are illegal fishing practices, destruction of lagoon resources, unregulated fishing and lack of alternate livelihood opportunities for women, absence of boundary demarcation, and absence of lagoon management plans.

In relation to governance, the key issues in forest sites are lack of proper guidelines for access and harvesting of NTFP under the jurisdiction of the Department of Wildlife Conservation, lack of transparency in allocating land for development projects, inequitable law enforcement, absence of participatory planning and implementation, and lack of public awareness/ information on forest management. In the lagoon sites the main governance challenges are ensuring that planning and project implementation is participatory, the absence of a community forum to address and lobby problems related to use of natural resources, failure to recognize and ensure customary rights of fishing communities, and poor interaction between state officials and communities.

The project in implemented by IUCN Sri Lanka through a complex, participatory implementation modality that includes a Project Advisory Panel for policy level coordination, a Project Consultative Group for technical coordination and consultation, coordinating committees for local level coordination, two project implementing partners (Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF) and Center for Environment Justice (CEJ)) and local CBOs support for implementation (Sabaragamuwa Janatha Padanama, Nilagala Mithuro Sanvidhanaya, Socio Environment Education Development Association (SEEDA)‐Thirukkovil).


To date the main achievements of this component are: Increased knowledge on natural resource governance issues in Sri Lanka Better understanding of governance issues of NR Management among communities, officials and

partners. Facilitation of the declaration of lagoon management areas Establishment/improvement of mechanisms for community representation at local level to

discuss governance issues. Establishment of linkages, partnerships and participation of communities through round table

meetings and local coordination committees Initiated discussions on governance issues at policy level: Establish Project Advisory Panel and

project consultative group at national level

Lessons:



6

There is a lack of knowledge and technical capacities at all levels to analyse and address the governance issues. Require more resources and interventions.

NR governance is a part of overall governance context and a critical factor for successful interventions. Governance issues are particularly complex in Sri Lanka because it is a country in transition.

Political will is a critical factor for NR governance. Community is not regarded as a major constituent in the policy making process and authorities

are resistant to change. Due to the fact that the process of policy influencing and legal amendments is very lengthy in Sri

Lanka, the expectation that the project could produce changes in these areas may have been too ambitious

Next Steps:

The presentation was concluded with a summary of the proposed interventions for the future. For the forest sites, these included the development of guidelines for participatory planning, with official directives for field level staff and monitoring of this work. In the case of the lagoon pilot sites, the interventions proposed include the establishment of fisheries management committees, ensuring formal recognition of management mechanisms and conducting training workshops for supervisory officials responsible for putting into place management committees.

2.3.3. Bangladesh Component


The report on the Bangladesh component was presented by Ms. Remeen Firoz of IUCN Bangladesh and Mr. Iqbal Kabir of the Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association. They explained that Bangladesh is a country where natural resources and ecosystems are crucial for all, especially the poor. Approximately 83% of the population depends on natural resources. The country has experienced several Community Based (CB) initiatives by GoB and NGOs over the last two decades and the major challenges faced by these projects have been ensuring sustainability of local institutions/CBOs, sorting out ambiguous entitlements and property rights, conflict management, institutionalizing more equitable access to resources, productivity and benefit sharing and clarifying and coordinating roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. In Bangladesh the key governance challenges are that:

• Natural calamities and disasters affect livelihoods of the people, such as flash floods

• Resources are occupied by the affluent/influential and there is social exclusion

• Access to natural resources in constrained and there is general lack of awareness regarding the sustainable use of natural resources

• Local government institutions are not properly functional

• Women’s rights are not usually taken into purview and they have limited access to education and health services

• Seasonality of occupations (such as cropping times/fishing) and lack of employment opportunities

• Government initiatives for providing alternative opportunities to the people are not adequate

• Illegal trade and over‐extraction and catching of scarce resources such as forest products and brood fish

This project is implemented in six pilot sites, namely Arua (flood plain ecosystem with agriculture fields and village groves), Kapasla, an extensive flood plain with regular inundation with flood waters of Brahmaputra, surrounded by hillocks and homesteads, Jamalgonj site which is a representative wetland,


7

Magura site surrounded by rivers under tidal influence and connected with coastal river systems which are seasonally inundated, the Chandpur site that has a resource base of rivers, canals, agricultural land, fishing communities, and the Chittagong Hill Tracts comprising 3 hill districts bordered by India and Myanmar.

The focus of the project is on economically and socially deprived communities prone to the effects on livelihoods of natural disasters such as floods, constraints in access to natural resources, non‐functional nature of local government institutions, lack of concern for women’s rights, seasonality of occupations, inadequate livelihood alternatives, lack of infrastructure facilities, and illegal trade as well as over extraction of scarce resources. The main objective of this project is to empower local communities by strengthening the connection between the community and local authorities and thereby improve natural resource governance.


To date some the main achievements of this component have been:

• CBOs and Fisheries Resource Management Committees (FRMC) in Kapasia site have influenced the resource management regime – they are practicing co‐management, where people can access resources and reap benefits of harvest

• CBO members are included in the Standing Committees (Environment, Fisheries and Livestock) of the local government. These committees meet regularly and CBO members are able to raise their voices on issues

• FRMCs in Chandpur site have obtained a major increase from 500 to 3500‐5000 (Bangladeshi taka)/head or approximately from 5GBP to 50GBP/head) in the amount of compensation that poor fishermen receive during the lean season (fishing ban period) from the government.

• Fish sanctuaries (protected areas) established in 3 sites, with land donated by CBO members, have led to increase in the abundance of locally threatened species

• Neighboring villages in the project sites are keen to replicate the co‐management system being practiced in NRG project sites

• The local government officials (such as the Upazila Fisheries Officer) are involved with the project activities and work hand‐in‐hand with the CBOs for monitoring the sanctuaries, confiscating illegal fishing gears and release of fish fry in the wetlands

The achievements of partners include mobilization and activation of CBOs, reactivation of standing communities, regular meetings and dialogues with CBOs, drafting of fisheries management plans, creation of fish sanctuaries and influencing the local leasing system towards a pro‐people approach. The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association has undertaken preparation of training manuals as well as policy briefs and establishment of MSPs in four sites. On the other hand, the Centre for Natural Resource Studies (CNRs) has identified issues and actions for 3 sites, conducted baseline studies studying river/wetland governance issues, helped in the formation of MSPs, and established links with other CBOs.

Lessons:


• Social awareness and change takes time and project‐driven initiatives often are too short to

create an actual impact • Participation of local people has helped ensure access to natural resources in certain areas • In order to be more sustainable, the groups formed by the project need continued support for

holding regular meetings, alternative income generation, training and awareness, etc.


8

• Sensitization policy makers and service providers helps increase the sustainability of interventions • Alternative livelihood options need to be explored, including crop diversification • Role of women in natural resource management needs to be more widely recognized and

promoted

Next Steps:

In order to strengthen project impacts, during the remaining implementation time the project will focus its efforts on documenting and sharing of success stories and experiences, continuous Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E), publication and widespread dissemination of concepts, practices of good natural resource governance, replication and scaling up similar activities in other parts of the country, and creation of a network of MSPs to consolidate knowledge sharing processes.

2.3.4. Drylands Component


The third component report was on the Drylands of Africa. Drylands include tropical and temperate regions with an aridity index of less than 0.65, and cut across every biomes, every country and every sector. The special features of drylands are their uneven ecological flux, where a good year is followed by a bad year and vice versa. Biodiversity is uniquely adapted but is also undervalued even though the ecosystem services provided by these areas have a high value. Communal tenure is generally a necessity, but depends on mobility. Public and private sector investments in drylands areas are low.

The overall component goals and objectives are to improve/strengthen natural resource governance, with more appropriate policies and practices to ensure sustainable use and conservation of ecosystems, livelihood security and resilience, and contain marginalization of ethnic groups in the drylands of Africa.

The drylands component is implemented in Tunisia, Kenya, and the Burkina Faso and Mali transfrontier area. In Kenya, the focus is on strengthening tenure through community based NRM, while in Burkina Faso it is on trans‐boundary natural resource governance. In Tunisia, the focus is on governance challenges in oasis and possible solutions in oases. In Kenya, the project is implemented in Garba Tula, which is the home to Booran nomadic pastoralists, whose livelihoods depend on mobility to maintain herds of sheep, goats, camels and cows in a context of uncertain ecological and climatic flux. Garba Tula has its own unique features with century old customary NRM institutions, competition for resources and land, commercial interests in investing in key biodiversity hotpots, mismanagement of key natural resources and a significant human – wildlife conflict.

The Burkina Faso project of the drylands component is being implemented in the Gourma‐Sahel Ecosystem, which comprises three regions (Mopti, Tombouctou and Gao) extending over 3 million hectares. This ecosystem is located in the Niger River Basin in Mali and comprises dry forests, inland sand hills, etc., with a unique biodiversity of an import herd of over 300 elephants, migratory birds and endemic flora. This Sylvo‐Pastoral and Partial Faunal Reserve is part of this ecosystem and is the largest

protected area of Burkina Faso, with an area of 16,000 km2.

Special features of this project site are its trans‐boundary ecosystem, with decreasing possibilities for transhumance (of livestock), fragmentation of elephants migration itinerary, severe degradation due to application of inappropriate policies and management practices, poverty and rapid population increase, and lack of capacity of the newly established decentralized institutions for natural resource governance.

Over the last 30 years or so, water has been the main management issue in oases areas, and there have been major conflicts on water resources management between oasis people and central government due to differences in views and concepts. In part these differences are the product existing contradictions between traditional and modern production systems.


9

During this period, the governance models especially for water have changed, creating an unprecedented socio ecological crisis. The unabated use of illegal water pumping systems has aggravated the crisis. It is important that scientists, politicians and oasis people agree that the situation has reached a very critical state and there is now a window of opportunity to overcome this situation. For this reason, the objective of the Tunisia sub project is to document governance issues in oases, as a first step towards development of a road map for strengthening oases governance.


The main achievements in Kenya have been:

• Behavioural changes – communities are now more positive about conservation and are taking

ownership • Legal measures have been taken to secure land rights (adapting to new constitution) • Community has visualized key rangeland resources, enabling it to draft customary rules and

management practices around key resources of water, pasture and other biodiversity related opportunities.

The main achievements of the Burkina Faso project are:

• Organization of the “ technical committee meeting – CT/CGET” held in Burkina Faso to prepare a

draft agreement between Mali and Burkina Faso for sustainable management of shared ecosystems, prepared by IUCN (facilitator of the process).

• Support the participation of NGOs to the CT meeting • Support National consultations to finalize the document to be submitted to the Council and

Ministers in charge of environment Lessons:

In Garba Tula the main lessons are:

• Rights can be built on traditional values and inspired by community initiatives • People centered approach is extremely vital‐ Lasting solutions must be driven by the knowledge,

experience, and action of local dryland communities • New resource management strategy should be built on knowledge gained through practice and

application by users • Building new institutions for resource management‐ Effective management of common pool

resources requires institutions for collective action and serve as bridge to nest customary and statutory regulations

In Burkina Faso/Mali transfrontier area it is too early identify lessons.

Next Steps:

The future activities of the Kenya will focus on participatory natural resource mapping and landscape planning, getting local government agencies to adopt customary regulations and by laws, and strengthening livelihood opportunities. In the Burkina Faso/Mali project follow‐up activities include environmental awareness raising and strengthening and approval of the binatinal accord. Tunisia project is working on baseline studies on oases governance, which will be finalized by early 2011.

2.3.5. Lebanon – Syria Component



10

The Lebanon‐Syria component is working in Akkbar Hermel region in Lebenon where the major environmental problems are a lack of environmental awareness, poor basic infrastructure and poverty, illegal and uncontrolled poaching, overgrazing of livestock, logging and forest fires, urban development, excessive use of agro‐chemicals, and poor sewage and solid waste disposal. The situation is aggravated by conflicting interests and priorities, the existence of multiple stakeholders, the top‐down nature of management and the absence of participation in decision making by the end‐users. The solution to these problems are likely to be found if quality information is available, with a positive outlook and facilitated dialogue.

The project in Lebanon focuses on the following three elements:

(1) Building of partnerships with civil society organizations to improve NRM, (2) enhancing stakeholders’ understanding and consensus on problems and strategies through the application of participatory planning and stakeholder approaches, and (3) empowering all relevant stakeholders (Government officials, NGOs, private sector, CBOs and end‐users) to be able to engage in participatory natural resource planning, management and implementation of management plans.


In terms of empowering relevant stakeholders in Lebanon, at the national level, a multistakeholder platform (steering committees) made up of representatives from the government, universities and civil society has been set up. At the district or governorate level, multi stakeholder platforms have also been established. To date the project has also established two steering committees (one in each country) with participation of municipal governments and other actors. At the local level, SPNL has implemented participatory planning processes for natural resource use with local communities. To address gender issues, the project has promoted Pilot efforts to involve women in local economic activities on an individual basis.

The project actions have led to increased collaboration between local communities and municipalities to prevent illegal logging that affects community resources and local communities now present their demands to local municipalities. Efforts have been made to increase NR governance capacities through a learning exchange visit to Hima Kfar Zabad (Twenty two people from the local community from Akkar Hermel region participated in the visit to Hima Kfar Zabad wetlands).

Lessons:

The lessons learned are 1) the involvement of key stakeholders is not easy and needs a lot of time and careful reflection, especially in making certain that stakeholders share a common understanding and ownership of the process, 2) a participatory approach cannot be achieved unless the teams and key stakeholders have facilitation and negotiation skills, access to and greater understanding of relevant information, an ability to dialogue, and acceptance of others, 3) emphasis on involvement of community based organizations gives them authority and empowers them to have a more effective role in their communities, and 4) raising public awareness on environmental issues, NRM, and other related subjects helps the local community understand the existing problems and identify solutions.

Next Steps:

Before concluding the component report, the presenter gave a brief account of the IBAs as well as the Hima approach as postulated in the Islamic Law, which specifies the need to dissuade undue hardships to the local people, by not depriving them of resources that are indispensable to their subsistence.

2.3.6. Nepal Component



11

The Nepal component is implemented in the watershed areas of Eastern Nepal, Dharan, and Bhedetar, with six participating partner organizations. The main component outcomes include the notification of the members of the Nepal Constituent Assembly of the concepts in good governance, environmental rights and the relevant constitutional issues, strengthening the feedback loops and community forestry networks between local people and the Constituent Assembly, and the development of the Watershed Conservation Plan through a multi‐stakeholder forum demonstrating principles of good governance.

The implementation strategy involved watershed conservation in sites of Eastern Nepal, conducting radio programmes on environment rights and governance by Nepal Federation of Environmental Journalists (NFEJ) in about 50 districts, formulation of environmental rights and governance for constitution by the Forum for Justice (FFJ), and interaction with Constituent Assembly (CA) by members and partners in Eastern hills.

The watershed areas had been experiencing increasing climate induced disasters with decreasing forest resources and threats to biodiversity, increasing demand for energy related sources, pressure from urban infrastructure development, and increasing social conflicts due to dearth of natural resources. The project sites were also seen to be constrained by lack of alternative economic opportunities, decreasing food availability due to climate change impacts, increasing migration, poor livestock management, and high dependency on firewood for fuel.

In addition these sites are subjected to land degradation through impacts of the army firing range and soil erosion, poor sanitation and waste management, haphazard extraction of river based resources, unplanned land‐use, encroachment, forest fires, rapidly changing river courses, and recurrent earth slips and landslides.

The main challenges of the Nepal component include working with multiple stakeholders on environmental issues, short duration of the project hindering the achievement of goals, development of a conservation plan and Payment for Environmental Services (PES) mechanism through the participatory approach, and the delay in formulating the new constitution by the government.


The implementation process involved the development of training materials and manuals on constitutional issues as well as training programmes for members of the Constituent Assembly on environmental rights and good governance. In addition, multi‐stakeholder dialogues have been organized between members of the Constituent Assembly and other partner organizations. CA members, journalists, political parties and other stakeholders have received policy briefs on issues such and environmental rights and governance.

In order to increase the understanding of issues concerning fair and equitable Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS), 100 journalists were sensitized. This was followed by the organization of interaction meetings between journalists, CA members, partners and other stakeholders, on fair and equitable access and benefit sharing in appropriate locations of the five development regions of Nepal. Training in ABS issues had also been imparted to field offices and other stakeholders.

A significant achievement was the development of the watershed conservation plan with the involvement of the multi‐stakeholder platform, comprising 45 members and 3 sub‐committees, coordinated jointly by CA members and the municipality. In order to promote adaptation to climate change training and capacity building on sustainable watershed management was provided.

In a bid to increase understanding and awareness of impacts of upstream conservation initiatives on downstream water availability, research grants were awarded to 14 young researchers to undertake studies on climate change impacts on agricultural production, economic value of watersheds, the role of women in watershed conservation, sources of water pollution, and soil and water conservation practices in the Sardu watershed.


12

Lessons:

The project has led to the learning of many lessons. These include 1) multi‐stakeholder participation has been very important for ensuring successful project implementation, 2) partners with a variety of experiences and expertise provide better results, 3) involvement of local stakeholders reduces the risk of asserting ownership, 4) continuous participation of concerned communities has been rewarding, 5) assigning implementation responsibility to local communities, political parties and local government authorities, with backstopping arrangements from NGOs had been more effective, 6) mainstreaming environmental rights, governance, ABS in natural resources and poverty reduction was vital to the project, 7) radio programmes have had a good impact, and 11) the involvement of media personal during project implementation facilitated widespread dissemination of information.

Next Steps:

Finally the way forward for this project necessitates a) the continue to support and lobby CA members, b) strengthen focus on climate change governance related issues, c) ensure funds for continuing work on PES and climate change, c) lobbying support of CA members for workshops, meetings and training on environmental rights, d) research support to students, g) strengthening awareness campaign on environment and good governance relating to the Constitution through radio programmes, e) need to produce communication materials.

Bolivia – Peru Component


Bolivia‐ Peru component is implemented in Andean highland communities in Bolivia and Peru where promotion of policy and institutional changes to secure indigenous peoples rights and governance of land and natural resource is a strategic issue. Overall the project’s main objectives are: specific objectives considered as conduits for the achievement of outcomes that would facilitate the achievement of the above goal are; 1) enabling understanding of the elements and conditions that influence natural resource governance, as well as the conditions affecting the indigenous peoples governance; 2) the design of cultural indicators of Andean Highland indigenous peoples well being, developed through participatory processes, 3) strengthening capacities of key decision‐makers in order to improve natural resource governance in Andean highland areas with a focus on indigenous peoples rights, and secure access to land or territory and to natural resources as the best means for improved governance of natural resource, AND 4) to disseminate the results and lessons learned at local, regional, and global levels, so that decision‐makers and IUCN officials could access information generated by the project.

In Bolivia, the wider governance context includes a) the new political, State Constitution, the New Autonomy and Decentralization Law, and creation of a basis for new legal arrangements, institutional changes and territorial re‐ordering according to different autonomous levels of government, b) a political constitution recognizes land/territory, collective rights to indigenous peasants, original peoples self‐determination and autonomy establishes a pluri‐national state, and areas of indigenous traditional territory overlapped with protected areas, c) development of a national plan includes indigenous peoples ethic principles of well being.

On the other hand, in the case of Peru, the Andean Highland people self‐identify as peasants because, 1) self recognition as indigenous people is obliterated, 2) land reform did not include ethnic considerations for the distribution of land, 3) the political constitution and land law eliminated the inalienability characteristics of communal lands, and 4) governmental politics are directed to privatization and transforming land as communal property into free market logic.

In Bolivia, the project sites are Aqua Blanca, Corque and Tiwanaku in the municipalities of Pelechuco Oruro and La Paz. Each of these sites has its own peculiar characteristics. The Peru Project sites are Laraos Community and Tupac Yupanqui Community in the provinces of Yauyos and Huaraz respectively as well as the Original Peoples Conservationist Association of the Titicaca Lake (APOC).


13

Achievements and results In both Bolivia and Peru, the project teams have developed in depth set of cultural indicators of well being (CIW) with indigenous communities and Tierras Comunitarias de Origen (TCOS)1 (in Bolivia) and peasant communities (Peru). The results of these processes have shown that cultural concepts and perceptions of well‐living in Andean indigenous communities are based on principles such as: reciprocity, solidarity, social responsibility, respect to the elders, harmony with nature, complementariness. Peasant the indicators developed with peasant communities in Peru have much in common with the indicators from Bolivia, but there are also specific difference that are attributable to the social and political context. In Bolivia, there has been progress with indigenous natural resource governance and territorial planning. Analyses have been completed of territorial and natural resource governance in Cololo Antaquilla, Corque and Tiawanaku sites and a territorial management plan for the Marka Cololo Antakilla TCO has been developed. As part of this planning process for this TCO, participatory techniques were used to map land and natural resource use practices, social structures, local norms and regulations, and the local vision of development. Another important part of the planning process was to implement actions to build consensus between Marka TCO and Apolobamba Protected Area (in which the TCO is located) authorities on land and natural resource use practices. Communities now have increased knowledge of the new national constitution and autonomy law and how they affect territorial management and governance in Bolivia.

In Peru other achievements have focused on organizational strengthening and the promotion of the use of cultural indicators of well being in various contexts. In Laraos, the community stature has been updated to help support more equitable distribution of natural resources and land. Dialogues were implemented with Laraos District authorities in order to promote the inclusion of CIW in local government development planning. Dialogues were implemented with APOC in order promote the inclusion of CIW in the design of its institutional pan.

Next steps

The highly heterogeneous situations of Andean Highland communities led to development of sets of cultural indicators of well being that each have their own particularities. Given these idiosyncrasies the question for the future is whether it is possible to develop a common set of indicators at a national or regional level, without completely losing the richness of the cultural perceptions at the local level.

2.3.7. Mozambique – South Africa Component


Reporting the progress of the project component, Mr. Markus Burgener explained that the overall

objective of the Mozambique/South Africa component is to ensure a sustainable future for fisher

communities through enhancing trade transparency and governance structures is the main goal of the

project, while its purpose is to put in place necessary arrangements and expertise for Mozambique’s

fisheries to be sustainably managed and for a trade in products derived from these fisheries to be

effectively regulated in Mozambique and South Africa.

The project sites in Mozambique are 2 local areas with fishing communities, namely Inhaca Island and

Zavala, as well as in the capital city of Maputo and border posts with South Africa, while in South Africa

1 In Bolivia, indigenous peoples traditional, common property, and territorial land rights have been recognized in the national law and constitution, since 1996. These territories are called original peoples community lands or tierras comunitarias de origen in Spanish. In the current government of Evo Morales, these rights have been further reinforced in the new national constitution and other laws.


14

itself the project activities are primarily centred in government agencies that regulate trade in seafood

products from Mozambique.

Inhaca Island and Maputo Bay are fed by two main rivers, and the estuary that constitutes the most

productive marine system in Southern Mozambique. It is protected from strong Indian Ocean currents

and wind, and is rich in coastal and marine biodiversity. The main fishing practices here are prawn

trawling, bottom gill‐netting and line fishing. On the other hand, the key environmental characteristics of

Zavala located in Southern Inhambane Province, are its rich coastal and marine biodiversity of coastal

dune vegetation, marine turtles, line fishing of xareu, groupers, sharks and rays, as well as fishing for

mussels and lobsters. The concerns here are the absence of quantitative data on main fishery resources,

and the threats of over fishing.

All these sites have artisanal fishing carried out for both subsistence and commercial purposes, providing

direct and indirect employment opportunities. Women are known to play an important role in fish

processing and in trade. Thus the above features are the main issues relevant in livelihoods, community

rights, natural resource management and governance.

The main challenges for this component are two‐fold. Firstly it is the institutional factors that include

structural changes in government agencies, food riots in Maputo, delays in access to information in

Mozambique; reluctance to reveal information by traders and fishers; and dearth of information on

biological issues as well as on trade and markets. The key governance issues for South Africa include,

poor regulation through cross‐border trade with Mozambique, inadequacy of species identification and

knowledge of the applicable legislation, and in some instances lack of clarity on the mandate regarding

fisheries trade controls.


The main achievements of Mozambique have been the review and analysis of fisheries resources capture

trends, identification of key drivers of trade and the review and analysis of trade dynamics. In South

Africa the main achievements include: 1) trade data analysis for all seafood products traded between

South Africa and Mozambique, looking at both Mozambican exports as well as ZA imports; 2) analysis of

legislation and policy on seafood imports into South Africa; and 3) needs analysis for various government

agencies regulating seafood trade in South Africa: customs, marine and coastal management, MZN

wildlife and ports authority.

Lessons and Next Steps:

Nevertheless lessons from past experiences should provide the way forward in this component. Although

legal, policy and institutional instruments are in place, access to trade and management are weak, for

which the NGO sector needs to make a better contribution. Also since achieving impacts can take a longer

period than anticipated, there needs to be an extension of support. Finally, since the project focuses only

in two areas of an extensive coastline, the possibility of the good governance aspect extending beyond

these two areas are still uncertain.

2.3.8. Benin Component


Benin component is focused on the periphery of W National Park. This site is within the North Soudanian

climatic zone and Africa’s first Transboundary Biosphere Reserve. The Park is a biodiversity hotspot with


15

more than 80 species of mammals, 350 species of birds, 50 species of reptiles and over 500 species of

plants. The component aims to improve livelihood security of poor communities in the neighbourhood of

the Park W, and ensure sustainable and decentralized governance of natural resource.

The socio economic conditions are characterized by low GDP per capita and high levels (60%) of illiteracy,

with 65‐75% of the households depending on income from cotton and peanuts. In Benin, livestock

production is the second biggest contributor to the GDP, and is considered to be the most viable

economic alternative for the Sahelian population. With each herder owning 100 to 5,000 heads of cattle,

transhumance system operates, sometimes even across borders. The other livelihood practices include,

wood collection, charcoal production, fishing and exploitation of non timber products.

The constraints faced in the management of the national park are agricultural encroachment, poaching,

uncontrolled transhumance, bush fires, exploitation of NTFP, woodcutting and fisheries, climate change

impacts, siltation, pollution of surface waters, natural resource degradation and poverty.

The challenges that need to be addressed include the requirement of supportive communities within the

buffer and transition zones to utilize biodiversity‐friendly business opportunities, for which socio‐

economic incentives are required. There is also a need for land use planning and social dialogue between

and within centralized bodies. In addition, there is a need for a common vision for park conservation,

through coherence and consistency of different efforts, as well as efforts for benefit sharing mechanisms.


To date this component’s main achievements include:

• ACRAPS and AVIGREFs are all very committed and collaborate with the park managers

(CENAGREF)

• A dialogue mechanism has been established between these institutions, in order to harmonize

views and approaches

• Capacity building workshops for Avigrefs and ACRAP representatives have been implemented on

the legal framework for decentralization.

Next Steps:

Finally the project has identified several activities for future action, which include, capacity building for members of local communities as well as Park officials on managing natural resource, strengthening local institutions dedicated for managing NR, improvement of NTFP market chains, awareness raising and information sharing, training of local farmers in agroforestry techniques, implementation of eco‐tourism as a sustainable livelihoods, and the documentation of lessons learned and information dissemination.

2.3.9. Governance Issues and Challenges

Ms. Patricia Moore from the IUCN Asia regional office made a presentation on governance challenges and issues in South Asia. Through a participatory exercise, participants identified accountability, transparency, participation, and rule of as the four top governance principles. As Ms. Moore pointed out these are also the governance principles commonly recognized by the majority of regional and international organizations and bilateral funding agencies (see annex 5). IUCN includes four additional principles i.e. coherence, access to information and justice, subsidiary, and respect for human rights in its description of governance. UNDP has five additional principles such as government effectiveness, responsive, consensus oriented, equity and strategic vision.

Governance involves the interaction between the State and its citizens; the interaction among these principles, laws and other rules, institutions, and processes; and the interaction of powers and


16

responsibilities. The presenter used a matrix (Annex 5) to illustrate the interactions of the components of governance with the principles of governance. The presenter also explained that it is important to remember, when considering the component of governance that deals with laws and other rules, that in many places in the world there are two sources of rules and rights – statutory law, or the written law of the State, and customary law, or the law that has developed over time and which, in many societies, remains unwritten.

The purpose of governance is to make and implement decisions. The presenter distinguished between governance and management, explaining that governance is strategic and management is operational and that it is important to understand the difference between natural resource governance and natural resource management.

2.3.10. Conservation and Human Rights: Key Issues and Progress

A brief introductory presentation on the Conservation Initiatives on Human Rights (CIHR) was given by Mr. Gonzalo Oviedo. He discussed the establishment of a new consortium of eight international conservation NGOs, including IUCN, for providing integration of human rights in conservation policy and practices. He pointed out that the recognition of human rights is fundamental for achieving governance and the CIHR is the first occasion where a group of international NGOs have come together on a common understanding on Human Rights in conservation of natural resources. Overall they have reaffirmed their commitment to four key issues which are: 1) respect for human rights, 2) promoting human rights within conservation principles, 3) providing protection for marginalized and vulnerable groups (through the process of capacity building), and 4) exchanging information on good governance (especially in terms of accountability). These organizations are committed to not violating human rights, and to not being complicit in such violations.

With respect to protect areas, he explained that countries all over the world have committed to political systems that increase and improve democracy, respect human rights, reduce or eradicate poverty, increase equity and eliminate discrimination and seek sustainability in development. These same principles need to be applied in PAs. The definition of governance and the interpretation of governance has been the subject of debate, and a frequently used approach is to institute governance improvement through implementation of the principles of good governance, where the key aspects in respect of PAs include not only the principles of good governance, but also the recognition of the diversity of institutional models of governance. He outlined the nine governance principles currently recognized by IUCN which are: legitimacy and voice, subsidiarity, do no harm, fairness, direction, performance, accountability, transparency and human rights.

2.4. Lessons, Best Practices and Impacts After the presentations for each component were completed, the workshop moved on to a series of participatory work groups in which participants were asked to analyze: 1) the main governance challenges, 2) lessons, best practices and effective tools and actions of natural resources governance; 3) project impacts and M&E; and 4) opportunities, policy process and the way forward. The results of these discussions are summarized below.

2.4.1. Challenges and Bottlenecks of Natural Resources Governance

The participants, in four separate groups, brainstormed on the main challenges and constraints for Natural Resource Governance. These issues identified are presented related to capacities, processes and institutions, which are the three central facets of all levels of governance.

Stakeholders

‐ Weak government institutions cause progress to take devious routes.


17

‐ The constraints in channeling of knowledge and information through authorities, communities and people due to complex processes, language barriers and lack of accountability

‐ Poor understanding and interpretation of concepts and principles of governance

‐ Resistance to change (especially of mindsets of government actors).

‐ Conflicts of interest between different stakeholders

‐ Communities need to change from less sustainable to more sustainable practices.

‐ Lack of participation of women due to social structures.

‐ Low levels of education due to high drop‐out rates.

‐ The gaps in NGO governance and advocacy skills.

‐ Lack of awareness on governance at community level.

‐ Lack of skills training in NRM for women.

‐ Lack of adequate participation of all races/castes/ creeds.

‐ Communities do not know their fundamental rights with respect to natural resource and Non‐recognition of customary laws

Processes

‐ Conflicts between customary law and statutory law.

‐ Need to greater application of participatory tools in conserving NR and practicing good governance.

Structures

‐ Lack of clarity and accountability by government actors.

‐ Cumbersome processes and Government bureaucracy.

‐ The need to balance conservation with development and demands of local communities.

‐ Participation is driven by incentives or benefits.

‐ Lack of on‐the ‐job training for capacity building.

‐ Lack of alternative livelihood options,

‐ NGOs/CSOs working in projects often represent local elites and not the entire community.

2.4.2. Lessons, Best Practices and Effective Tools and Actions of Natural Resources Governance

In this session, the four groups discussed the following issues:

a) What Practices are Successful in Natural Resources Governance?

b) With whom have you implemented these practices?

c) What was the purpose of these practices? and

d) What are the needs in terms of capacities, tools and information?

The group findings as presented to the plenary are as follows:

What Practices are Successful in

Natural Resources Governance

With whom have you

implemented these practices?

What was the purpose of these

practices?


18

‐ Payments for ecological services

‐ Local community participation in natural resource decision‐making processes

‐ Establishment of committees with representation of all stakeholders

‐ Training Parliament members, government sector, local authorities and country leaders

‐ Developing Regional consensus on approach to governance

‐ Establishing multi stakeholder dialogues (platforms) that utilize participatory techniques.

‐ Recovering the forests through participatory processes

‐ Participatory environmental/ territorial planning

‐ Using communications to help replicate experiences

‐ Building coherence between community and protected area planning.

‐ Train journalists to share the best practices of community forestry and promote replication of those

‐ Multi‐stakeholder implementation modalities to enable better coordination and influence policy change

‐ With government officials, policy makers, communities and journalists

‐ Project staff and IUCN Regional offices

‐ Committees and other stakeholder partners

‐ Civil society, local government authorities and end users of NR

‐ Communities ‐ Multiple stakeholders at

policy and grassroots levels ‐ Government local

communities, project teams and women’s groups

‐ PA management and wildlife conservation

‐ Communities involved in conservation

‐ Community based organizations managing PA under a legal framework

‐ Establish community protected areas in buffer zones to reduce conflicts between PA and community

‐ Reduced conflict between PA and community

‐ Communities acting as protectors of PA

‐ More co‐ordination is needed amongst national governments, CBOs and administration bodies

‐ Promote participation processes in decision‐making

‐ Promote transparency from the NP authorities to the communities

‐ Consensus on approaches in the region‐knowledge production

‐ Build consensus on sensitive issues like land rights

‐ Integrated NRM involving sustainable use of natural resource/conservation, improve livelihoods and well being, ensure good governance

‐ Consensus and minimize conflicts

‐ Agree on the way forward to minimize conflicts

‐ Improve land‐use planning and management

‐ Create more sense of ownership

‐ Build coherence between communities and PA plans

‐ Enable and influence policy change

What are the needs in terms of capacities, tools and information?

Groups also analyzed the capacity, tool and information needs of IUCN staff, partners organizations and governments. Through these discussions they identified the following issues:

‐ Facilitation/ negotiation skills for key stakeholders and project team


19

‐ Presentation of issues, skills among civil society, community members, and leaders

‐ Practicing the participatory approach in respect of the problem tree, social and environment baseline, stakeholder analysis, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) and providing training modules, legislation and policies

‐ Use of media (TV, newspapers and radio)

‐ Organize seminars, debates and workshops

‐ Training in the preparation of technical papers and reports

‐ Training and exposure visits to other areas with similar issues and sharing of experiences on participatory approaches

‐ Training in land‐use planning

‐ Capacity building for communities in forest management planning, and in agro‐forestry

‐ Promotion of active participation of marginalized people

‐ Development of participatory decision making instruments

2.4.3. Project impacts and M&E

1. Identify one specific change related to governance that each component has achieved.

2. How is one quantifying or demonstrating this change, or how could one quantify or demonstrate this change?

3. Do we have any capacity or technical needs related to monitoring and evaluation of project impacts and results? If so what are they?

The work groups were organized by project component and unfortunately not all groups were able to address each of these questions. The results of the groups discussions are summarized below:

Outputs Changes Generated Proposed Indicators Technical and

Capacity Needs

related to ME

Sri Lanka Multi‐stakeholder platforms established

Local coordinating committees established, Government agencies make aware of the changes, develop guidelines for information sharing

Number of meetings convened, type of participants present, the number of problems that have been submitted, and, How many of these problems resolved

Kenya

Documenting NR Customary Laws

Adoption of Customary Law by local Authorities

Component project/ programmes managed by community leaders/centres; Rules in force (process indicators)

Funding, Human Resources, training in monitoring and evaluation

Burkina Support for joint Joint planning for No. of conflicts reduced


20

Faso agreement between two countries (Burkina and Mali)

management of the ecosystems shared by two countries

(impact indicator); No. of legal frameworks enhanced between two countries

Benin Participatory Work Plan; Baseline Reports; training on legal frameworks; Forum for PAs; Illegal activities reduced in PAs

Awareness of the Law of Municipalities, representation/ Associations; behavioural changes in different stakeholders

Number and contents of meetings (result indicator); Type of meetings; type and number of engagements between communities and authorities (reduction of conflicts)

Guidelines to apply governance principles; Funding

Mozambique

Increased Capacity to influence

Documentation and dissemination of new information on fisheries

Number of meetings held, number of cases where CTV is invited by government and other institutions

Nepal Multi‐stakeholder platforms established

Training of Constituent Assembly members

Number of assembly members who received policy briefs, number of environmental rights issues incorporated into Constitution

Bolivia Peru Decision‐makers have better knowledge of NR governance conditioning. Built capacity improved governance in different stakeholders (Communities/PA/ Local Government)

Territorial planning that includes cultural indicators of well being. Harmonization of plans to manage NR in highlands. Indigenous peoples rights and law awareness in different stakeholders (communities, PA chiefs / municipal officials)

‐ No. of each capacity building workshops (result indicators)

‐ No. of territorial plans (result indicators)

‐ No. of agreements between community leaders and PA officials (result indicator)

‐ ‐Reduction of conflicts between communities, between sectors, and between PAs and communities (process indicators)

‐ Empowerment of indigenous organizations in managing of their territories and NR (Process indicators), (There is however, the question on how to measure these issues)

Political incidence strategies

Networking

Governance issues including training on how to mainstream NR governance in the regions

Reduction of biodiversity loss in community territories, especially livelihood improvements


21

Lebanon/Syria

Resolved conflicts between different stakeholders related to PA management

‐ Number of instances of joint collaboration, number of policy changes, number of meetings and number of participants

Bangladesh Increased voice for local communities by setting up multi‐stakeholder platforms

‐ Number of meetings held and number of participants, Number of policy changes, Number of declarations of fishing sanctuaries, Number of community members that participated in developing forestry laws

2.4.4. Opportunities, Policy Process and the Way Forward

This session was devoted to examining the next steps for strengthening natural resources governance projects that are being implemented, opportunities available, identifying future priorities for action and identifying those responsible for these actions. The discussion was led by Mr. Jordi Surkin, who gave a brief outline on preliminary opportunities and existing policy process, touching largely on funding opportunities, policy opportunities, future priorities for action, inter‐sessional plan and messages for the World Conservation Congress 2012. This presentation was followed up with a group session to evince ideas.

These groups were constituted on a regional basis to bring out the regional perspectives, especially in respect of future opportunities for funding, policy development, setting of priorities and inter‐sessional planning. Summarized below are the findings of the group discussions:

a) Asia Regional Group

Funding, Policy Opportunities and Priorities for Future Act

Funding Opportunities

Bangladesh Nepal Sri Lanka

Netherlands

Keidanren(Japan)

UNDP

GoB

Private Sector

REDD+

Form consortia with IUCN members and partners to seek funding jointly

All international funding to IUCN must be channeled through the Ministry of Finance

Funding to IUCN NGO members/ partners can go directly to the organization

Consortium to seek funding jointly already formed – ADB is a possible donor

Private Sector

REDD+

USAID?

GGG

For lagoon sites:

FAO BOBLME

MFF

GoSL partners can continue work with GoSL treasury funding and GoSL project funding

For forest sites:

UNDP/GEF SGP

Form consortia with IUCN members and partners to seek funding jointly

Private Sector


22

REDD+

Legal reform process already started by GoB gives opportunities to provide input particularly on public participation, particularly MSPs and CBOs, in decision‐making in the forestry law and fisheries

Constitution is still in process which means that there are continuing opportunities to sensitize members of the Constituent Assembly and members of Parliament on natural resource governance and protected area management issues

Forests:

Define and develop concept of contracting communities that was introduced in the 2009 amendment to the Forest Ordinance

Develop guidelines on access to information

Lagoons:

Develop concepts of resource management areas and lagoon‐wide resource management that are enabled in the Fisheries Act

Other Opportunities

Continue work on natural resource governance being done by other partners and integrate it into future planning

Continue work on natural resource governance being done by other partners and integrate it into future planning

Future Priorities

Institutionalize the multi‐stakeholder platforms and the CBOs in the forest project sites Responsible: IUCNB, BELA, GoB, other IUCN members

Institutionalize the multi‐stakeholder platforms and the CBOs in the project fisher communities Responsible: IUCNB, BELA, GoB, other IUCN members

Integrate work from NRG project with governance components of other projects being undertaken by IUCN and partners in other parts of the country Responsible: IUCNB, BELA, GoB, other IUCN members

Institutionalize learning from natural resources governance Responsible: IUCNN, NEFEJ, APEC and others

Pilot links between governance, livelihoods, and poverty reduction Responsible: IUCNN, NEFEJ, APEC and others

Institutionalize multi‐stakeholder dialogues at all levels and coordination committees at district and local levels Responsible: GoSL, IUCNSL (advocacy), CEJ, PILF

Examine whether within existing law, it is possible to grant rights to collect NTFPs

Simplified Forest Dept. permit system for NTFPs for Nilgala and Peak Wilderness that could be replicated elsewhere Responsible: GoSL, IUCNSL (advocacy), CEJ, PILF

Negotiation with Wildlife Dept. for permits for NTFPs Responsible: GoSL, IUCNSL (advocacy), CEJ, PILF

Institutionalize lagoon‐wide platforms Responsible: GoSL, IUCNSL (advocacy), CEJ, PILF

Intersessional Plan

Sensitize IUCN members and partners on natural resource governance and livelihoods so that they can provide input on these issues for the intersessional plan



Messages for WCC 2012


23

Sensitize IUCN members and partners on natural resource governance and livelihoods so that they can provide input on these issues and reflect them in their voting in the WCC.



b) African Regional Group

Funding, Policy Opportunities and Priorities for Future Actions

Funding Opportunities

Kenya Benin and Burkina Faso Tunisia Mozambique and South Africa

CORDAID‐Catholic organization for relief and development. USAID ‐ in Kenya, do a lot of governance work on forests in the region. Country Programme and US. Danida AFD ‐French development agency, interested in drylands forest work but not particular to Kenya. Have about five priorities and drylands is one of them. UNDP– MDG programme? And the UNDP dry lands development centre. UNEP SIDA Ford Foundation Rockefeller EC – current governance project

Site is within a global protected areas system – countries have agreed to manage it as one system WAP system – (these are the parks). This system/framework opportunities provides an opportunity to scale up‐opportunity to influence GTZ, EU and GEF who support it. This is not specifically on government issues – challenge is to mainstream governance within the WAP system. Are establishing a foundation for the funding of conservation in National Parks.

Need to put together a funding proposal and decide on geographical scope. Opportunity exists to develop a joint proposal with ESARO – IUCN Med programme

NORAD AECD‐NAUTA (Specifically for fisheries) CESVI Donors are grouped and coordinated in Mozambique – organization is good but also limitations and requires formal government approval (tricky for governance). FORD WIOMSA WWF ‐ Coastal East Africa NI World Bank – Profish and other DANIDA ADB Irish Aid AU = fisheries programme

(c) Bolivia and Peru

Priorities for Action:

‐ Need to clearly define objectives for programmes and projects related to PAs and indigenous territories, and ensure organizational strengthening for all Markas.2

‐ Strengthen existing linkages and cooperative relations between different territories

‐ Promote discussion the Cultural Indicators of Well being once the new study is completed

‐ Integration of indicators of well being in PA plans, territorial plans and municipal planning

‐ Development of norms and regulations for indigenous territorial governance

2 A Marka is form of organization common among indigenous groups in the Bolivian highlands.


24

‐ Based on cultural indicators of well being, develop common criteria for indicators that could be used to adopt or improve national and regional indicators.

‐ Further explore the case studies of Marka Cololo Antaquilla in Bolivia and Laraos Community in Peru, and examine ways to further strengthen natural resources governance in these areas.

‐ Integration of lessons and results into IUCN’s Sustainability Management Landscape Project

Opportunities:

‐ Current political context in Bolivia and Peru makes it possible to help ensure greater access to land and tenure security.

‐ In both countries, there are opportunities for continued funding of project activities.

‐ Continuation of the agreement and cooperation with the Original Peoples Conservation Association of the Titicaca Lake ‐ APOC

‐ Strengthen social and political structures and organizational capacities at different levels

‐ In Peru, to revive traditional collective systems of organization and territorial management

2.5. Improving Project Planning and Implementation

The final sessions of the workshops focused on strengthening project reporting and financial arrangements as well as communications.

2.5.1. Mechanisms for Improved Reporting

The presentation on Reporting to DFID was given by Mr. Jordi Surkin, Project Officer. In this presentation the attention of the participants was drawn to the following:

‐ Feedback from DFID on the Annual Report.

‐ Project monitoring and planning tools,

‐ Lessons learned,

‐ What we need to achieve together,

‐ The next steps,

‐ Key questions.

Feedback received from the donor on the annual report highlights the need for the project to be able to better demonstration of projects with impacts and a further clarification of the logical framework, including the inclusion of specific achievable targets. The coordination between components and the reporting framework (standardized) needs improvement. It was also pointed out that there has to be a better demonstration of how activities are related to results and outcomes, while at the same time, there is a better show of value for money (i.e. cost per impact).

In relation to project monitoring and planning, there needs to be a planning template, timescale and a quarterly reporting template. There has also to be a matrix of indicators at the component level to be presented to DFID’s GTF, as well as a sustainability matrix. These are being work on by project staff and will need to be used and appropriated by implementing offices and partner organizations.

In terms of project planning and management some of the key lessons to date have been:

• Project planning has been significantly improved over last year but is uneven.

• Overall we have weakness in our ability to document, report and quantify results and impacts.


25

• There is a need to define ways to enable to measure and quantify impacts. But we know this is very difficult

• The use of new planning instruments has been uneven.

• Most local staff have heavy work burden, making it difficult to add on new tasks such as M&E.

• Still not sufficiently clear what the links between components are and how this combination of projects will lead to the impacts and changes we have proposed.

• There is a need for more interaction and feedback between HQ and field offices as well as one time submission of reports etc.

The question of what we need to achieve together must be addressed by improving coordination of efforts and working together, better on time delivery of results, using instruments that are at our disposal, and figuring out the ways to best report the results.

Finally, what are the next steps for planning and monitoring and evaluation? There has to be a final revision of the logical framework, for which Headquarters will hire a consultant to develop the overall theory of change. Learning and adopting provides an opportunity, while identifying what types of needs and when such support is necessary, are steps achieved with improved co‐ordination and reporting.

2.5.2. Communications Actions and Governance of Natural Resources Portal

A comprehensive presentation on Portal, Communication and Learning Network was provided by Ms. Kaia Boe. Explaining what a ‘Portal’ is, she said that it is based on Microsoft Office’s ‘Share Point’ software. A Share Point site is a website that provides a central storage and collaboration space for documents, information and ideas. It is also a tool for collaboration, just like a telephone being used as a tool for communication, or a meeting as a tool for decision making. A Share Point site allows us to:

‐ Co‐ordinate projects, calendars and schedules,

‐ Discuss ideas and review documents or proposals,

‐ Share information and keep in touch with other people.

The objectives of the IUCN Portal are;

1. Public information sharing, especially about governance of NR and related conservation issues, aiming to reach a wide range of audiences. It seeks to provide a central platform for discussion.

2. To facilitate communication, lesson sharing and document storage/exchange between “Improving Governance of Natural Resource for Poverty Reduction” project implementers based on IUCN offices around the world.

The portal is divided into 2 sections, namely, the “Main Page” and the “Project Page”, each with its own function.

The Main Page or Main Portal site (landing page) is intended for internal and public use, providing information on governance and conservation issues, focusing on livelihood security and NR management. Its key features are as follows:

1. Its main purpose is to house a “Governance, Natural Resources and Livelihoods Library”, which is updated with relevant papers, documents and other reading material. The library is divided into thematic folders and one can browse them. One can participate in expanding the library by linking and uploading relevant documents, if one has full rights.

2. Under the Library in the navigation bar, there is a “Learning and Capacity Development” section which provides tools and reference material for project support.


26

3. There is a list of useful “Links for Further Information” on governance of natural resource and websites of other organizations active in projects worldwide.

4. Websites of organizations that work closely with IUCN in its governance of natural resource work are listed under “Partner Organizations”.

5. There is a picture page where one can view and upload photos.

6. There are Discussion Boards to share opinions and offer ideas for further work, case studies, contacts, meetings to attend etc.

It is expected that this main site will be opened for the public in the next phase (Autumn 2011).

The “Project Page” has similar features to the Main Page, but it has been specifically set up for the Project, and improving governance of natural resource for poverty reduction and has its own portal site linked to the main page. It will help to consolidate documents and enable project implementers from all 10 components to collaborate and remain up‐to‐date with project activity around the world.

Each component has its own section, where internal discussion and document uploading/ downloading can take place, while the public will be able to read general information about the component in each section.

2.5.3. Financial Reporting and Planning

A meeting of IUCN staff was held at 7.00 pm on 21 September, 2010 to discuss financial management aspects of the project. During this evening meeting the following subjects were discussed:

1. Revised budgets: In the new budgets (submitted to the donor in July 2010 and sent to the regions after the workshop) of the first financial year (Y1) and second financial year (Y2) reflect actual expenditure in those years. Unspent funds from Y1 have been allocated mainly to overall M&E budget which previously had limited budget. Unspent funds from Y2 were carried forward and allocated in the budgets for subsequent years. As part of the budget revision, some components have added an additional year of implementation at no cost.

2. Addendum to the Internal Agreements (IA): it was discussed that after formal approval of the budget from the Donor, an addendum to the IA will be sent to the regions. This addendum will reflect the new end date of the project (for those components requesting a no cost extension) and the new budget.

3. New requirements in terms of reporting: the project responsible were required to provide every quarter the following documents:

a. Quarterly reporting template updated with the progress of the activities

b. Statement of expenditure on the previous one quarter

c. Expenditure forecast for the following quarter (specific deadlines were communicated to each component)

4. Management Fees: it was requested to the project officers to monitor the management fees and make sure that every month they charge it in the system, in order to assure the accuracy of the quarterly financial report to the donor. It was recalled that the management fees should be calculated as the 10% of the monthly expenditure in activities.

5. Quarterly Financial Report and Funds request: the project officers were informed about the commitment with the donor in providing consolidated quarterly financial report and were briefed about the fund request (for which it was emphasised the importance of having a quarterly forecast for each component).


27

6. Exchange rate used to report back to the donor: the components should use the rate at which they received the latest tranche of funds. To report back to the donor, finance takes the total expenditure from the local ledgers and converts it back to HQ local currency (CHF). Then the total expenditure in CHF is converted into GBO at the current rate of the day when the latest instalment from DFID was received in HQ. In order to know which exchange rate to use for every period they have to refer to the credit notes sent from HQ Finance.

2.6. Governance Challenges and Lessons in Puttalam Lagoon

The participants went on a field visit to Puttalam lagoon area in Puttalam district of North Western province of Sri Lanka on 24 September 2010. This lagoon is in the dry agro ecological region, with an annual rainfall of less than 900 mm. It is the second largest lagoon (estuary) of Sri Lanka having a water surface area about 32,750 ha. This area harbours one of the Sri Lanka’s largest mangrove habitats and rare mangrove species. Three rivers, Mee Oya, Kala oya and very small Moongil Ara connect with the Puttalam lagoon. Natural habitats in the area include rivers, streams, villus (or shallow lakes), mangroves, sea grass beds, coral reefs, salt marsh, lagoon and seashore vegetation, tidal flats, and sand dunes. Human‐influenced habitats in this coastal stretch are mainly rice fields, irrigation canals, saltpans, coconut plantations, home gardens and shrimp ponds. This is a famous destination for recreational activities such as diving in the nearby Bar Reef Marine Sanctuary, whale and dolphin watching. These coastal habitats provide vital services for human well being in supporting livelihoods, and large numbers of people are involved in lagoon and marine fishery activities. Over the past two decades, vast amount of mangrove habitat surrounding the Puttalam Lagoon area has been destroyed for to commercial purposes such as prawn farms and salt industry.

The group visited a number of sites to observe first‐hand the governance issues in the area, which are as follows:

‐ Despite the beneficial uses of mangrove ecosystems, a vast amount of mangrove habitat surrounding the Puttalam Lagoon has been destroyed for commercial purposes, primarily due to high economic incentives provided by the shrimp farming industry. However, at present a large number of shrimp farms have been virtually abandoned due to diseases etc., producing a huge external cost on the environment. Salt industry is another economically attractive industry in the area. When shrimp farms are abandoned, mangrove areas are converted for salt pans, which is a looming threat to the coastal vegetation in the area.

‐ Due to increasing population and influx of refugees from war‐affected areas, pressure on the lagoon has increased. There are about 12,000 internally displaced families settled in the area, which is a tremendous pressure on the natural resources. Most of them have started fishing causing additional pressure on lagoon resources. Fish resources are being exploited near or above threshold level due to destructive, illegal and unsustainable fishing practices. There are abuses in fishing operation licenses and permits for fishing crafts by some of the local fishermen. Conflicts between traditional fishing communities and the displaced communities prevail in the area.

‐ Discharge of effluents to lagoon waters and dumping of solid waste have adversely affected the water quality of the lagoon. Encroachments of lagoon area and mangroves can be seen in many places. This is mainly due to inadequate boundary demarcation for the lagoon and mangrove forests under the jurisdictions of the State agencies. The public lack opportunities to convey their concerns, access to the information on the decisions on allocating land and problems of transparency of the decisions of relevant agencies are the governance related issues leading to these problems.

‐ Lack of a forum for community organizations to deal with environmental matters effectively, lack of good understanding/relationship with the government officers and inadequate community concern and attitude of officials, poor coordination between the community and government agencies in relation to environment management initiatives, planning and implementation of projects and


28

programs on fisheries and other issues without proper participation of community in decision making, failure of the relevant agencies to institute legal action against illegal and destructive practices and lack of awareness of community on the laws and regulations and the processes of implementation are other major governance issues.

The group met with representatives of communities to discuss these issues. They also met over lunch with representatives of key provincial government agencies responsible for natural resources management (Forest Department, Fisheries Department and Land Use Planning Unit of the Province). They also made visit to a successful livelihood project (cultivation of Aloe vera as a supplementary income for fisher families) implemented by the Marine & Coastal Resources Conservation Foundation (MCRCF). The key messages of the discussions are as follows:

‐ Lack of institutional coordination among agencies has been identified as one of the main reasons governance issues in the area.

‐ Lack of resources and skills of the government agencies is an important reason for ineffective law enforcement in the area;

‐ Lagoon issues are a blend of governance and livelihood issues one leading to the other and the need to provide alternative livelihoods of communities in the efforts to improve governance is highlighted

‐ Fishing communities feel the need to have a forum for collective decision‐making and in influencing in the lagoon management.

2.7. Workshop Evaluation

The workshop concluded with an evaluation. In total 21 participants filled out the questionnaire for the evaluation. The questions and responses are provided below:

1. Was the content of this workshop useful for you? Average score for this question was 4.48. In the chart below we can see that 48% of respondents said the workshop was very useful and 52% useful.

2. What was most useful about the content and how do you think you might be able to apply in your

own work? Comments: ‐ Subjects related to governance and how to apply it in natural resources management. ‐ Learn about the progress and lessons from other components as well as more about

governance ‐ The planning and ME discussion as well as the challenges and bottlenecks of natural resource

governance. ‐ Discussions on good governance, especially the principles of good governance. ‐ Discussion about governance components and principles.


29

‐ To divide governance into four categories (institutional, law, process and participation) and analyze the problems accordingly. It can be helpful to divide the general problem into parts.

‐ Group discussions are really useful to get insights into governance issues. ‐ Learning about governance challenges and processes in each component. Getting a better

understanding of realities on the ground. ‐ Clarity in the principles of governance. Seeing how other components are making use of

MSPs. ‐ The challenges and bottlenecks for territorial and natural resources governance. The learning

could be applied in constructing governance between protected areas and indigenous territories.

‐ Groups on future work, plans, messages and ideas for intercessional plan. ‐ Sharing experiences on institutionalizing customary regulations ‐ Cross cultural exchanges ‐ How to measure impacts

3. How do you rate the organization and logistics?

Average score for this question was 4.71. The chart below shows that 76% of respondents said the logistics and organization were excellent, 19% good and 5% average.

4. How would you rate the

workshop facilitation?

For this question, the average score was 4.52. 52% of respondents said facilitation was excellent and 48%

said it was good.

5. How could the facilitation have been better? Comments: ‐ It was really good. ‐ It was perfect. ‐ By summarizing more each presentation ‐ By summarizing previous day’s results at the beginning of each day. ‐ Better time keeping ‐ For future workshops it would be good to have more materials and different group dynamics.


30

‐ By extracting lessons from the plenary and redirecting analysis towards tools. ‐ Feedback from group to plenary could have been more dynamic. People were just reading

results. Perhaps this could have been avoided by requesting shorter more synthesized feedback.

‐ Facilitator needs to know more about environmental governance.

6. What did you most like about the workshop?

Comments: ‐ The facilitation and organization. ‐ The interaction between participant and the quality of the presentations. ‐ The group exercises on governance. Inaugural session and speaking to other participants on

the expectations of each country. ‐ Presentations and the topics. ‐ Sharing experiences with so many different countries and regions. ‐ Off programme discussions. ‐ The sharing of experiences. The identification of common elements of success is exciting. ‐ The meaningful exploration of issues. ‐ The human interaction. Breakout groups were a great opportunity to learn and discuss. ‐ Bringing all project partners together. ‐ Session on governance concepts. Group sessions ‐ Representation from around the world. ‐ Presentation on project portal. ‐ Friendly attitude of IUCN team. ‐ The technical support provided by the overall project managers to improve our work and

decrease our frustrations.

7. What was the worst part of the workshop for you?

Comments: ‐ Not enough time to see the city. ‐ Long days ‐ Travel was tiring ‐ Timing

8. What would you have done differently and why?

Comments: ‐ More ice breakers. ‐ The discussion on best practices could have been better organized. ‐ Should have been more discussion on how to distinguish between output and process

indicators. ‐ Should have been greater discussion of the conditions and accomplishments of each

component in relation to governance principles. ‐ To include opportunities to exchange experiences and motivations between participants on

other issues. ‐ More discussion on theoretical aspects of governance. More conceptual clarity. ‐ Extended over more days with shorter sessions to have more time to reflect. ‐ More mixing of the group participants. ‐ Break up the days and allow for more opportunities for participants to talk and share

experiences in a less structured way.

9. What suggestions do you have for future learning events?


31

Comments: ‐ We could have an event with components focusing on specific governance issues, with

presentations prepared with clear guidelines. ‐ To focus more on the practical issues and field visits. ‐ To have more theoretical background and discussions on how to put that in practice. ‐ A visit to the local IUCN office and more ice breaking exercises. ‐ Include examples of successful stories. Cases studies presented by participants and

dissemination of hard copies of these. ‐ More focus on case studies and success stories. ‐ We need to evaluate what has been achieved in relation to the governance principles. ‐ More detailed discussions of indicators to measure success. ‐ Include important issues such as gender and governance. ‐ Ask people to tell stories and synthesize more. ‐ Better information on the programme. ‐ Daily wrap ups.

10. How do you rate the field trip?

For this question we had 13 responses and the average score was 4.7. The pie chart below shows that 69% of those who responded said the field trip was excellent and 31% that it was good.

Comments:

I hope that with this trip we have gathered enough feedback to better influence the project and further continue with activities.

I especially enjoyed the seeing the link between livelihood issues and governance.

These evaluations results are very positive and show demonstrate that participants found the workshop very valuable and useful. There are, however, areas of improvement with respect to future learning events. From an overall project perspective, it was importatn have identified areas for future learning events.


32

Group Photo


33

Annex 1: Programme for the Inauguration

17 30 Participants take their seats

17 30 Lighting of the Traditional Oil Lamp

17 40 The National Anthem

17 40 – 17 45 Address of Welcome

Dr. Ranjith Mahindapala, Country Representative, IUCN Sri Lanka

17 45 – 18 00

A Brief on the Project, Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty

Reduction

Mr. Gonzalo Oviedo, Senior Adviser, Social Policy, IUCN Switzerland

18 00 – 18 10

Address:

Mr. Ananda Wijesooriya (Representing the National Committee)

Immediate Past Chair, IUCN Sri Lanka National Committee & Director General,

Department of Wildlife Conservation

18 10 – 18 25 Address:

Dr. R H S Samaratunga, Secretary, Ministry of Environment

18 25 – 18 40

Address:

Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction in Sri Lanka : Some

Critical Issues

Prof. N Selvakkumaran, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo

18 40 – 19 00

Keynote Address:

Tread Lightly on the Earth ‐ Religion, Environment and the Human Future

Judge Dr Christopher G. Weeramantry, Former Vice‐President, International

Court of Justice, The Hague (1990‐2002)/ Founder‐Chairman, Weeramantry

International Centre for Peace Education and Research (WICPER)

19 00 – 19 10 Address:

Hon Anura Priyadarshana Yapa, M P, Minister of Environment

19 15 Reception (at the Sea Spray, Galle Face Hotel)


34

Annex 2: Programme for the Workshop

Background

IUCN implements the project “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction”,

supported by DFID’s Governance and Transparency Fund, since November 2008. The project is managed

by the office of the Senior Adviser on Social Policy at IUCN Headquarters. Through local/regional IUCN

offices and partner organizations this project is being implemented in thirteen countries in Asia, Africa

and South America (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Syria, Lebanon, Tunisia, Benin, Burkina Faso, Kenya,

Mozambique, South Africa, Bolivia and Peru). Each of these components addressed governance and

poverty reduction in different ways, including development of cultural indicators of human well being,

community based ecotourism, fisheries management, participatory management of natural resources,

awareness raising, policy influencing and others. There are also two global components coordinated by

IUCN headquarters. One is aimed at offering tools and guidance for improving natural resource

governance, including the application of rights‐based approaches (76987‐100), and the other supports

improvements of protected areas governance with emphasis on community empowerment, indigenous

territories, participation and livelihood security in Eastern and Southern Africa and South America (76987‐

080).

To date there has not been an opportunity for each of these components to meet and exchange ideas and

learning emerging from the project they are implementing. The project is also its midpoint, which means

that this is an opportune time for reflection on key project issues, in an effort to consolidate and revise

project implementation. For these reasons, we are planning to hold a global workshop in Colombo, Sri

Lanka that will include participants from national and regional IUCN offices, implementing partners,

international cooperation agencies and government representatives. Participants will include at least one

person from each of the 13 countries where project activities are being implemented as well as

representatives from each of the IUCN offices involved in project implementation.

The main objectives of this workshop will be:

1. To increase the level of understanding of each components objectives, activities and results to

date.

2. To promote a learning exchange between project implementers and staff on issues of natural

resources governance, livelihoods, rights, and others.

3. To strengthen the knowledge base on governance, livelihoods, poverty reduction, rights and

others issues through the exchange of ideas and identification of lessons.

4. Contribute to the improvement of project implementation and coordination including technical

assistance from IUCN HQ, monitoring, planning, communications, administration, finance and

other areas.

5. Identify priorities and develop recommendations for future steps to consolidate natural resources

governance efforts initiated by the project as well as others.

6. To provide participants with greater understanding of local governance conditions through a field

visit.

The workshop will take place in Sri Lanka from September 20 to 24, 2010. We expect that that last day will

a field trip to sites where the project’s Sri Lanka component is implementing activities with local partners.


35

20 September, 2010 – Inauguration of the workshop and Inaugural Diner starting at 18:00 hrs.

Inauguration event will include participation of representatives of the Sri Lankan government, IUCN

members and partners from the host country, IUCN Sri Lanka office staff, and others.

Time 21 September Person Responsible

8:30‐9:15 Introduction and presentation of workshop objectives, including

how this fits into overall project planning.

Facilitator/Gonzalo

Oviedo

9:15‐9:45 Participant introductions (participatory exercise) Facilitator

9:45‐10:15 Presentation on project governance framework (including

questions)

Gonzalo Oviedo

10:15‐10:40 Presentation 1 (Global and Protected Areas Components

Presentation).

Jordi Surkin

10:40‐11:05 Presentation 2 (Sri Lanka component) Ranjith Mahindapala

11:05‐11:20 Break

11:20‐11:45 Presentation 3 (Bangladesh Component) Remeen Firoz

11:45‐12:20 Presentation 4 (Drylands) Guyo Roba, Marcos

Valderrabano

12:20‐12:45 Presentation 5 (Lebanon/Syria) Khaldoun Alomari

12:45‐14:00 Lunch

14:00 ‐ 14:25 Presentation 6 (Nepal) Rajendra Khanal

14:25‐15:00 Presentation 7 (Bolivia/Peru) Ivette Vallejo

15:00‐15:30 Presentation 8 (Mozambique/South Africa) Markus Burgener

15:30‐15:55 Presentation 9 (Benin) Moumini Savadogo

15:55‐16:15 Break

16:15‐17:15 Preliminary analysis of key governance issues and challenges (in

plenary)

Facilitator

17:45‐ 19:15 Project managers from each component will have an evening

working session on Project administrative and financial issues.

Paola Cioccia

Time 22 September

9:00‐9:45 Presentation on governance challenges and results in South Asia Patti Moore

9:45‐11:15

Break out groups (4 groups). What are the main challenges and

bottlenecks for natural resources governance?

11:15‐11:30 Break

11:30‐12:30 Plenary (presentation of group results and discussion) Facilitator

12:30‐14:00 Lunch

14:00‐15:30 Break out groups. What have been the main lessons to date?

What have been the best practices? What tools or actions have

been most effective?

15:30‐16:30 Group reports to plenary Facilitator

16:30‐17:00 Break

17:00‐18:00 Presentation and discussion on new project monitoring and

planning instruments

Jordi Surkin


36

Time 23 September

8:30‐10:15 Break out group: How can we increase and measure project

impact? Are actions helping to reduce poverty and improve

conservation and sustainable use of natural resources? How can

we ensure we are better able to quantify and demonstrate

impacts and progress? In what areas is technical assistance

needed?

10:15‐11:15 Presentation of group results to plenary Facilitator

11:15‐11:30 Break

11:30‐12:15 Presentation on the portal, communications and learning

network

Kaia Boe

12:15‐12:45 Brief presentation on preliminary opportunities and existing

policy processes.

Jordi Surkin

12:45‐14:15 Lunch

14:15‐15:45 Breakout sessions: What are the next steps for strengthening

natural resources governance projects you are implementing?

What opportunities exist? What are future priorities for action

and who needs to be responsible for these actions?

15:45‐16:00 Break

16:00‐17:00 Presentation of group results to plenary Facilitator

17:00‐17:15 Workshop evaluation Facilitator

17:15‐17:30 Presentation on field visit Ranjith Mahindapala

17:30‐17:45 Wrap up Facilitator

Time 24 September

06:00‐22:00 Whole day field visit to Puttalam Lagoon

24 September – Field visit to Puttalam Lagoon at district of Puttalam (whole day and return to Colombo

late evening).

Further details on the field visit is in Annex 4 (Programme to the Field Visit).

25 September – Departure from Colombo

Most participants are leaving around 3 to 4 am on the 25th. Others depart 8 or 9 am on the 25th.


41

Annex 3: List of Participants

Organization Name Country Nationality Address Email Address

IUCN ESARO Guyo Roba Kenya Kenyan Wasaa Conservation Centre, Mukoma Road (off Magadi

Road, City Square), P. O Box 68200, 200 Nairobi, Kenya [email protected]

IUCN ROWA Fadi Shraideh Jordan Jordanian Um Uthaina, Tohama Str. No. 6, Amman, Jordan [email protected]

IUCN Nepal Rajendra Khanal Nepal Nepalese Bakhundole,Lalitpur, P.O. Box 3923, Kathmandu, Nepal [email protected]

IUCN Bangladesh Remeen Firoz Bangladesh Bangladeshi House 11, Road 138, Gulshan 1, 1212 Dhaka,

Bangladesh [email protected]

IUCN Sur Ivette Vallejo Ecuador Ecuadorian Calle Quiteño Libre E15‐12 y La Cumbre, Sector

Bellavista, Casilla Postal 17‐17‐626 Quito, Ecuador [email protected]

IUCN PACO Moumini Savadogo Burkina Faso Burkina 01 BP 1618, 01 Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso [email protected]

IUCN Med Marcos Valderrabano Spain Spanish C/ Marie Curie 22, PTA CAMPANILLAS, 29590 Malaga,

Spain [email protected]

IUCN HQ Gonzalo Oviedo Switzerland Swiss Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected]

IUCN HQ Jordi Surkin Switzerland Spain Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected]

IUCN HQ Paola Cioccia Switzerland Argentina Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected]

IUCN HQ Kaia Boe Switzerland Swiss Rue Mauverney 28, 1196 Gland, Switzerland [email protected]

WCS Oscar Loayza Bolivia Bolivia Caile Ezbino Villanueva, #340, Entre Callas, 24 of 25,

Cala Coto, La Paz, Bolivia [email protected]

TRAFFIC Markus Burgener South Africa South African

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa ‐ South Africa, c/o

Endangered Wildlife Trust, Private Bag x11, Parkview

2122, Johannesburg, South Africa.

[email protected]

Centro Terra Viva

(CTV) Cristina Louro Mozambique Mozambiquen Bairro da Coop, Rua D, Nº 27, Maputo, Mozambique [email protected]

Bangladesh Env.

Lawyers Association

(BELA)

Ikbal Kabir Bangladesh Bangladeshi House No 15 A, Road No. 3, Dhanmondi, Dhaka 1205,

Bangladesh [email protected]


42


Director Park W Martial Ballo Benin Beninois B P 46, Kandi, Benin [email protected]

Wildlife Resource

Advocacy

Programme (WRAP)

Hussein Ungiti Kenya Kenyan P O Box 473, Isiolo, Kenya [email protected]

GCB project focal

point

Mr Mohammad Al‐

Nahas Syria Syrian +963 932 455 477

Nepal Forum of

Environmental

Journalists(NEFEJ)

Mr. Dhurba Basnet Nepal Nepalese P O Box 5143, Thapathali, Katmandu, Nepal [email protected]

Association for

Protection of

Environment and

Culture (APEC)

Mr Kedar Nyoupane Nepal Nepalese Teentolia, P O Box 222, Nishanmarg, Biratnagar ‐ B,

Morang, Nepal [email protected]

Society for

Protection of

Nature Lebanon

Bassima el Khatib Lebanon Lebanese Awad bldg, 6th floor, Abed El‐Aziz street, Hamra, Beirut,

Lebanon [email protected]

IUCN Asia Patti Moore Thailand USA Asia Regional Office, 63 Soi 39, Sukumvit, Bangkok

10110, THAILAND [email protected]

IUCN Sri Lanka Diana de Alwis Sri Lanka Sri Lankan 53, Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [email protected]

IUCN Sri Lanka Ranjith Mahindapala Sri Lanka Sri Lankan 53, Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [email protected]

IUCN Sri Lanka Angela Fernando Sri Lanka Sri Lankan 53, Horton Place, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [email protected]

Public Interest Law

Foundation, Sri

Lanka

Mihiri Gunawardene Sri Lanka Sri Lankan Public Interest Law Foundation, 120/10, Wijerama

Mawata, Colombo 7, Sri Lanka [email protected]

Centre for

Environmental

Justice, Sri Lanka

Hemantha Vithanage Sri Lanka Sri Lankan Centre for Environmental Justice, No 20A, Kuruppu

Road, Colombo 08, Sri Lanka [email protected]


43


Department of

Fisheries , Sri Lanka A H S Ediriweera Sri Lanka Sri Lankan

Department of Fisheries, Maligawatta Secretariat,

Maligawatta, Colombo 10, Sri Lanka [email protected]

Freelance;

Attorney‐at‐Law

Anandalal

Nanayakkara Sri Lanka Sri Lankan 18/10, First Lane, Allen Avenue, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka [email protected]

Freelance

Researcher Asoka de Silva Sri Lanka Sri Lankan 6/1, De Silva Place, Kalubowila, Dehiwala, Sri Lanka [email protected]


44

Annex 4: Programme for the Field Visit

General Description of the Area

Puttalam lagoon is located 070 55’ ‐ 080 20’ North and 790 43’‐ 790 56’ East in Puttalam district of

North Western province of Sri Lanka. It is in the dry agro ecological region, with an annual rainfall of

less than 900 mm. This is the second largest lagoon (estuary) of Sri Lanka having a water surface area

about 32,750 ha. This area harbours one of the Sri Lanka’s largest mangrove habitats and rare

mangrove species. Three rivers, Mee Oya, Kala oya and very small Moongil Ara connect with the

Puttalam lagoon. Natural habitats in the area include rivers, streams, villus (or shallow lakes),

mangroves, sea grass beds, coral reefs, salt marsh, lagoon and seashore vegetation, tidal flats, and

sand dunes. Human‐influenced habitats in this coastal stretch are mainly rice fields, irrigation canals,

saltpans, coconut plantations, home gardens and shrimp ponds. This is a famous destination for

recreational activities such as diving in the nearby Bar Reef Marine Sanctuary, whale and dolphin

watching. These coastal habitats provide vital services for human well being in supporting

livelihoods, and large numbers of people are involved in lagoon and marine fishery activities. Over

the past two decades, vast amount of mangrove habitat surrounding the Puttalam Lagoon area has

been destroyed for to commercial purposes such as prawn farms and salt industry.

The tropical climate in Puttalam is one of

relentless heat, where temperatures rarely

ever drop below 25°C, even during the

coldest months. The average annual daytime

temperature hovers around 30°C and night

time temperatures are only a few degrees

cooler. Rainfall is mostly from northeast

monsoons, from October to January. Inter‐

monsoonal rains are experienced

occasionally in May onwards.


45

Major issues:

Despite these beneficial uses of mangrove ecosystems, the vast amount of mangrove habitat

surrounding the Puttalam Lagoon has been destroyed for commercial purposes, primarily

due to high economic incentives provided by the shrimp farming industry. However, at

present a large number of shrimp farms has been virtually abandoned due to diseases etc.

causing huge external cost to the environment. Salt industry is another economically

attractive industry in the area. The mangrove areas are converted for salt pans and this

conversion is a looming threat to the coastal vegetation in the area.

Due to increasing population and influx of refugees from war‐affected areas, pressure on the

lagoon has increased. There are about 12,000 Internally Displaced Families settled in the

area, which is a tremendous pressure on the natural resources. Most of them have started

fishing causing additional pressure on lagoon resources. Fish resources are being exploited

near or above threshold level due to engaging in destructive, illegal and unsustainable

fishing practices. There are abuses in fishing operation licenses and permits for fishing crafts

by some of the local fishermen.

Discharge of effluents to lagoon waters and dumping of solid waste have adversely affected

the water quality of the lagoon. Encroachments of lagoon area and mangroves can be seen

in many places. This is mainly due to inadequate boundary demarcation for the lagoon and

mangrove forests coming under the jurisdictions of the State agencies.

Lack of a forum of community organizations to deal with environmental matters effectively,

lack of good understanding/relationship with the government officers and inadequate

community concern and attitude of officials, poor coordination between the community and

government agencies in relation to environment management initiatives, planning and

implementation of projects and programs on fisheries and other issues without proper

participation of community in decision making, failure of the relevant agencies to institute

legal action against illegal and destructive practices and lack of awareness of community on

the laws and regulations and the processes of implementation are other major governance

issues.

Getting there

Drive along A3 road northwards starting from Colombo, passing the airport, for about 3 hours; turn

left at Palavi junction before Puttalam town and take the B349 to Kalpitiya (another one hour).

Programme

Time Item

06 30 Departure to Puttalam from Ramada Hotel, Katunayake

08 30 Arrive at the Mangrove Training Centre, Pambala and visit the facilities including fishery

issues

10 15 Arrive at Palavi and start of the field visit to Kalpitiya Peninsula

10 30 Abandoned shrimp farms and salterns (Palavi) (1 km)


46

Time Item

11 15 Intensive agriculture; exploitation of ground water (Narakkali) (12 km)

11 30 Abandoned shrimp farms (15 km)

12 15 Mangrove plantations, encroachment of lagoon reservations; boundary marking for

mitigation at Eththale (21 km)

12 30 Internally Displaced Persons due to war and environmental considerations

12 45 ‐ 14 45 Meeting with Government Officials (Fisheries, Land Use & Forestry, followed by Lunch (at

Ruwala Resort) (23 km)

15 00 Fish Landing sites at Palakudah (27 km)

15 30 Livelihoods and fishery; alternative livelihoods to reduce pressure on the lagoon resources at

Kudawa & Kandakuliya; proposed tourism expansion and land use issues (37 km)

16 30 Departure from Kalpitiya

19 30 Arrive at Ramada Hotel, and eventual departure to the airport

Annex 5: Principles of Governance

Principles of Governance

IUCN0F

i UNDP1F

ii UNESCAP2F

iii Commission of the

European

Communities 3F

iv

African

Development

Bank4F

v

Asian

Development

Bank5F

vi

USAID6F

vii World

Bank7F

viii

UK Department for

International

Development

(DFID)8F

ix

Accountability ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 9F

x ■

Transparency

(“Openness” ‐ EU Commission)

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 10F

xi

Participation ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Rule of Law ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Government effectiveness (World

Bank); Policy effectiveness (EU

Commission); Effectiveness and

efficiency of institutions and

processes (UNDP and UNESCAP)

■ ■ ■ ■

Responsive11F

xii ■ ■ ■

Coherence ■ ■

Consensus oriented ■ ■

Capacity of the State ■ ■ 12F

xiii

Combating corruption (AfDB);

Control of corruption (World Bank)

■ ■

Access to information and justice ■

Subsidiarity ■

Respect for human rights ■

Equity (UNDP)

Equitable and inclusive (UNESCAP)

■ ■

Strategic vision ■

Commitment to the public good ■


48

Principles of Governance

IUCN0F

i UNDP1F

ii UNESCAP2F

iii Commission of the

European

Communities 3F

iv

African

Development

Bank4F

v

Asian

Development

Bank5F

vi

USAID6F

vii World

Bank7F

viii

UK Department for

International

Development

(DFID)8F

ix

Stock of social capital ■

Political stability and absence of

violence

■

Regulatory quality ■

Promoting an enabling legal and

judicial framework

■

i IUCN. Strategies. IUCN refers to these as “principles” of governance. On‐line: http://www.iucn.org/about/work/global_programme/strategies/ Accessed 22 October 2009. ii United Nations Development Programme. 1997. Governance for sustainable human development. A UNDP policy document. Available on‐line: http://mirror.undp.org/magnet/policy/summary.htm Accessed 13 September 2009. iii United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. What is Good Governance? Available on‐line: http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp Accessed 22 October 2009. iv Commission of the European Communities. 2001. European Governance A White Paper. COM(2001) 428 final. Brussels, 25.7.2001. p. 8. Available on‐line: http://eur‐lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/com/2001/com2001_0428en01.pdf Accessed 6 November 2009. v African Development Bank. 2008. Governance Strategic Directions and Action Plan GAP 2008‐2012. p. 15, footnote 1. Available on‐line:

http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/7000017_EN_OSGE%20anglais%20OK.pdf Accessed 24 October 2009.

vi Asian Development Bank. 1999. Governance: Sound Development Management. p. viii. Available on‐line: http://www.adb.org/documents/policies/governance/govpolicy.pdf Accessed 24 October 2009. vii United States Agency for International Development. Promoting democratic governance. http://www.usaid.gov/fani/overview/overview_governance.htm Accessed 13 September 2009. viii World Bank. Governance Matters 2009. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp Accessed 13 September 2009.

ix United Kingdom Department for International Development. 2006. eliminating world poverty making governance work for the poor.

http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/whitepaper2006/whitepaper‐printer‐friendly.pdf Accessed 22 October 2009.

x The World Bank refers to these as “dimensions” of governance and combines “voice” and “accountability” into one dimension.


49

xi The World Bank specifies that “public availability of knowledge and information” is a prerequisite for governance improvement and anti‐corruption. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,contentMDK:20678938~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:1740530,00.html Accessed 13 September 2009. xii One definition of accountability says that accountability is responsiveness: “Accountability, in general, describes the responsiveness on the part of government to citizens’ demands

concerning the type of public services the public sector should provide. This may include the government’s response to citizen efforts to bring about a change in the government’s behavior by

persuasion, demand, or compulsion.” de Ferranti, David et al. 2009. How to improve governance : a new framework for analysis and action. The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C. p.7.

xiii DFID uses the term “State capability”.