G l o b a l E n v i r o n m e n t F a c i l i t y
GEF/ME/C.27/4
October 12, 2005
GEF Council
November 8-10, 2005
Agenda Item 7 (d)
THE ROLE OF LOCAL BENEFITS IN
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS PART ONE: NATURE AND
CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
(Prepared by the GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation)
Recommended Council Decision
The Council takes note of document GEF/ME/C.27/4, The Role of Local Benefits in
Global Environmental Programs, Part One: Nature and Conclusions of the Study and
endorses its recommendations, as follows:
1. Where local benefits are an essential means to achieve and sustain global
benefits, the GEF portfolio should integrate them more strongly into its
programming.
2. Integration of local benefits should be more systematically carried forward into
all stages of the project cycle.
3. GEF activities should include processes for dealing with trade-offs between
global and local benefits in situations where win-win results do not materialize.
4. In order to strengthen generation of linkages between local and global benefits,
the GEF should ensure adequate involvement of expertise on social and
institutional issues at all levels of the portfolio.
Council requests the GEF Secretariat, with the collaboration of the
Implementing/Executing Agencies, to develop an appropriate set of actions to address
these recommendations. The Council also requests the GEF Secretariat and the Office
of Monitoring and Evaluation to record follow up actions taken to implement the
management response to the study and to report on these actions through the proposed
GEF Management Action Record, to be submitted by the Office of Monitoring and
Evaluation at the May/June session of Council.
EXECUTIVE SUMMERY
This study analyzes the inter-relationship between local benefits and global environment
benefits in the GEF strategy and projects. In several GEF focal areas, local benefits, or
recompense for costs incurred locally to protect the environment, are an essential means
of generating and sustaining intended global benefits.
The study design was based on three distinct, but inter-related approaches: firstly, a series
of case studies, including both field-based and non-field studies; secondly a review of
assessments provided by previous evaluative studies at the project, program and thematic
level; thirdly, an examination of relevant donor agency, NGO and research community
experiences.
The study drew four main conclusions. Firstly, in many areas in which the GEF is active,
local and global benefits are strongly interlinked. Secondly, in some GEF projects there
were considerable achievements in developing local incentives to ensure environmental
gains. Thirdly, in many projects where local-global linkages were intended to be
addressed, they were not sufficiently taken into account, resulting in less local and global
benefits than anticipated. Fourthly, "win-win" situations for global and local benefits
proved in many cases to be unattainable.
On the basis of its findings, the study made four recommendations, as follows:
ˇ Where local benefits are an essential means to achieve and sustain global benefits,
the GEF portfolio should integrate them more strongly into its programming.
ˇ Integration of local benefits should be more systematically carried forward into all
stages of the project cycle.
ˇ GEF activities should include processes for dealing with trade-offs between
global and local benefits in situations where win-win results do not materialize.
ˇ In order to strengthen generation of linkages between local and global benefits,
the GEF should ensure adequate involvement of expertise on social and
institutional issues at all levels of the portfolio.
The study also noted that the GEF needs to better articulate the relationship between
environment and development in its mandate. The study has shown that in many
situations, the GEF's environmental objectives cannot be achieved and sustained
independently of broader development processes. The failure to address this relationship
fully has reduced the effectiveness of the GEF portfolio in meeting its global
environmental goals. It is important to re-assess the GEF practices of incremental cost
calculations and the associated interpretations of what is "GEF-able", without
undermining the principle that all GEF funding needs to be spent on achieving global
environmental benefits. The Office of Monitoring and Evaluation will undertake an
evaluation of incremental cost analysis which will make use of the material gathered in
this study and bring this to the Council for further discussion.
The main findings of the study, on which its conclusions and recommendations are based,
are presented in Part Two. This has not been produced as a Council Working Document,
since it is a large document and there would be insufficient time to discuss it fully. It has
been placed in the Monitoring and Evaluation section of the GEF web site, under the
Local Benefits Study heading. This area of the GEF web site contains a range of
documents, including the field case studies, which comprised one of the major sources of
data for the analysis, conclusions and recommendations. Council members are invited to
consult this material, if they wish to know more about the empirical basis of study
findings.
THE ROLE
OF
LOCAL BENEFITS IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS
PART ONE: NATURE AND CONCLUSIONS
OF THE STUDY
GEF OFFICE OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION
SEPTEMBER 2005
THE ROLE OF LOCAL BENEFITS IN GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS
PART ONE: NATURE AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms .............................................................................................................. iv
Chapter 1 Main Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................1
Chapter 2 Purpose and Methodology of the Study ...........................................10
Chapter 3 Social Dimensions in GEF Guidance................................................18
Chapter 4 Cross Cutting Findings and Challenges .........................................28
Boxes
Box 2.1
Definitions of Local and Global Benefits ............................................12
Box 3.1
GEF Operational Programs..................................................................24
Box 3.2
GEF Public Involvement Policy ..........................................................25
Box 4.1
Gains from Including Social and Stakeholder Analysis in Project
Design and Implementation .................................................................30
Box 4.2
Good Practice Concerning Local Knowledge and Institutions............30
Box 4.3
Contributing to Effective Approaches to Participation........................31
Box 4.4
Good Practices in Capacity Building...................................................32
Box 4.5
Good Practice Elements in Income Generating Activities ..................33
Box 4.6
Creating a Favorable Policy Framework for Local Benefits
Necessary for Sustainable Environmental Gains.................................34
Box 4.7
Elements of Supervision Good Practice Concerning Local Benefits ..34
Box 4.8
Elements of an Approach to Generate More Effective Learning from
Experience of Linkages between Local and Global Benefits ..............44
Tables
Table 3.1
Strategic Social Considerations: GEF Focal Areas ............................23
Table 3.2
GEF Project Cycle: Social Considerations .........................................26
End-notes
ii
Annexes
1. Study Team .........................................................................................................48
2. Implementing Agency Participants.....................................................................48
3. Advisory Panel....................................................................................................48
4. National Case Study Teams ................................................................................49
5. Consultations.......................................................................................................51
PART TWO: STUDY FINDINGS (published separately)
Acronyms
Chapter 5
Biodiversity
Chapter 6
Climate Change
Chapter 7
International Waters
Annexes
1
Local Costs and Benefits and the Sustainability of GEF-Assisted
Projects: An Economics Overview
2--16 Project
Samples
iii
Acronyms
CBO
Community Based-Organization
CIDA Canadian
International Development Agency
COP
Conference of Parties
CEO
Chief Executive Officer
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEFOME
Global Environment Facility Office of Monitoring and Evaluation
GEFSEC
Global Environment Facility Secretariat
IA
Implementing Agencies (UNDP / UNEP / World Bank)
IGAs
Income Generating Activities
IW International
Waters
IUCN
The World Conservation Union
LDCs
Least Developed Countries
MDGs
Millennium Development Goals
NGO Non-Government
Organization
OD Operational
Directive
OED
Operations Evaluation Department (World Bank)
OP Operational
Program
OPS2 / 3
Overall Performance Study 2 / 3
OS
Operational Strategy
PA Protected
Areas
PDF
Project Development Funds (A & B)
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PRSP
Poverty Reduction Strategy Plan
SBSTTA
Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice
STAP
Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
TDASAP Trans-boundary
Diagnostic and Strategic Action Plan
UNCBD
United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
UNCCD
United Nations Convention on Combating Desertification
UNDP
United Nations Development Program
UNEP
United Nations Environment Program
UNFCCC
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
iv
CHAPTER 1. MAIN CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Introduction
1.
This study analyzes the inter-relationship between local benefits and global
environment benefits in the GEF strategy and projects in order to:
ˇ Enhance GEF policies, strategies and project design and implementation, so
these can effectively promote the potential for local gains in those global
environmental programs where these are necessary to mobilize actors for long
term support of sound environmental management, to reduce costs incurred by
local communities for supplying global environmental goods, and to ameliorate
possible negative impacts.
ˇ Strengthen GEF monitoring and evaluation policies and processes, so these can
develop indicators for and strengthen the tracking of local benefits and negative
impacts.
ˇ Expand the body of existing operational knowledge of good practices and
experiences germane to pursuing global environmental issues and of constraints
or fallacies to be avoided in operations.
ˇ Disseminate widely the most valuable lessons of existing experience and show
how these lessons can be implemented in future GEF operations.
2.
GEF funding is focused on the attainment of global benefits rather than local
benefits, in accordance with the principle that the GEF will fund only the agreed
incremental costs necessary to achieve global environmental benefits. Local benefits
should, in principle, be funded by the recipient country. This means that local benefits
can be funded by the GEF only when they are clearly part of the incremental cost in
other words, when the recipient country will fund no or a lower level of local benefits,
which would be insufficient to generate or sustain the intended global environment
change. In many cases, components intended to generate local benefits are funded mainly
or entirely by co-financing institutions.
3.
The GEF mandate incorporates the role of local benefits through its focus on
sustainable development: "The GEF shall fund programs and projects which are country-
driven and based on national priorities designed to support sustainable development".
From its inception, the GEF aimed to focus on one aspect of sustainable development,
namely global environmental benefits, in a manner which, in principle, recognized the
links to wider conservation and development frameworks.
4.
Local benefits are defined by this study as outcomes which, directly or indirectly,
have positive impacts upon people and ecosystems within or adjacent to project areas and
which provide gains, present and future, in the livelihoods of communities and to the
integrity of ecosystems. Global environment benefits are defined as outcomes which,
directly or indirectly, have positive impacts on global environmental sustainability
1
through reducing the risks of climate change, stemming biodiversity loss, safeguarding
international waters, preventing ozone depletion, eliminating persistent organic pollutants
or preventing land degradation.
5.
In several GEF focal areas, local benefits, or recompense for costs incurred
locally to protect the environment, are an essential means of generating and sustaining
intended global benefits. In other areas, issues concerning local populations may be
minor or absent. The recommendations of this study therefore apply specifically to those
parts of the portfolio, which affect local communities and do not imply that all GEF
projects need to focus on social and participatory aspects. Financial analysis of case
studies established that GEF has provided substantial funding for local incentives for
global environmental benefits in some (predominantly larger) projects. The majority of
GEF projects did not provide funding specifically for local benefits.
6.
The GEF family has historically not defined "local benefits" but has treated all
non-global benefits as such. Under this approach, all benefits, which are not of a global
nature fall under the category of local benefits. This therefore includes benefits for local
(project area) communities, regions within countries, national benefits and some
international benefits of a regional or intergovernmental nature. This study focuses
primarily on benefits for local project area communities, although benefits at a regional
level and national benefits are also touched upon in focal area analyses.
7.
To understand how potential local and global benefits links may support the GEF
mandate and its operational activities, the study scope covered the following dimensions
of selected projects in the GEF portfolio:
ˇ The nature of links between attaining global environmental benefits and
generating local benefits, based on an analysis of how global environmental
benefits can affect benefit streams at the level of project area communities and
how the generation of local benefits can affect global environmental goals.
ˇ The types and scale of local benefits and of any negative impacts, intended or
unintended, which have resulted from GEF projects, including local perceptions
of these impacts.
ˇ The extent to which project design and the environmental management options
selected in the project can maximize opportunities to generate greater levels of
local benefits, or can miss out on or not sufficiently exploit such opportunities.
Essentially, this implies taking stock of good project practices and identifying
existing constraints, weaknesses and lessons for improving future projects.
1.2
Study Design, Analytical Framework and Methodology1
8.
The study design was based on three distinct but related approaches. Firstly, a
series of case studies, including both field-based and non-field studies, aimed at
addressing causal links in project implementation and broader program effects between
local and global benefits. Secondly, the assessments provided by previous evaluative
studies at the project, program and thematic scale, were reviewed. Thirdly, the study
examined related donor agency and research community experiences.
2
9.
In view of the complex nature of the issues studied, qualitative field research
methods, including semi-structured interviews and focus groups, were used to provide
detailed evidence. Some of the field studies also used quantitative approaches in a
`mixed-method approach'. The first hand evidence of the field studies was supplemented
by documentary analysis of all available GEF program and project evaluations (as of
July 31, 2004); detailed review of project files and documents; discussions with
Implementing Agency staff and external literature reviews. Case studies were developed
at three levels:
ˇ Detailed field case studies (18 project studies) based on qualitative and
quantitative fieldwork;
ˇ Non-field in-depth studies (25 project studies) based on a detailed review of
documents including records of implementation, aide-memoires, correspondence,
social and environmental assessments, and where possible, supplemented by
interviews with project staff;
ˇ Desk review (89 project studies) based on documentary analysis of project
implementation reports and where available evaluations.
10.
The study sample included 132 projects spanning the GEF pilot phase to GEF-2
replenishment period (1991 2000). The selection was based on those projects under
implementation or completed and included in the 2001 Project Implementation Review
(PIR), as of July 31st 2001. The selection procedure was purposive in terms of selecting
those projects that had a stated intention to provide local incentives as one of the means
to generate global environmental gains. The Small Grants Program, which generates
many local benefits related to sustainable environmental management, was not included
in the study, since it had recently been evaluated.
11.
A supplementary sample of 113 terminal evaluations of the Implementing
Agencies was analyzed to provide further inputs into the development of key findings
and lessons. This covered all the terminal evaluations, and related implementation
completion reports received by the GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation up to 31st
July 2004. To provide an initial perspective on changes concerning approaches towards
issues affecting local communities within the GEF portfolio, documents of 30 new
projects approved between December 2001 and 2004 were also reviewed.
12.
A case-focused analytical framework was applied to explore comparable aspects
of each project such as: types and scale of local incentives; linkages with attainment of
global environmental benefits; impacts on vulnerable stakeholders; negative impacts, and
project finances. This framework was based on a sustainable livelihoods approach and a
typology of local benefits which identifies seven generic categories of improvement to
livelihoods found in global environmental projects and programs. In accordance with the
livelihoods framework, the study analyzed the links between local benefits and global
environmental benefits in four ways:
ˇ Changes to consumption patterns, such as switching to renewable energy
sources, changing diet or acquiring more sustainable consumer goods.
3
ˇ Improvements to the local resource base as global environmental processes in
areas such as the hydrological cycle, land degradation and atmospheric pollution
are the accumulation of local resource dynamics over larger areas.
ˇ Reduced vulnerability, so the global processes such as climate change are less of
a threat to vulnerable people. Reduced vulnerability also means that people will
be less risk aversive, reducing pressures on the resource base.
ˇ Changes to the external institutional environment as a consequence of local
level empowerment, public awareness and political support for environmental
issues. Such changes will potentially foster revisions in the balance of priorities as
the urgency of poverty reduction and development pressures are reduced.
13.
Potentially, almost every aspect of the interaction between humans and nature can
be addressed in this framework through its range of livelihoods capitals. For example,
health benefits are incorporated into the concept of human capital and intangible gains
are often included under the category of social capital. However, it is recognized that
some intangible gains may be underemphasized in this framework, like the aesthetic
enjoyment of unspoiled nature.
1.2 Main
Conclusions
Conclusion 1 In many areas in which the GEF is active, local and global benefits are
strongly interlinked.
14.
Global-local inter-linkages are particularly found in activities which depend on
lasting changes in human behavior to achieve and sustain global environment gains. Such
inter-linkages often have positive and negative aspects. Behavior which produces current
gains to local residents may generate lasting environmental damage. Interventions
designed to protect the environment may therefore reduce the livelihood options of
communities as a whole or of groups within these. Within the portfolio areas studied,
projects based on restricting access to natural resources impose local costs which may be
unacceptable to populations affected, unless adequate measures are taken to compensate
for these losses. Protected Areas (PAs), which are a major part of the biodiversity
portfolio and also feature in some International Waters projects, often impose costs on
communities in or around the PA. The study found that local support for such
interventions, which is an important factor in their sustainability, can be generated
through a combination of compensatory opportunities and environmental education.
15.
One approach found to generate positive inter-linkages between local and global
benefits is the provision of incentives for changes in resource consumption patterns that
improve livelihoods, whilst promoting environmental protection. Another major option is
to strengthen external enabling environments, such as policies and legislation, which
provide enhanced opportunities for technological change and/or local natural resource
management. This element provides strong connections with the GEF requirement of
country-drivenness, as well as the opportunity to mainstream environmental concerns
into national policy, including Poverty Reduction Strategies. A further opportunity is the
generation of environmental improvements that reduce vulnerability of community
4
livelihoods to environmental degradation and natural disasters, thereby demonstrating
and encouraging sustainable environmental management. Linkages between local and
global dimensions will become increasingly important for the GEF portfolio as activities
related to mainstreaming biodiversity production landscapes, land degradation and
adaptation to climate change gain greater prominence.
Conclusion 2 In some GEF projects there were considerable achievements in developing
local incentives to ensure environmental gains.
16.
Lessons from successful projects can be developed as good practice guidelines. A
number of factors contributed to positive gains. At the national scale, the development of
supportive policy and legislative frameworks enabled socio-economic and political
incentives for local environmental management (such as decentralization, co-
management, financial and institutional incentives for market transformation). Connected
to the national framework, local institutional and individual capacity building activities
strengthened accountability and transparency of existing bodies; or developed new
institutions. Capacity building enabled institutions to better manage and deliver
incentives for sound environmental management. Achievements in these areas built on
good project design and delivery, which targeted long-term objectives, whilst meeting
local development needs.
17.
One of the key tools and approaches employed by good practice projects was the
use of social assessment during design and implementation of project interventions to
identify, disaggregate, target and involve local communities and institutions. Also
important were market and affordability assessment for income generating activities and
energy alternatives. Other factors included the role of committed and skilled internal and
external project stakeholders (often referred to as `champions') and the systematic
monitoring of localglobal linkages to clearly establish what works and what does not
and thereby allow for effective lesson development and learning. Finally, local
participation in design and implementation was critical to building ownership, relevance
and effectiveness of local incentives for environmental management.
18.
However, the presence of one or more positive factors or tools did not always
guarantee success. Successful approaches and good practices were often highly context
specific, and were underpinned by a good understanding of local contexts and active use
of monitoring and evaluation to learn from and address problems adaptively. Successful
approaches were also developed over longer time scales than the GEF project alone. This
finding points towards the advantage of locating interventions within broader
development strategies, which can be achieved through programmatic approaches, or
through the blending of GEF activities with other activities of the Implementing
Agencies. Concrete suggestions for improving approaches can be found in the body of
this study. More detailed knowledge products on specific issues will be developed
separately from this report.
Conclusion 3 In many projects where local-global linkages were intended to be
addressed, they were not sufficiently taken into account, resulting in less local and global
benefits than anticipated.
5
19.
Shortcomings that were encountered often started with inadequate understanding
of `the community' in terms of socio-economics, institutions, resource access, use and
needs. This hindered project attempts to develop relevant and effective linkages between
local incentives and changes contributing to global environmental gains. It also resulted
in a number of "missed opportunities" for providing stronger benefits and reasons to local
communities to participate in global asset protection. Such weaknesses were often
exacerbated by the time constraints of short project implementation cycles, uneven
implementation of the local incentive components, non-materialization of co-financing
for local activities, and inconsistent supervision of activities necessary to generate
linkages. Approaches to institution building also encountered challenges, in part caused
by inadequate assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of local management capacity.
Incentives for improved environmental management, such as income generating
activities, eco-tourism and new energy technologies, were in several cases delivered
without sufficient consideration of the potential market, affordability or local capacity.
Finally, monitoring of localglobal linkages proved to be particularly challenging in the
majority of projects, reducing the opportunities to learn from success and failure.
20.
New projects approved during the GEF-3 programming period demonstrate a
more consistent and nuanced approach to the integration of local incentives and social
issues into global environmental projects and programs across all focal areas. The
development of the strategic priorities for GEF-3 and their continued refinement for
GEF-4 represent a move toward a strategic, programmatic and project level inclusion of
development and environmental aims. The agencies' own analyses and quality control
systems (e.g., World Bank Quality Assessment Group) confirm improvements at the
project level in design and implementation. This study's review of recently approved
projects shows that there is a trend towards improved design.
Conclusion 4 Win-win situations for global and local benefits proved in many cases to be
unattainable.
21.
It has been difficult to attain in practice win-win situations that are sustainable
and replicable. This is partly due to the incomplete development of alternative courses of
action with a range of trade-offs between local costs, compensatory measures and levels
of environmental protection. Also responsible is a tendency towards inadequate attention
to the potential for negative impacts and the need to develop mitigation strategies.
Successful projects and programs had assessed varying possible relationships between
resource users and the environment and managed the trade-offs between different levels
of intervention (such as policy support, institutional strengthening and income
generation). In essence, there are winners and losers in almost all interventions and
attaining the best compromise between these is a key factor in sustainable environmental
improvement.
22.
The GEF has relied heavily on alternative income-generating activities, and
specifically on eco-tourism, as potential approaches to substitute for destructive local
livelihoods in many biodiversity interventions. The study found that in general, income-
generating activities and eco-tourism were not able to act as a substitution for livelihood
sources lost as a result of projects. In the context of poor local communities, they were
6
rather regarded as additions to the range of available opportunities, without rejecting the
natural resource use intended to be displaced. Thus the intended `win-win' situation did
not materialize. In countries with an underdeveloped tourism sector and infrastructure,
eco-tourism rarely thrived, due to structural constraints beyond the control of the project.
When market contexts for alternatives and ecotourism were favorable and the project
undertook preparatory socio-economic assessment, the evidence shows that benefits for
livelihoods and the global environment were attainable. Some people were better-placed
than others to take advantage of the new opportunities, so that there were still those who
lost as a result of the intervention, indicating the need to recognize and respond to
opportunities for trade-offs.
1.3 Recommendations
Recommendation 1 Where local benefits are an essential means to achieve and sustain
global benefits, the GEF portfolio should integrate them more strongly into its
programming.
23.
Improved integration of local benefits in GEF activities, where they can play a
role in generating support for steps necessary to move towards the global objectives of
the GEF, would open the way for more effective and sustainable progress towards those
objectives. This should be pursued without changes to the current GEF mandate or its
funding of incremental costs for global environmental benefits. Such integration
promotes local support for improved natural resource management, enabling the adoption
of new approaches and generating sustainability through containment and compensation
of local losses and provision of gains.
Recommendation 2 Integration of local benefits should be more systematically carried
forward into all stages of the project cycle
24.
Integration of local benefits into the project cycle may include complementary or
alternative means of delivering GEF objectives, such as programmatic approaches, co-
financed or "blended" projects (as they are named by the World Bank), which enable
development and environmental objectives to be pursued in a coordinated manner. At an
early stage of project development, the potential local dimensions should be assessed, to
ensure that they are adequately addressed during the design phase. If it is not anticipated
that a project has local implications, this should also be stated. Issues to be addressed
include:
ˇ Ensuring that relevant project concept papers address local benefits issues as key
elements to achieve and sustain global benefits;
ˇ Assessment of project proposals (including appraisal by STAP-roster experts) on
local benefits issues;
ˇ Ensuring a good fit between the task to be undertaken by national level partners
and their capabilities. Many Government agencies need capacity building with
regard to stakeholder involvement. In other instances it may be appropriate to
7
accord a greater role in implementation to NGOs that are experienced in
participatory approaches;
ˇ Systematic supervision of activities intended to generate local-global linkages, by
the Implementing and Executing Agencies;
ˇ Strengthening the emphasis on linkages between local buy-in and sound
environmental management in knowledge sharing, project evaluations and other
studies.
Recommendation 3 GEF activities should include processes for dealing with trade-offs
between global and local benefits in situations where win-win results do not materialize.
25.
Mechanisms for establishing trade-offs could be addressed through the adoption
of guidelines; or by requiring projects to specify how they will monitor issues of local
costs and benefits and what adaptive approaches they may adopt, if it emerges that the
project is not going to generate its intended "win-win" solution. The foundation for
anticipating and dealing with trade-offs is generated during project preparation. It
depends on accurate information concerning current natural resource use practices; how
the intervention will affect these and identification of who can be expected to gain and
lose by the changes. Based on such knowledge, systems of projects-at-risk and
supervision systems can be tailored to play a role in monitoring the achievement of
balanced trade-offs, which ensure that local stakeholders are not disadvantaged by GEF
interventions, whilst contributing towards an improved global environment.
Recommendation 4 In order to strengthen generation of linkages between local and
global benefits, the GEF should ensure adequate involvement of expertise on social and
institutional issues at all levels of the portfolio.
26.
The GEF and its Implementing Agencies have various mechanisms and systems
to address the issues of linkages, local buy-in to interventions and generation of
sustainable outcomes. In actual practice, these mechanisms have not always been
effective in bringing a broad range of perspectives to bear on project development and
implementation. Improvement of linkages may be addressed by consistently applying a
balanced and appropriate expertise, by:
ˇ Ensuring involvement of social and institutional expertise when preparing concept
papers and at the PDF-A and PDF-B stage;
ˇ Ensuring involvement of a full range of appropriate expertise when reviewing and
appraising project proposals; in IAs, the STAP and the GEF Secretariat. Neither
the STAP nor the Secretariat currently has sufficient capacity for this purpose;
ˇ Including a broad range of expertise in supervision, monitoring and evaluation.
1.4
Other major issues arising from the study
27.
The study has identified some issues beyond the scope of its recommendations,
but which are critical to the future success of the GEF portfolio in assisting to develop
and sustain improved management of the global environment.
8
28.
The first of these is the need for the GEF to articulate the relationship between
environment and development within its mandate. The study has shown that in many
situations, the GEF's environmental objectives cannot be achieved and sustained
independently of broader development processes, which lie outside of the mandate and
funding capacity of the GEF. This requires more emphasis, where appropriate, on
programmatic approaches, blended projects and multi-phased projects. Council would
need to discuss such a change of emphasis and approve any major move of the portfolio
away from individual "stand-alone" projects.
29.
Related to the above, the GEF needs to develop a coherent position on the
relationship between its activities and the poverty reduction goals of most of its
Implementing and Executing Agencies, as well as many partner countries. This position
should be established based on discussions within the GEF Council. The study found that
the failure to address this relationship has reduced the effectiveness of the GEF portfolio
in meeting its global environmental goals; since poor people often remain with no
alternative to unsustainable natural resource use practices.
30.
Deriving from the ambiguity in the GEF position on development and
environment linkages, it has become essential to re-assess the GEF practices of
incremental cost calculation and the associated interpretations of what is "GEF-able".
The narrow interpretation of incremental costs derived from Council guidelines and
adopted by the GEF Secretariat, has led to the rejection of proposals for GEF funding, on
the basis that they are targeting local development or welfare benefits. This interpretation
is often incorrect, since these elements are the means to develop local support for
improved natural resource management practices, without which global environment
gains cannot be reached or sustained. The Office of Monitoring and Evaluation plans to
evaluate the application of incremental cost calculations in the GEF portfolio,
commencing the Financial Year 2006. The current study provides material showing the
implications of the methods adopted for this calculation for activities at field level (see
also PART 2 annex 1).
9
CHAPTER 2. PURPOSE AND METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
2.1
Origins and Purpose of the Study
31.
The GEF mandate incorporates the role of local benefits through its emphasis on
sustainable development: "The GEF shall fund programs and projects which are country-
driven and based on national priorities designed to support sustainable development".
From its inception, the GEF aimed to focus on one aspect of sustainable development--
global environmental benefits--but in a manner which explicitly recognized the links to
wider conservation and development frameworks.
"The main rationale of the GEF is (...) to fund the incremental costs of achieving
global environmental benefits. This principle was intended to be applied in a
context that supports sustainable development goals. The Implementing Agencies
were expected to address these larger sustainable development dimensions by
relating GEF-funded activities, through national-level strategies and programs,
to a development and environment policy framework." (Overall Performance
Study 2)
32.
Within the international community, which now largely focuses its efforts on
poverty reduction, specialist entities on environment, most notably the GEF, have a
specific and important role to play by promoting the centrality of sound management of
the global environment to the relationship between sustainable development and poverty.
33.
Previous GEF evaluations and program studies have focused on identifying
impacts that produce global environmental benefits. The Second GEF Overall
Performance Study2 found it difficult to assess stakeholder participation, and pointed out
that "GEF projects would benefit from addressing socioeconomic and livelihood issues
more thoroughly and systematically". It also recommended that the GEF develop an
"effective and systematic way to document information on stakeholder consultations and
participation, including the involvement of indigenous communities" (Recommendation
9).
34.
To fill this gap and promote the sharing of knowledge and good practice in this
area, this study analyzes how local benefits can contribute to the attainment of global
environmental goals and vice versa, in accordance with the GEF mandate. Findings on
linkages between global and local benefits will support the overall objectives of the
study, namely to:
ˇ Enhance GEF policies, strategies and project design and implementation, so
these can effectively promote the potential for local gains in those global
environmental programs where these are necessary to mobilize actors for long
term support to sound environmental management, to reduce costs incurred by
local communities for supplying global environmental goods, and to ameliorate
possible negative impacts.
10
ˇ Strengthen GEF Monitoring and Evaluation policies and processes, so these
can identify and develop indicators for and strengthen the tracking of local
benefits and negative impacts.
ˇ Expand the body of existing operational knowledge of good practices and
experiences germane to pursuing global environmental issues and of constraints
or fallacies to be avoided in operations.
ˇ Disseminate widely (thru its Final Report and follow-up products) the most
valuable lessons of existing experience and show how these lessons can be
implemented in future GEF operations.
35.
The study was co-funded by three bilateral agencies (Canada, Norway and
Sweden) and the GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation. It was approved at the
November 2003 GEF Council.
2.2
Scope of the Study
36.
The concept "local," in a GEF context, is characteristically understood as a
contrasting category to global. While the present study pays particular attention to
communities in and around a project intervention, where actions must be taken to protect
specific resources of global importance (see Box 2.1), the concept of local is seen as
flexible and not limited to this level. It may also encompass a range of other levels,
depending on context, including regions within countries, countries or groups of
countries involved in interventions, particularly in the field of International Waters.
37.
Secondly, local benefits represent for the GEF a strategic instrument, rather than a
goal. This is an important distinction between the mandate of the GEF and those of
development agencies, which pursue local benefits as part of their primary task of
poverty reduction.
38.
To understand how the intentions of the GEF mandate have been expressed in the
development of its operational activities, with regard to potential local and global benefits
links, the scope of the study covered the following dimensions of selected projects in the
GEF portfolio:
ˇ The nature of links between attaining global environmental benefits and
generating local benefits, based on an analysis of how global environmental
benefits can affect benefit streams at the level of project area communities and
how the generation of local benefits can affect global environmental goals. Box
2.1 covers the definitions of local and global benefits for the purposes of the
study.
ˇ The types and scale of local benefits and of any negative impacts, intended or
unintended, which have resulted from GEF projects, including local perceptions
of these impacts.
ˇ The extent to which project design and the environmental management options
selected in the project can maximize opportunities to generate greater levels of
local benefits, in order to promote and sustain support for their environmental
objectives, or can miss out on or not sufficiently exploit such opportunities.
11
Essentially, this implies taking stock of good project practices and identifying
existing constraints, weaknesses and lessons for improving future projects.
39.
An analytical framework was Box 2.1 Definitions of local and global benefits
developed based on a livelihoods approach
and a typology of local benefits3, which Local benefits are defined as outcomes which,
identifies seven generic categories of directly or indirectly, have positive impacts upon
people and ecosystems within or adjacent to project
improvement to livelihoods that can be areas and which provide gains, present and future, in
found in global or local environmental the livelihoods of communities and to the integrity of
projects:
ecosystems.
Global environment benefits are defined as project
ˇ Improved access to natural capital, outcomes which, directly or indirectly, benefit the
including plants and animals, water, global environmental, by reducing the risks of climate
change, stemming biodiversity loss, safeguarding
fuelwood and environmental
international waters, preventing ozone depletion,
services such as safe waste disposal. eliminating persistent organic pollutants or preventing
ˇ Improved social capital (including land degradation.
perceived well-being)
and
institutional capacities in local communities, including contact networks and the
improved ability to deal with outside agencies. Specific attention was paid to the
different roles of women and men in relation to natural resources management
and flows of local benefits.
ˇ Improvements to physical capital, including investments in tools and machinery,
access to or ownership of buildings, and access to infrastructure such as transport,
telecommunications or water supply and irrigation.
ˇ Improvements to human capital which include skills, knowledge, health, work
ability and management capabilities of local community members.
ˇ The cumulative outcomes of the above four forms of capitals are to be identified
in increased livelihood opportunities and incomes. This includes higher
productivity of existing activities and new livelihood opportunities, increases in
cash income and improvements to the ability to save, or access to micro-capital.
ˇ Increases in the livelihood capitals available to communities will promote
improved health and food security.
ˇ Strengthened livelihood capitals and improved health and food security will
reduce the vulnerability of local communities to external factors such as floods,
droughts and cyclones, environmental degradation, loss of ecosystem integrity,
deforestration, climate change and variability and social, political and market
disruption.
40.
In accordance with this framework, the study analyzed the potential links between
local benefits and enhanced global environmental benefits in four ways:
ˇ Changes to consumption patterns such as switching to renewable energy
sources, changing in diet or acquiring more sustainable consumer goods.
ˇ Improvements to the local resource base, as global environmental processes in
areas such as the hydrological cycle, land degradation and atmospheric pollution
are the accumulation of local resource dynamics over larger areas.
12
ˇ Reduced vulnerability, so that global processes such as climate change are less
of a threat to vulnerable people. Reduced vulnerability also means that people
will be less risk aversive, reducing pressures on the resource base.
ˇ Changes to the external institutional environment as a consequence of local
level empowerment and public awareness and political support for environmental
issues will potentially foster changes in the balance of priorities as the urgency of
poverty reduction and development pressures is reduced.
41.
The dynamics and variability of local level social and economic processes, and
the interactions between local communities and their natural resource base, is complex
and many factors may influence linkages. Such factors include local social dynamics;
patterns of incentives that exist to conserve or exploit resources; the extent of people's
understanding of the long-term consequences of actions; gender-based knowledge bases
and differential patterns of access to natural resources; and the structure, approaches and
operational modalities of support provided.
42.
The framework proved particularly useful in developing an understanding of the
relationship of local communities to global environmental resources in specific case
studies and projects. More broadly, it helped to understand the extent to which the
conceptual and operational characteristics of the GEF have included strategies to
motivate local actors, as distinct from state-level actors, to protect global assets and
pursue global environmental objectives.
43.
This analytical framework on local benefits is derived from international
experiences of sustainable development approaches. The global consensus on the
meaning of and approaches to sustainable development is expressed in the outcomes of
the global summits in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 and Johannesburg in 2002. The Rio summit
was a catalytic factor in the establishment of the GEF. It produced Agenda 21 and
established the idea that sustainable development involves the linked and mutually
dependent challenges of environmental protection and social and economic development.
2.3
Audiences for the Study
44.
The study objectives will respond to the interests of several audiences. This
includes the GEF Council, management and staff of GEF Secretariat and its
Implementing and Executing Agencies.
2.4
Collaborative Approach
45.
The study adopted a collaborative approach, both in terms of its external relations
and with regard to the GEF family. It was guided at critical points by an Advisory Panel,
which consisted of representatives of the three donor agencies providing external
financial support to the study (CIDA, Royal Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway and
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden), as well as representatives of the GEF NGO and
Indigenous Peoples' Network, international NGOs, the Scientific, Technical and
Advisory Panel of GEF (STAP), and experienced development practitioners.
13
46.
Most of the fieldwork studies included GEF Secretariat or IA participants, under
the overall leadership of a representative of the study team. The study also cooperated
with many other studies and organizations, including internal studies of the World Bank,
as well as several major NGOs and academic groups. Most importantly, the study
included national level workshops in almost all of the countries where field case studies
were undertaken. The national workshops were of critical importance in providing
feedback to national-level stakeholders on the initial findings and for ensuring that the
perspectives of these different stakeholders were incorporated into the final case study
reports (see Annex 1, 2 and 4).
47.
The Advisory Panel played an active role in guiding the study. The study team
and consultants from the Stockholm Environment Institute together undertook the bulk of
the field research, analysis and documentation of the study. Further assistance was
provided by more than 25 national consultants in fieldwork countries and by project
personnel, government officials, NGO staff and others in these countries (see Annex 3).
2.6
Study Methodology and Process
48.
The methodology was developed on the basis of verbal and written inputs from
the Implementing Agencies, the Advisory Panel and the GEF Office of Monitoring and
Evaluation4. The original methodology, together with the Inception Report containing
the study work plan and procedures, are available on the GEF web site, under the
Monitoring and Evaluation heading.
49.
The main phases of the study include:
Phase One: Preliminary stock-taking and portfolio analysis, including
consultations among the review's supporting agencies and GEF
implementing agencies. The development and approval of a
conceptual framework, methodology and work plan, including
refinement of definitions and scope.
Phase Two: Analytical and empirical field work, local and national
consultations on selected projects in member countries.
Phase Three: Overall analysis of findings, preliminary report writing and Final
Report completion.
50.
The initial conceptual framework was developed through preparatory desk
reviews of 132 projects in the biodiversity, climate change and international waters
portfolios, all of which had stated intentions to generate some form of local benefit. A
separate review was conducted by Stockholm Environment Institute to summarize salient
examples of broader international (non-GEF) experience of connections between local
and global benefits in environmental activities.
51.
In order to ensure consistency across the nearly 50 projects included in the field
and non-field studies, a common conceptual framework for understanding local benefits
(see Section 2.2) was detailed in the Methodology and Inception Report documents and
carried forward into the Terms of Reference for each case study. The conceptual model
14
proved a robust instrument in its ability to provide consistency across a broad range of
field and non-field studies undertaken by different specialist teams.
52.
Eighteen in-country fieldwork studies were conducted by case study teams and
in total more than three years of fieldwork were undertaken over a twelve-month period.
The field case studies were based on a careful review of project and other documents5
and discussions with Implementing and Executing Agencies' staff who assisted the study
team in identifying appropriate field research sites. The fieldwork was generally
undertaken in two phases: an initial phase that included local consultants and the external
team, during which consultations with key stakeholders were undertaken, the main issues
for further analysis were identified, and a plan for the rest of the case study was prepared.
This was followed by a second phase of more in-depth local level fieldwork by the
national consultants when a wide range of local, national and regional stakeholders were
reached. A wide range of qualitative and quantitative methods were used, based on
options outlined in the Inception and Methodology Report, but adapted to local needs
through discussions within the field study team. Most studies concluded with local and/or
national workshops, at which the key conclusions from the fieldwork were discussed with
relevant stakeholders (see Annex 4).
53.
Based on the fieldwork (and secondary) data collected using the conceptual
model, the case study analysis framework explored the following dimensions of each
project:
ˇ Overview of the project being evaluated, including the policy and institutional
context, structure, objectives and anticipated results (outputs, outcomes, impacts),
related to the host country's development context. This specifies intended local
incentives and target groups.
ˇ Overview of Global Environmental objectives and achievements of the project,
based on existing documents and interviews with expert stakeholders.
ˇ The types and scale of local incentives and negative impacts identified and
analyzed on the basis of the study's Model of Livelihoods and Benefit Flows.
ˇ The relationship of local incentives and/or negative impacts to the livelihoods of
different stakeholder groups, based on the Model. This analysis incorporates
gender differences and a focus on vulnerable groups, such as indigenous people
and scheduled castes, where these constitute a distinct group in the project area.
ˇ The relationship of local level processes to wider social (including gender),
economic and environmental processes, including external institutions, global
environmental processes and vulnerability context components of the model.
ˇ The nature of the links achieved between local level benefits/ impacts and the
attainment of global environmental benefits.
ˇ The extent to which the project's environmental management options represent
missed opportunities to generate greater levels of local incentives, relevant to its
global objectives. Specific attention is paid to opportunities for women, the poor
and minority groups.
ˇ Lessons to be learned from the project, including any relevant accountability
issues.
15
54.
The Draft Final Reports of the field case studies were posted on the GEF web site
in October/ November 2004.
55.
The 25 non field case studies explored the same issues as the field studies, using
the same conceptual model and the case study analysis framework outlined above. They
primarily focused on reviewing available internal documentation and evaluations,
supplemented on many occasions by interviews or email exchanges with key
stakeholders to add depth and clarity to the information available on specific issues. One
of the roles of these case studies was to triangulate with the data gained from the field
case studies and to see how these are reflected in a wider range of project experiences
(see PART 2 annexes).
56.
Analysis of Independent Evaluations: whilst the study proceeded, projects not
included in its sample reached completion and were evaluated by the Implementing
Agencies. As an additional component to the original methodology, the Study Team
reviewed all evaluations officially submitted to the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation
by July 31st 2004, which totaled 113. Since these projects were a mix of those which had
stated local benefits goals and others which did not, they were treated as a separate subset
of data and were not amalgamated with earlier data sets. The review drew out the IA
evaluators' findings, interpretation and recommendations on issues related to the themes
of the local benefits study (LBS). Since these evaluations were independent of the LBS,
they provided another useful source of `triangulation' of the key themes emerging from
the desk, field and non-field studies (see PART 2 annexes).
57.
Analysis of Project Finances: the study team attempted to assess the extent to
which projects, which had stated local incentives objectives and which sought to engage
local communities in participation in project activities, expended resources on these
purposes. A review was undertaken of the financial information available to the GEF for
132 projects, which fulfilled the criteria outlined above. The review found that there is
insufficient financial information within the GEF data base to make an informed
assessment of the amount of funds expended for purposes of developing local
participation or incentives. A follow-up review was undertaken of the same projects, but
focusing only on the planned allocation of resources for stakeholder involvement and
activities related to local benefits. It was found that 101 out of 132 projects had sufficient
information for this analysis (see PART 2 annexes).
58.
Analysis of New Projects: the GEF portfolio is evolving. In order to maximize
the possibility of applying lessons from completed projects to the present and future
portfolio, the study reviewed 30 projects that attained CEO approval December 2001 and
November 2004, to understand new approaches developed and adopted towards
participation and the possibility of linkages between local and global benefits. The review
focused on IA project documents submitted to the GEF for funding approval and assessed
the extent to which new approaches have been adopted (see PART 2 annexes).
59.
Liaison with Related Studies, Institutions or Activities: the study team
networked to establish contacts with external parties concerned with the issues it covers.
16
Documents from the study have been shared with many relevant practitioners, reviewers
and academics and team members participated in major events, such as the World Parks
Congress in Durban and the IUCN World Conservation Forum in Bangkok. This enables
the study to place its approach and conclusions within a broader context (see Annex 5).
60.
Findings from the data sources presented above were initially analyzed on a
sectoral basis, as presented in Chapters Five to Seven (PART 2). This analysis provided a
foundation for building an understanding of good practice and of the challenges facing
the GEF. On the basis of this initial analysis, wider characteristics, good practices and
challenges emerged in addition to sector-specific issues. These broader issues are covered
in Chapter 4.
2.7 Limitations
61.
The complex subject matter of the study necessitated a case study approach to
establish how intended relationships between local and global benefits were realized.
These data provided the foundation for the analysis of achievements and challenges and
were supported by desk studies. Although 132 project cases were covered in total, these
do not provide the possibility of statistically valid generalizations about the GEF portfolio
as a whole, or any of the focal areas.
62.
The study concentrated exclusively on projects, which had stated intentions to
generate local benefits and its findings and recommendations apply only to such projects.
Although these constitute a substantial portion of overall GEF activities, the study cannot
precisely specify this proportion. The study focused on projects which were completed or
in process as of July 2001. Although a modest attempt was made to assess new project
designs (see Para.58), the study does not cover later developments in GEF programs such
as land degradation, persistent organic pollutants, adaptation to climate change and multi-
focal projects.
17
CHAPTER 3. LOCAL AND SOCIAL DIMENSIONS IN GEF
GUIDANCE AND POLICY
63.
This Chapter provides the necessary context to the local benefitglobal
environmental benefit linkages within the context of the Conventions and the GEF
Instrument, Operational Strategy and programs and policies.
3.1
The Conventions and the Mandate of the GEF
64.
The mandate of the GEF was developed on the basis of UN Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). The GEF was appointed the interim financial mechanism to both
conventions in 1992 to provide support for `new and additional' efforts to address the
underlying causes of global environmental degradation on an `agreed full incremental
cost basis.'
65.
In 2002 the GEF Assembly requested that GEF resources be made available to
finance activities under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). In
2003 GEF became `a' financial mechanism for the UNCCD to support efforts to address
desertification and land degradation in developing countries on an incremental cost
basis6.
66.
The Conference of Parties (COP) for each convention determines the policy,
strategic direction, program priorities and eligibility criteria for access to and utilization
of financial resources available through the financial mechanism. In agreeing to act as
financial mechanism to the conventions, the GEF agreed to conform to guidance
provided to it by the COPs.
3.1.1 UN Convention on Biological Diversity
67.
The GEF is the financial mechanism of the CBD and supports the goals7 of the
Convention:
"... conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and
the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic
resources, including appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies taking into account all rights over those
resources and to technologies and by appropriate funding." (Article 1)
68.
The Convention guidance is primarily aimed at the level of countries and inter-
country issues and responsibilities. The articles of the convention also place emphasis on
linkages between social development and biodiversity conservation and the roles of
stakeholders (e.g., national government, local and indigenous peoples). Specific areas of
synergy are to be found in the sustainable use of biodiversity (Article 10); economically
18
and socially sound incentive measures (Article 11); public education and awareness
(Article 13); importance of traditional knowledge (Article 8, 10); and the participation of
indigenous and local communities and women in biodiversity conservation8 (Preamble
and Article 8, 10). It is notable that the issues of access and equitable sharing of benefits
(Article 15) are associated with the national level and are not explicitly cited with regard
to social equity. Over the course of successive CBD Conferences of Parties (COPs), the
links between local community and indigenous livelihoods, broader development
processes, and more recently the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)9 have
received increasing attention10, including through guidance to the GEF.
69.
The CBD in COP I (in 1994) set program priorities for the GEF.11 These placed
emphasis on sustainable use of biological diversity, including local and indigenous
community involvement, on social dimensions, and on integration within the framework
of poverty reduction efforts. Subsequent COPs (II VII) have given more detailed
guidance to the GEF relevant to localglobal benefit linkages. This guidance has stressed
the need for activities that address capacity building; stakeholder involvement; education
and awareness; ecosystem approaches12; sustainable use (Addis Ababa Principles);
access and benefit sharing (Bonn Guidelines)13; financial, social and institutional
incentives for indigenous and local community partners' participation in the
implementation of the convention articles14; and synergies with national priorities for
sustainable development. The COP VII called for synergies between the Convention
implementation and larger macro-policy frameworks by inviting the GEF to support
capacity building for the mainstreaming of biodiversity concerns into MDG processes.
70.
This guidance was influenced by the increasing international debate surrounding
poverty reduction and conservation, and the nature of policy and programmatic links
between conservation and achievement of the MDGs15. Moreover, specific issues
surrounding the rights of local, indigenous and mobile peoples in the governance of
Protected Areas (PAs) (e.g., co-management and community management areas), gender
relations, sustainable use (e.g., tourism)16 and equitable sharing of benefits17 are being
debated and discussed by the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
Advice (SBSTTA). At present, there is no overall consensus within the conservation
community regarding the above issues, or on the relationship between them and the
broader issue of conservation and poverty alleviation.
71.
Much of this guidance was provided after the majority of the projects included in
the study18 were designed. A sample of new biodiversity projects (see Para.58) provides
insights into how GEF is operationalizing COPIV VI guidance.
3.1.2 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
72.
Article 11 of the UNFCCC established GEF as the interim financial mechanism to
support the objectives of the convention:
"The ultimate objective of this convention and any related legal instruments that
the COP may adopt is to achieve, in accordance with the relevant provisions of
the convention, stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
19
at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to
allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food
production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner." (Article 2)
73.
The preamble of the convention `affirms' that responses to climate change should
be coordinated with social and economic development in an integrated manner, taking
into account priority needs of developing countries and poverty reduction. Article 6 (a)
(iii) requests parties to `promote and facilitate public participation in addressing climate
change and ... in developing responses'19. At COP1 the convention set out a broad and
short and long term strategies to mitigate emissions; transfer technology; build capacity
and strengthen institutions; and research and educate to facilitate `effective response
measures' (in accordance with Article 4)20 within the context of `local conditions'.
Subsequent COPs (2 10) have placed some emphasis on adaptation activities for small
island states and least developed countries (LDCs) including the funding of pilot projects
that `will provide real benefits'21 and capacity building for technology transfer. COP7 in
2001 called on the GEF to provide financial resources for community involvement22 23.
74.
The new responsibilities imply a stronger requirement on interdisciplinary
approaches, local involvement, incentives, and poverty considerations in climate change
mitigation and adaptation. Socio-economic/ cultural issues relating to gender and local
and indigenous communities are important to implementation of the convention
(particularly Article 4) in terms of reception, adoption, replication and sustainability of
technologies for mitigation and adaptation. To date the convention and COP decisions
and guidance to the GEF have not consistently stressed socio-economic and socio-
cultural issues related to implementation activities. Guidance to the GEF has been at a
general level and requires active interpretation to inform the design of projects and
programs.
3.1.3 UN Convention to Combat Desertification
75.
The GEF Beijing Assembly decided to designate GEF as `a' financial mechanism
for the UNCCD to provide new and additional support for efforts to reduce land
degradation and desertification24. The goal of the UNCCD is to:
"... combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in countries
experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa,
through effective actions at all levels, supported by international
cooperation and partnership arrangements, in the framework of an
integrated approach which is consistent with Agenda 21, with a view to
contributing to the achievement of sustainable development in the affected
areas.25"
76.
The preamble of the convention recognizes that implementation of the convention
will to a large extent depend on local actors; including the critical role of women in
resource management and that their full participation must be obtained in the measures to
20
mitigate desertification. Article 3 of the convention outlines key principles and places
particular emphasis on participation of NGOs, landowners and communities in
facilitating and implementing mitigation measures.
77.
In fulfilling its role under Article 20 of the UNCCD, GEF financing is directed
towards capacity building and implementation of innovative and indigenous sustainable
land management practices. GEF has agreed to assist countries in implementing national
and regional programs. COP6 invited the GEF to give support in its activities to
livelihood systems that prevent (or provide) incentives against land degradation.
78.
UNCCD is the only convention of those involving the GEF that has clearly
addressed the importance of targeting women as well as men in all stages of
implementation. It has also stressed the linkage between poverty and desertification and
in doing so seeks to combine local knowledge and socio-economic perspectives with
Western science26. The recently approved GEF Operational Program 15 (OP15)
`sustainable land management,' which aims to address land degradation and
desertification, also recognizes these links and the need to involve local stakeholders,
gender sensitive approaches and indigenous knowledge.
79.
The Land Degradation Focal Area was added to the GEF in 2003. The OP15
"Sustainable Land Management" incorporates a strong social and environmental
emphasis, based on lessons learned from previous GEF land degradation interventions
under the Biodiversity Focal Area.
3.2
GEF Instrument, Strategy, Programs and Policies
80.
The following sections provide the background on the integration of local benefit
and social issues in the GEF Instrument, Operational Strategy and policies.
3.2.1 The
Instrument
81.
The instrument of the restructured GEF states:
"The GEF shall operate on the basis of collaboration and partnership
among the Implementing Agencies, as a mechanism for international
collaboration for the purpose of providing new and additional grant and
concessional funding to meet the agreed incremental costs of measures to
achieve agreed global environmental benefits." 27
82.
Within the context of the global environmental objectives, the instrument places
emphasis on the need to `integrate' environmental and development approaches through
consultative and participatory processes as means to bring international, national and
local stakeholders together to address environmental problems. It does not provide
specific guidance on the character or scale of integration and so allows for flexible
interpretation of what socio-economic incentives might be needed to produce appropriate
local action to sustain global environmental benefits over time.
21
3.2.2 GEF Operational Strategy
83.
The Strategy28 is based on 10 `Operational Principles' and provides overall
direction to the biodiversity, climate change, international waters focal areas `to
maximize global environmental benefits.'29. Principle 7 relates directly to local benefit
and social issues and states:
"GEF project shall provide for full consultation with, and participation as
appropriate of, the beneficiaries and affected groups of people." 30
84.
At a more abstract level Principle 4 implies the need for linkages between
development and environmental programs based on country driven priorities:
"The GEF will fund projects that are country driven and based on
national priorities designed to support sustainable development, as
identified within the context of national Programs"31
85.
The strategy also asserts the following social aspects in the `strategic
considerations' for the design of GEF activities. They should be consistent with national
and where appropriate regional priorities and include consultations and involvement of
local communities, build awareness, and be environmentally and socially sustainable to
ensure the quality and relevance of GEF activities32:
"...focus of GEF activities will concern long-term measures. Such
measures if they are to be part of a long-term solution will have to be
environmentally and socially sustainable..."
86.
Table 3.1 below summarizes the main social considerations laid out in the
Operational Strategy across the Focal Areas33. Social and local community issues receive
significant consideration in the Biodiversity and Land Degradation Focal Areas including
recognition of the importance of povertyenvironment linkages, role of key local
stakeholders, such as indigenous peoples and women, and socio-cultural contexts of
conservation activities34. Climate Change and International Waters tend to emphasize the
need for consultation, public awareness and education and therefore pay less attention to
spelling out the social and local aspects of GEF activities.
22
TABLE 3.1: STRATEGIC SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: GEF FOCAL AREAS
BIODIVERSITY
CLIMATE CHANGE
INTERNATIONAL
LAND DEGRADATION
WATERS
Social
ˇ Country-driven
GEF
ˇ Country-driven ˇ Country-driven ˇ Country-driven
and
Considerations
activities related to social
measures
needs;
integrated with
in design and
development and economic
satisfying
ˇ Stakeholder
sustainable
implementation
plans;
sustainable
involvement;
development plans
of GEF
ˇ
Poverty issues;
development
ˇ Public
and PRSPs;
Operations
ˇ
Social development;
needs;
awareness and
ˇ Poverty
issues;
ˇ Sustainable
livelihoods;
ˇ Public
education;
ˇ Effective
ˇ Common
property;
participation;
ˇ Stakeholder
participation of
ˇ
Participation of indigenous
ˇ Public
analysis and
stakeholders
peoples and local
awareness and
involvement to
including women at
communities;
education36
include economic
all stages;
ˇ
Public awareness and
and social
ˇ Economic
community-based outreach;
aspects37
incentives to
ˇ
Social, economic and
support local,
cultural knowledge of local
national and
and indigenous peoples;
international
ˇ
Governance and devolution
responses;
to local groups and NGOs;
ˇ
Distribution of benefits and
accountability for conserving
resources;
ˇ Demographics
ˇ Gender
roles;
ˇ Social
organization
processes as related to
human/ environment
interactions35;
ˇ
Incorporation of lessons
from implementing
participatory approaches;
ˇ
Use of social assessment;
87.
The Operational Strategy does not attempt to define the range of socio-economic
incentives for local stakeholders to participate, beyond references to the need for
economic, financial and social sustainability. Only financial sustainability was examined
in detail in the strategy. The lack of clear definition of social and economic sustainability
and of the role which tools such as stakeholder analysis and social assessment play in
operationalizing the socio-economic sustainability of environmental protection, highlight
the role of Implementing Agencies in defining and incorporating these dimensions into
project activities.
88.
The Operational Strategy did not discuss possible negative social impacts on local
community stakeholders of activities designed to produce global environmental
benefits38.
89.
The Operational Strategy is applied across all 15 Operational Programs (OPs) (see
Box 3.1) of the GEF. The individual OPs also contain more specific details on the
integration of environmental, social and local community issues where appropriate. The
biodiversity and new land degradation OPs provide the relatively detailed consideration
of social and local community issues in GEF activities.
23
BOX 3.1 GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAMS
The GEF has 15 Operational Programs (see Box 3.1) that provide specific guidance for the
development of projects across the Focal Areas. The OPs have evolved over time ten were
developed in 1996 following the Operational Strategies covering Biodiversity, Climate Change
and International Waters, with a further five being added since 200039. The OPs follow a
common structure, laying out key program objectives40, expected outcomes, assumptions and
risks, outputs, `typical' project activities and public involvement guidelines.
Biodiversity
OP1 Arid and Semi-Arid Ecosystems
OP2 Coastal, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems
OP3 Forest Ecosystems
OP4 Mountain Ecosystems
OP13 Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity Important to Agriculture
Climate Change
OP5 Removal of Barriers to Energy Efficiency and Energy Conservation
OP6 Promoting Adoption of Renewable Energy by Removing Barriers and Reducing
Implementation Costs
OP7 Reducing the Long-term costs of Low Greenhouse Gas Emitting Energy Technologies
OP11 Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Transport
International Waters
OP8 Waterbody-based Operational Program
OP9 Integrated Land and Water Multiple Focal Area
OP10 Contaminant-Based Operational Program
Land Degradation
OP15 Sustainable Land Management
Multi-Focal Area
OP12 Integrated Ecosystem Management
Persistent Organic Pollutants
OP14 Persistent Organic Pollutants
3.2.3 Operational Policies and Guidelines
90.
In 1995 GEF Council requested the GEFSEC to prepare a `policy on information
disclosure and public involvement.'41 The request was in large part based on the
challenges concerning stakeholder involvement and particularly local community and
NGO involvement that were highlighted by the Pilot Phase evaluation;42 and the special
emphasis placed on stakeholder involvement in the GEF Instrument. The GEF policy on
`public involvement in GEF financed activities'43 is the only operational policy that
relates specifically to social issues and local stakeholders/ beneficiaries44 45. The policy
applies to all GEF focal areas, programs and projects and spells out the rationale, terms
and principles for public involvement and solidifies the operational requirement for
stakeholder involvement and partnership in the design, implementation and evaluation of
GEF financed activities (see Box 3.2).
24
BOX 3.2: GEF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT POLICY
Rationale
Effective public involvement is critical to the success of GEF financed projects. Public involvement
improves the impacts of projects by:
ˇ
Enhancing country ownership and accountability;
ˇ
Addressing social and economic needs of affected people;
ˇ
Building partnerships among project executing agencies and stakeholders;
ˇ Making use of skills, experiences and knowledge, in particular of NGOs, community and local
groups in the design, implementation and evaluation of project activities.
Definition
3 types:
ˇ
Information Dissemination: refers to the availability and distribution of timely and relevant
information on GEF financed projects. Aspects include appropriate notification and disclosure of
project information to the public;
ˇ
Consultation: pertains to information exchanges among the government, IAs, and other
stakeholders. Although decision-making authority rests with the government, consultation allows
for informed choices based on local community contributions to the project design,
implementation and evaluation;
ˇ
Stakeholder participation: is where stakeholders collaboratively engage, as appropriate, in the
identification of project concepts and objectives, selection of sites, design and implementation of
activities, and monitoring and evaluation of projects. Developing strategies for incorporating
stakeholder participation throughout the project cycle is particularly necessary in projects which
impact the incomes and livelihoods of local groups, especially disadvantaged populations in and
around project sites (for example, women, indigenous communities and poor households).
Principles
ˇ Effective public involvement should enhance social, environmental and financial sustainability of
projects;
ˇ Responsibility for assuring public involvement rests within the country, normally with the
government and project executing agency or agencies. The IAs should be supportive to this end;
ˇ
Public involvement activities should be designed and implemented in a flexible manner, adapting
to national and local conditions;
ˇ To be effective public involvement activities should be broad and sustainable. The IAs will
include project budgets, as needed, and the financial and technical assistance necessary for
recipient governments and project executing agencies to ensure effective public involvement;
ˇ Public involvement activities will be conducted in a transparent and open manner. All GEF
financed projects should have full documentation of public involvement activities.
GEFSEC will undertake
ˇ In consultation with the IAs establish operational guidelines for assessing the effectiveness of
public involvement activities in design and implementation plans ... evaluation of the impacts of
public involvement;
ˇ Facilitate the exchange of best practices on public involvement among recipient governments,
IAs, project executing agencies and other stakeholders with a view to ensuring that lessons are
incorporated into future design;
ˇ In collaboration with IAs explore ways in which roles of NGOs and other stakeholders can be
strengthened in project preparation, design, implementation and evaluation;
ˇ
Ensure that funding is available ... for conducting effective public involvement.
91.
There has been no evaluation of the implementation of the Public Involvement
Policy since 1996, although OPS2 and 3 and the Program Studies have to some extent
assessed stakeholder involvement. This Study in part, assesses local stakeholder
involvement within the context of the delivery of local livelihood benefits and linkages to
global environmental gains (see Part 2; Chapters 5 7).
25
92.
Council policy papers and operational guidelines have stated in various ways the
concept that "costs of the proposed GEF activity associated with an expansion of the
project beyond what is strictly required for global environmental benefits are ineligible
for GEF support".46
93.
The GEF project cycle sets out the various steps that projects have to progress
through to obtain financial support from the GEF, including project review criteria and
considerations (See Table 3.2). The initial project cycle policy/ regulations were set out
in 1995, followed by revision in 2000 and 2003.
TABLE 3.2: GEF PROJECT CYCLE: SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1995
2000
2003
Social Criteria Social assessment and
At pipeline entry stage:
At pipeline entry stage:
or
consultation including:
ˇ Stakeholder
involvement ˇ Stakeholder
involvement/
Considerations ˇ Demonstration
of
local
ˇ
Identification of major
intended beneficiaries
for Projects
participation/ consultation
stakeholders relevant to
ˇ
Identification of major
in project preparation and
project objectives
stakeholders relevant to
measures for ongoing
including NGOs,
project objectives
participation and
communities, public
including NGOs,
consultation under
agencies and private
communities, marginal
implementation;
sector.
groups in ecosystem-
ˇ
Role of local communities;
based projects such as
ˇ
Role of Indigenous people; At Work Program inclusion
nomads, trans-humants,
ˇ
Resettlement plans if
stage:
young people and
human populations are
ˇ Describe
how
women, others, public
going to be resettled;
stakeholders have been
agencies and private
ˇ
Plans for public
involved in project
sector.
awareness, environmental
development;
education, and social
ˇ
Describe the approach
At Work Program inclusion
communication;
for stakeholder
stage:
ˇ Gender
considerations;
involvement in further
ˇ Describe
how
ˇ Capacity
building
project development and
stakeholders have been
implementation.
involved in project
development;
At CEO Endorsement:
ˇ
Describe the approach
ˇ
Finalize the roles and
for stakeholder
responsibilities of
involvement in further
relevant stakeholders in
project development and
project implementation,
implementation;
including a public
ˇ Describe
how
marginal
participation strategy
groups are going to be
involved in project
implementation
94.
In 1995 the social considerations/ criteria were relatively broad, requesting that
specific tools such as social assessment be applied in defining the roles of local and
indigenous community stakeholders as well as gender considerations. In 2000 and 2003
the social considerations/ criteria for GEF projects were more narrowly limited to
stakeholder involvement, including descriptions of `how stakeholders were involved in
project development and in implementation', including marginal groups47. The need to
consider social assessment was removed.
26
3.3 Conclusions
95.
The Conventions in general recognize the importance of local development for
the sustainability of global environmental gains and look favorably on integrating these
concerns into activities designed to improve the environment.
96.
The UNCBD and UNCCD provide for local community48 and socio-economic
and cultural issues in the implementation of their objectives. UNCBD has provided the
GEF with significant guidance on the integration of local community concerns into key
convention issues: concerning incentive measures, sustainable use and access, and
Protected Areas. UNCCD has yet to provide specific guidance to the GEF, although the
new OP15 on sustainable land management has taken an active approach to addressing
key social concerns and linkages. UNFCCC guidance has been at a general level, and it
has yet to provide specific guidance to GEF on socio-economic issues49.
97.
Although there is a tendency to perceive the GEF as a funding mechanism to be
exclusively used on global benefits, the GEF Instrument and Operational Strategy
provide a broad framework for the consideration of social and local community issues
beyond stakeholder involvement. However, they do not specify precise approaches to
socio-economic benefits or incentives, to produce and sustain global environmental gains.
Stakeholder involvement processes are stressed throughout the Operational Strategy,
programs and policies of the GEF.
98.
Neither the Instrument nor the Operational Strategy prohibits a maximization of,
or emphasis on, local benefit issues to ensure the sustainability of global environmental
benefits.
27
CHAPTER 4. CROSS-CUTTING FINDINGS AND CHALLENGES
99.
This chapter summarizes the evidence and analysis which support the key
findings presented in Chapter 1. It does not imply that these findings are also relevant for
those areas of GEF activity which do not engage with or impact on local communities.
Part Two of this study presents the detailed findings for each focal area, which provide
the foundation for this analysis.
4.1
Linkages between Local and Global Benefits
100. The first study finding is that local and global benefits are strongly interlinked in
many areas where the GEF is active. Changing human behavior is one of the critical
underlying premises of the GEF approach to achieving global environmental gains, and
local benefits play a central role in stimulating changes that produce and sustain such
gains.
101. Linkages between local and global benefits led to changes in consumption
patterns in effective projects. Such changes included the adoption of new natural
resource uses and practices, as well as improved management of existing resource use to
promote biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, energy use changes or improved
water resource management.
102. One of the main approaches used to encourage changes in natural resource
management was to generate direct and material benefits to local communities, both in
terms of improved livelihood opportunities and access to natural resources. For example,
of the 88 projects studied from the biodiversity portfolio, 68 proposed to increase or
introduce tourism-related activities, 76 proposed to create alternative Income Generating
Activities (IGAs) and increased employment opportunities and 27 aimed to assist in the
development of small businesses.
103. In the climate change portfolio, a group of projects was developed on the
assumption that the renewable energy technology would be a viable substitute for the
existing, mainly biomass, fuels used by the target households; and that solar PV units
would be affordable to local communities and commercially attractive to distributors.
These assumptions proved largely incorrect in the projects studied. The International
Waters portfolio adopts a long-term and programmatic approach that reflects the size and
complexity of its interventions. Most of its projects were by nature multi-country and
covered large geographical areas. The key to achieving environmental objectives was the
systematic approach of detailed and sequenced studies, followed by a comprehensive
planning and strategy development, identification of site-specific priority activities and
participatory institutional mechanisms.
104. Improvements in the natural resource base depended on a wide range of
financial and non-financial local benefits, including improvements in social and human
capital, which provided the incentives and capacity for change. Particularly in
28
Biodiversity and International Waters, the co-management of resources was a means of
engendering conditions for improved resource management and providing disincentives
for destructive practices. The findings in relation to changes in local people's access to
the local natural resource base are mixed. In some cases, improvements were found; in
others access restrictions led to a decline in the availability of natural capital. While in
many projects the actions taken made little difference to access.
105. The ability to balance local and global interests cannot be pursued just at the local
level. It is dependent on a favorable overall policy framework that facilitates local
community solutions. Changes in external enabling environments provided an
important basis to support and allow localglobal linkages. Projects in the reviewed focal
areas made significant contributions to inter-linkages, through new policies and
legislation to enable local resource management opportunities and to promote new
technologies.
106. Reduced vulnerability of communities to environmental events encouraged
support for new natural resource management practices. Communities quickly noticed
improvements in resource protection that led to reduced vulnerability. For example,
communities affected by biodiversity projects attributed improved reliability of local
water supply to forest cover promoted by Protected Area status. Similarly, enhanced local
fish stocks were associated by local communities with the establishment of Marine
Protected areas. Such gains provided local incentives, which contributed towards global
environmental gains.
4.2
Local Benefits Achievements for Global Environmental Gains
107. The second finding is that some GEF projects recorded considerable
achievements in local benefits to ensure environmental gains, based on effective
approaches and practices which are discussed in this section.
108. Social and stakeholder analysis proved valuable to identify and disaggregate local
communities and to provide a basis for targeting interventions. Social analysis or
assessment and regular monitoring of socio-economic, behavioral and attitudinal changes
played an important role in understanding the extent of local commitment to project
objectives, which proved to contribute to the sustainability of the behavioral changes
necessary to ensure the project's environmental objectives.
109. Such social analysis enabled the development of differentiated project approaches
to local communities. Social differentiation in projects enabled the involvement of
women, indigenous peoples and other vulnerable groups. These two categories of local
people are, in many places, of particular importance for the attainment of both local
benefit flows and global environmental goals. They often have a higher level of
dependence on the local resource base than other local residents: it is usually women who
collect foods and fuels from local ecosystems, who manage water and tend small
livestock. Similarly, many indigenous peoples still live in close harmony with and
dependence on local ecosystems that provide for most of their needs. Whether this is the
case in specific project localities can only be ascertained by detailed social analysis.
29
Some of the advantages of systematically applied social and stakeholder analysis as a
tool, derived from the projects studied are presented in Box 4.1.
Box 4.1. Gains from Including Social and Stakeholder Analysis in Project Design and
Implementation
Knowledge gained from such analysis makes it possible to assess the most effective means of
incorporating local communities into project processes
The analysis enables project designers to develop approaches, which will maximize local support
in a sustainable manner on the basis of long term and equitably distributed benefits to the
communities
Such analysis enables project proponents to assess the extent, duration and distribution of any
potential negative impacts from the project and make a preliminary design for a program
intended to mitigate these impacts
Social analysis can provide social baselines, against which changes resulting from the project
can be measured.
Such baselines are a key component of project monitoring and evaluation systems and ensure
that these include social as well as environmental factors
110. A related approach, which generated improved performance, was the
incorporation of local knowledge and institutions into project design and implementation.
Good practices in this regard are outlined in Box 4.2.
Box 4.2 Good Practice Concerning Local Knowledge and Institutions
Willingness to understand and find compromises between external scientific knowledge and local
knowledge, which is based on historical interaction with the specific environment to be protected
Close teamwork between social and environmental specialists to establish and develop
appropriate areas for building practical bridges between local and external knowledge and
strategies for environmental management
Careful examination of the mandates, composition and effectiveness of local institutions active in
environmental management, including local units of national government, local government,
NGOs, CBOs and "traditional and customary institutions"
Development of a strategy which maximizes use of or collaboration with existing local and
customary bodies where these appear legitimate and effective, together with a capacity building
program to strengthen these bodies
Creation of new bodies only as a last resort, where existing bodies are demonstrably unlikely to
be able to shoulder responsibilities during and beyond the project duration
Where new bodies must be created, development in a participatory manner, which draws upon
existing resources as far as possible, together with a plan to demonstrate and develop the local
legitimacy of the new body, as a step towards promoting its sustainability beyond the period of
project support and a system to collaborate with other local bodies.
111. An approach found effective was the building of conservation strategies, and
especially the management of protected areas, on the basis of sustainable management
of natural resources by local communities. This means, for example, working with these
communities in defining, using both local and external knowledge, what levels of off-take
can be harvested sustainably, agreeing which areas or times of year should have
particular restrictions to allow breeding or accommodate times of stress, and identifying
what sorts of management regimes will maximize potential off-takes without
compromising ecological integrity.
30
4.2.1 Community
Participation
112. GEF activities are required to conform to the public involvement policy. This
provides for levels of involvement, ranging from activities intended to generate support
for project objectives (awareness-raising) through consultation (in which the public are
asked to respond to and collaborate with externally designed interventions) to
participation (in which they play an active role in shaping and implementing the
intervention).
113. The involvement of local communities was mainly focused on information
sharing as a means to support the attainment of global goals, by persuading communities
to change their natural resource management practices and customs. Almost all projects
intended to undertake awareness-raising and information dissemination; considered to be
achieved in 82% of the sample. Of the sample of 132 projects, 87 (66%) achieved
stakeholder consultation at various levels in their design. The active participation
(decision-making) of local communities in the conception and design of activities
intended to benefit them was much less common.
114. Some GEF projects implemented effective approaches to participation that
generated local benefits such as strengthened institutional and social capital at the local
level, for example, through the formation of community groups and revolving credit
schemes. In turn, participation in these activities generated local commitment to the
sustainable actions necessary for improved environmental management.
115. Some factors contributing to successful participatory approaches, on the basis of
projects studied, are shown in Box 4.3
116. below.
Box 4.3 Factors Contributing to Effective Approaches to Participation
Understanding differences within the community, rather than assuming that all members share a
common understanding and interests with regard to the environment
Developing an approach which sees community members as active partners, with their own
beliefs, viewpoints and knowledge, rather than as recipients of externally generated wisdom and
instructions
Changing project procedures to reflect inputs from the community, rather than "consulting" the
community about a pre-conceived approach
Engaging communities actively in the selection, design and implementation of any major inputs
such as physical capital improvements
Encouraging appropriate community inputs of time and labor to engender ownership in any new
community assets
Ensuring that the approach to participation is transparent and accountable and that it manages to
include a broad spectrum of people, including women, the poor, Indigenous Peoples and other
vulnerable groups
Applying adequate expertise and resources to participation to ensure that it is as effective as
possible
Providing adequate support and capacity building to individuals and institutions to enable
participation to increase in quality and quantity as the project progresses
Carefully monitoring and influencing approaches to participation of local government and non-
government partners to ensure that these conform to those of the project concept
Including participation as a topic for the attention of M&E systems and of project management and
supervision.
31
117. Co-management of resources with local communities was recorded in 28 (32%)
of the 88 biodiversity projects in the study sample. The field experiences showed that
these approaches were often limited in scope. Local stakeholders participated in IW
Projects in such activities as the removal of pollution or the management of marine or
coastal resources. Notable achievements in ensuring participation were made despite
political and institutional barriers in several locations.
4.2.2 Capacity
Building
118. Within capacity building, the projects reviewed largely focused on enhancing
organizational capabilities through the creation of local groups to strengthen participation
in project activities.
Box 4.4 Good Practices in Capacity Building
On the basis of capacity building programs studied, good practices include:
Capacity building should be based on local needs and tailored to project objectives. The
temptation to utilize existing programs which are not specifically relevant should be avoided
Developing approaches which can blend the most effective elements of traditional knowledge and
values with those derived from external science and conservation experience
Ensuring that training components, including field trips, are tailored to the needs, experience and
institutional location of participants
Careful selection of participants to ensure that they have the capacity and intention to engage in
natural resource management activities
Clear linkages between capacity building and the generation of livelihood benefits at individual
and community level, either directly through employment in project related activities or through
other appropriate income generating activities
Capacity building should aim to produce institutions, which can sustain the intended project
benefits in the long term, whether these are enhanced existing bodies or newly created
institutions.
4.2.3 Income
Generation
119. Several projects demonstrated that there is scope for effective integration of
viable and locally relevant livelihood enhancement activities in project design. Some
good practice elements from such successful income generating activities projects are
presented in Box 4.5. treatise
120. In the biodiversity projects studied, (eco)tourism was included in the design of 68
(77%) of the 88 projects, with some degree of success recorded in 25 (28%). Successful
projects were implemented in areas with well-developed tourism industries, good
infrastructure and a supportive economic and political environment.
32
Box 4.5 Good Practice Elements in Income Generating Activities
ˇ Working with the right institutions, namely those with expertise and a track record in appropriate
areas, such as micro-finance and development of non-farm income programs, rather than relying
on conservation-oriented government or non-government bodies to deliver income-generating
activities
ˇ Conduct of detailed and realistic market assessment of the local possibilities, in relation to
location, human resources, capacity and finance, rather than reliance on "one size fits all"
approaches such as eco tourism and handicrafts
ˇ Careful development and implementation of training programs, which will enable potential
enterprises to start up and survive in what are often difficult locations, together with sustained
programs of follow up and support, which can be assured beyond the limited project time span
ˇ
Creation of opportunities for small scale community capital inputs (e.g. through savings and credit
schemes) to encourage a sustainable sense of ownership of the income-generating activities
4.2.4 Policy
Frameworks
121. Building supportive policy and legislation often provided essential support to
enable localglobal linkages. The development of national policies (in the case of IW
projects and also international agreements) was an objective of many projects and was
often successfully implemented. A total of 82 (62%) projects in the sample included
policy changes that would enhance local impacts as an objective, with 54 (66% of the 82
or 41% of the total sample) recording some achievement. The inclusion of policy
measures to accompany actions that enhance local benefits can be regarded as a key
component of a comprehensive approach, which has strong potential to generate
sustainable environmental results.
122. The long term approach, based on the TDA-SAP model, utilized by many
activities in the sampled International Waters projects has often proved effective in
catalyzing policy changes; whilst in climate change, many projects have successfully
promoted positive actions of Government to enable or even promote the uptake of
renewable energy. In biodiversity, projects have promoted increased government support
for protected areas and some have even succeeded in the most difficult task of obtaining
Government commitment to share revenues generated from protected areas with local
communities affected by the new regime. Box 4.6 highlights the type of actions, which
have been taken by effective projects in the GEF portfolio to influence regulatory
frameworks.
33
Box 4.6 Creating a Favorable Policy Framework for Local Benefits Necessary for Sustainable
Environmental Gains
Good practice elements which have promoted effective and sustainable results include:
ˇ Detailed analysis of existing policies and legislation, highlighting areas where these need to be
strengthened to assist in attainment and sustainability of desired changes in behavior towards
the environment
ˇ Development of effective relationships with politicians and administrators engaged in the
processes of policy and legislation, including through third parties such as local NGOs and locally
influential international NGOs
ˇ Implementation of programs to support and develop government ownership and political will
towards positive environmental management as well as the capacity and resources to deliver
ˇ Building into the project realistic timelines for changes and contingency plans in case of non-
realization of objectives during project life time
ˇ Program of actions related to national policy and strategic measures, to assist in the process of
facilitating intended changes at local level
ˇ Assessment of financial implications of policy changes and development of strategies to ensure
spread and sustainability of measures required under new approaches
ˇ Adoption of long term strategies through programmatic or collaborative approaches with local or
customary institutions, which will have a sustained presence in the country and project localities,
to ensure that commitment to improved approaches to natural resource management are
continued
ˇ Addressing national policies in other sectors to ensure synergies and consistencies with
environmental policies.
4.2.5
Project Supervision and Management System
123. With regard to local benefits and their linkages to environmental objectives, a
number of good practices in supervision were identified (see Box 4.7).
Box 4.7 Elements of Supervision Good Practice Concerning Local Benefits
ˇ Matching the skills mix of supervision personnel to the objectives of the project, including local
participation and benefits objectives
ˇ Ensuring that project supervision systems require coverage of poverty, gender, Indigenous
Peoples and participation, where these are part of the project design
ˇ Specifying a minimum level of actual field engagement of supervisors, including contact with
community stakeholders
ˇ
Carefully assessing the quality and independence of project evaluations
4.3 Challenges
to
Achievement of Local-Global Linkages
124. The third finding is that the majority of projects did not fully operationalize their
intent to link local and global benefits in design or implementation. Intended linkages
were not sufficiently taken into account, resulting in less local and global benefits than
intended. Several common shortcomings limited the effective linkage of local benefits to
the attainment of global environment benefits.
34
4.3.1 Undifferentiated Approaches to the Local Population
125. Many projects included in the study demonstrated inadequate differentiation of
the local population to enable them to take account of social factors relevant to project
performance.
126. The communities affected by projects often contained structural inequalities along
gender, class, ethnic or other lines. Participatory processes that did not take account of
the poor and marginalized further alienated the disadvantaged from resources upon which
they depend. The limited approach to both gender and poverty targeting is significant:
poverty issues were considered in the design of 36 of 132 projects (27%), while gender
was a consideration in 50 of the 132 projects (37%).
127. Different stakeholder groups were found to have structurally different patterns of
needs and relationships to the natural resources that are the target of the projects. Women,
indigenous people and the poor were often more dependent upon harvesting foods and
fuels and accessing natural resources for their livelihoods. Better-off sections of the
community were more interested in the commercial exploitation of these resources or in
converting common lands for private productive purposes.
128. In general, the projects reviewed lacked a coherent gender orientation. They
showed limited attention to gender issues, even though the needs, interests and
capabilities of women were habitually structurally different from those of men in relation
to the resources focused on by the projects. Many projects in which gender analysis and
gender-specific measures were weak or absent were also characterized by low
involvement of women in decision-making. In some instances, the lack of adequate
gender analysis and awareness led to negative impacts on women. Women in many
project areas were often economically, socially and politically marginalized, with poor
access to government institutions and little voice in local decision-making. Building on
an analysis of the role of women in natural resource use and management, GEF projects
have the opportunity to promote women's role in decision making in local and national
institutions associated with delivering the projects' objectives. They can create valuable
precedents in the field of environmental management by directly encouraging inclusion.
This was rarely done.
129. The skills and knowledge base of Indigenous Peoples often varied from those of
other communities. In some project localities, they have long been engaged in sustainable
harvesting of natural products, are highly dependent on local resources and have relevant
knowledge concerning sustainable management possibilities. Despite these factors, they
often faced barriers to their involvement in decision-making on new management
regimes.
4.3.2 Social
Analyses
130. A major factor underlying the undifferentiated approach adopted by many
projects was the lack of social analysis or assessment50 to identify differences within
local communities along resource access and use, gender, ethnic and poverty lines and for
35
developing appropriate strategies. Less than one quarter of all project documents referred
to any aspects of social analysis in their design process. Project documents for 19 out of
132 projects (14%) included reference to a full social assessment and a further 12 (9%) to
other forms of social analysis at the design stage.
131. There was greater emphasis on aspects of social analyses during implementation
in 51 of the 132 (39%) projects, with a further 6 (4.5%) also carrying out social
assessment. The use of social analyses in evaluation was infrequent.
132. The lack of analysis during design and preparation contributed to the finding that
project components that were intended to generate community level incentives did not
fully reflect the reality of local livelihoods. Without a design process based on an
understanding of the structure and dynamics of local social structures and livelihood
processes, the integration of viable and locally relevant livelihood enhancement activities
into projects was often ineffective.
133. Furthermore, projects were unable to use local knowledge and values or to base
themselves on an informed assessment of the long-term sustainability, social organization
and environmental impacts of the use of natural resources by local communities and
outsiders. This was particularly an issue for effective and sustainable conservation of
protected areas, where projects missed the opportunity to tap into the potential of
traditional patterns of ecosystems management by local communities and explore the
extent to which these could be blended with scientific knowledge to provide a basis for
effective and sustainable conservation of threatened ecosystems.
134. Even where social analysis was undertaken, a number of weaknesses reduced its
usefulness. Social assessment components were often treated as an "add-on" activity and
not as an essential building block for the entire project, which needs to be interlinked
with and inform the design of other components. Other unfavorable characteristics of
social assessments or analysis were found to include: (a) lack of specified methods and
components; (b) unclear objectives and focus; and (c) weak analysis of policies that may
impact attempts to foster local community involvement in resource management.
135. Projects reviewed which were prepared during the GEF pilot phase showed a lack
of design guidelines or standards for local development aspects. There are signs of
improvement in this situation over time and of 30 new projects reviewed by the study, 24
included some level of social analysis in their design. The challenge now is to build on
the inclusion of these dimensions in project design and to ensure that local social
dynamics are more effectively incorporated into implementation. The field research
showed that social data and analysis, even when available, are often not accorded priority
by project implementation teams
4.3.3 Negative Social Impacts
136. The study discovered that projects commonly faced challenges in dealing with
negative social impacts they caused. The following aspects contributed to this. Firstly,
not all agencies have specific policies covering such complex issues as relocation and
36
restriction of access, which greatly affect local support for new patterns of environmental
management. (The World Bank's revised policy on resettlement, OD4.12 has
comprehensive requirements covering these issues). In Agencies without such policies,
measures taken to redress loss of local assets are influenced by guidelines and the
discretion of project designers and implementers. This produces variable approaches,
including uncompensated losses. Such losses produce negative social impacts, reducing
the possibility of those sustainable environmental management approaches which
projects seek to foster. Secondly, many of the responsible officers in the IAs have
substantial competing interests for their management attention and GEF project issues
may not be their top priority. Thirdly, the (correct) emphasis on the global environmental
ends to be achieved according to the GEF mandate often marginalizes the social means
which may be necessary to attain them. Fourthly, risks posed to environmental well-
being by local resource management practices are not adequately situated within the
appropriate context of poverty and limited alternatives available to the population.
Fifthly, project preparation is often weak in its understanding of local communities and
their livelihoods, so the project managers are unaware in advance of potential conflicts
and therefore, do not make decisions on them at the best time.
4.3.4 Timing and Resources of Local Benefits Activities
137. Local benefits components, which were essential to generate changed resource
use patterns, were often not pursued with the resources or timing necessary to play their
intended role in project implementation. Projects were based on unrealistic expectations
of how quickly complex social and institutional processes could materialize. This was
particularly observed in relation to (a) the introduction of new policies and national
strategies, (b) the establishment and creation of sustainable operational capabilities of
new institutions, (c) the development of participatory processes, (d) the establishment of
new resource management regimes, and (e) the development of new livelihood activities
and business opportunities.
138. A related challenge was the ineffective sequencing of activities in project design
and/or implementation. The study found that activities to generate participation and local
support often occurred too late in the implementation process to play their intended role
in institutional development, resulting in limited local commitment to the mechanisms
intended to ensure attainment and sustainability of project objectives.
139. As implementation constraints emerged, projects gave less attention to the
underlying processes that activities were intended to influence. In projects needing to
scale down or speed up their activities, the first items to be reduced or omitted were those
considered to make an indirect contribution to project objectives, such as social
assessments, participatory approaches, and the development of livelihood alternatives
140. The incomplete implementation of such locally focused activities had substantial
consequences in relation to the sustainability of project outcomes and to activities such as
enhancing policy and regulatory frameworks, the development of participatory processes,
institutional capacity enhancement, building alternative livelihood opportunities and the
introduction of new resource management regimes.
37
4.3.5 Limitations of Projects and Funding Uncertainties
141. In part these constraints to local involvement and benefits stem from the nature
of projects, defined as stand-alone actions with discrete boundaries in time and space.
Local participation, creating community benefits, and changing people's behavior are
long-term processes that require sustained commitment and a set of activities that interact
with and seek to influence local processes of change.
142. Projects often correctly identified the scope of work at national policy levels in
institutional strengthening, stakeholder awareness-raising, creating effective local level
participation, and implementing specific investments and actions on the ground.
However, the time and resources available within the project framework did not permit
the necessary sequencing to take place.
143. These limitations of projects as vehicles for intervention are not GEF-specific.
Many international agencies have reduced their reliance on projects in favor of program
and sectoral approaches. Given that the GEF is dealing with inherently long-term,
complex and diffuse processes, its current reliance on projects as a major tool has
implications for its capacity to deliver effective and sustainable outcomes.
144. Many project proponents at IA and national levels indicated their preference for
more attention to the social dimensions of environmental management in the projects
they were implementing. Uncertainty over what the GEF would be willing to fund,
coupled with the long time taken to develop projects, influenced project designers to limit
the scope of proposed activities to those that they felt were unequivocally within the GEF
sphere. The GEF has not offered any clear guidelines in support of the role played by
local benefits in generating support for improved environmental management. National
authorities have therefore often perceived that activities that had strong local and
developmental elements should be excluded, to minimize the possibility of delay or
rejection.
145. These uncertainties resulted in decisions to exclude local level activities that
would further community engagement and generate local benefits. In several cases,
national authorities said that they thought these activities were essential for sustainable
changes in environmental management and should have been included, but that their
perception was that they would be rejected by the GEF. As a result, project proponents
exhibited a tendency to define new activities in terms of what has been successfully
funded in the past. This indirectly discouraged the development of innovative approaches
in new projects, which are intended to be a major characteristic of the GEF approach. The
area of the perceptions and understandings of different stakeholders concerning what is
"GEF-able" is an important one, since these perceptions play a major role in determining
the direction and structure of GEF activities at national level. The study team felt this to
be an area, which could fruitfully be studied in more depth at a later stage.
38
4.3.6 National Dimensions of Implementation
146. The GEF relies on its partnership with program country governments. Based
on the adherence to the relevant international conventions and agreements, these
governments are seen as the main actors in projects intended to conserve global
resources. Since many projects deal with national policy frameworks, capacity building,
coordination, national park management, industrial development and regulation of the
private sector, government bodies appear well placed to manage them. However, project
implementation was often found to be restricted to a narrow range of technical line
agencies, with little participation from other branches of government, civil society or the
private sector.
147. In practice, implementation through a government line agency often proved
problematic in projects that depend on the active participation of local communities.
Particular problems arising included (a) determining the most appropriate form and scope
of local involvement; (b) determining appropriate institutional modalities for project
delivery, (c) lack of capacities and experience of centralized departments in interacting
with local communities; (d) unfavorable budgetary decisions in cases of financial
constraints; and (e) lack of openness to and trust of local populations, where previous
government interventions are perceived to have failed or disadvantaged local
communities.
148. The concept of national ownership was often found to follow a narrow
interpretation of "country endorsement". Broad involvement--beyond central
government to include lower levels of government, the private sector and civil society--
was rarely pursued, although such an approach is more likely to foster a truly national
sense of ownership which can sustain environmental gains beyond the duration of
individual projects.
149. National authorities often reported that their ability to define and direct GEF-
supported activities was limited. Case study respondents referred to the broad range of
institutions and systems involved in GEF activities, which seem to them to be poorly
coordinated. This situation is compounded by uncertainties at country level over the roles
and responsibilities of the different agencies and actors in the GEF network, notably
concerning the role of the GEFSEC, which has a low profile within partner countries and
concerning how the IAs operate differently as GEF implementers, than in their own
mainstream portfolios.
150. The capacity of the implementing national institutions, whether government,
NGO or other, was often found to be insufficient to deliver the anticipated results. This
included examples of projects in which centralized, traditionally non-participatory
Ministries were given the responsibility for implementing projects intended to be
decentralized and participatory; as well as cases in which local NGOs were given
responsibilities which were too far removed from their previous experience. Institutional
analysis, which can assist in terms of defining what capabilities already exist and in
relation to the definition of local benefit strategies, was often not undertaken or did not
address these issues.
39
151. Few project designs included assessment of existing local institutional capacities
or attempted to integrate existing local bodies into project implementation. Project
community-level participatory activities were usually based on establishing new
institutions at the local level, such as forest users' groups and fishermen' cooperatives.
As a result, the new institutions often duplicated or came into conflict with existing local
associations, bodies or groups. Since projects did not capture the knowledge base of local
communities, the steps taken to build institutional capacities were less effective than
anticipated. The process of institutional capacity building and skills development was
primarily a one-way transfer of external concepts and approaches to communities,
reducing likelihood of internalization and sustainability.
152. The involvement of civil society organizations, such as community based
organizations and NGOs, as well as the private sector was shown by the study to present
a substantial challenge to GEF activities. The role of national and local NGOs needs to be
further developed. Currently, they are often involved in a subordinate capacity to
international NGOs or government agencies and play the role of implementers or sub-
contractors of activities, the development of which has been undertaken by others. This
misses one of the key benefits of working with such bodies, namely the important role
they can play in bringing the local perspective into project development. The positive
side of such arrangements is that they allow local NGOs to gain experience in the
relatively complex procedures of GEF projects. The study found that, where they have
played a substantial role, such NGOs (including local branches of some international
NGOs) have been particularly effective at building local support and participation,
thereby making a positive contribution to the sustainability of project objectives. As part
of the essential preparations for collaboration with national NGOs, a careful assessment
should be made of their skills and capacities and of any strengthening needed to enable
them to effectively play the role foreseen for them.
4.3.7
Capacity Building
153. The study found that, in addition to the need to broaden the range of stakeholders
involved in GEF projects, the capacities of these partners often need support and
enhancement. This applies to the full range of stakeholders. The capacity of government
departments to interact effectively with local communities is often low. Project staff
(whether national or internationally-recruited) often lack skills in participatory
approaches and NGOs may lack the experience and capacity to implement large project
components. Local communities also need assistance to manage natural resources better
or to develop new livelihoods and business capacities.
154. Often, the process of capacity building was delivered as a one-way transmission
of external knowledge, which was assumed to be able to replace the existing knowledge
amongst local communities and government staff, who have lived and worked for long
periods in close proximity to the resources targeted for conservation. Local knowledge
was not seen as an asset that can play an important role in improved environmental
management regimes.
40
155. Finally, a challenge is to ensure that capacities that are built in project lifetimes
and with project resources are sustainable. The purpose of GEF projects is in general to
create long-term changes to conditions that support conservation, but staff trained by
projects are often re-deployed or are unable to use their new skills in existing institutional
structures and procedures. Equipment purchased cannot be maintained and is not
replaced when redundant. Expected revenue streams do not materialize, which is
particularly challenging where these revenues are meant to support community level
facilities or activities. Above all, adequate long-term budgets are not allocated to keep
systems going once projects finish. Often, the project timescale of three to five years is
not sufficient to develop such long term capacity strengthening, leaving project
implementers with an unsolvable problem. This points towards the need to design and
approve projects with longer time frames, to make project objectives less ambitious, or to
move towards more programmatic or blended approaches in those countries where this is
possible with the available resources.
4.3.8 Participation and Involvement of Local Communities
156. Where the involvement of local communities was identified as important in
project design, projects commonly focused on ensuring community support for pre-
defined project objectives. The projects generally applied awareness campaigns to
persuade communities to change their behavior towards the environment without
exploring the role that natural resources played in their own livelihood strategies. The
study found few examples of projects engaging communities in dialogue concerning their
perspective on the proposed intervention, which could be used to develop approaches that
met local needs, as well as those of the global environment.
157. The involvement of local communities to directly generate alternative
opportunities or other forms of incentives was also uncommon. For example, in the 24
International Waters projects for which completion evaluation reports are available, half
made reference to community participation in their design and of these less than half (i.e.
less than 25% of the 24 projects) considered the local population as agents in and direct
beneficiaries of the projects. Whilst IW projects often have components which can
succeed without such participation, they also have substantial elements that ultimately
depend on changed behavior (such as fishing practices, waste management and
agricultural techniques) and ultimately depend on community level support.
158. Of the 31 IA completion reports for Climate Change projects reviewed, less than
half emphasized participation in design and, in those that did, local people were primarily
seen as consumers of renewable energy technologies, rather than active agents of change
who should be involved in decision-making. Comparing this body of evidence with that
from the field studies, it emerged that this approach produces difficulties in meeting local
expectations of an energy supply and over-estimates the degree of priority communities
attach to the limited supply of household energy which most renewable sources deliver.
159. In-depth case studies revealed that participation components of projects tended to
be marginal to overall project activities. For example, participation was confined to
responses to decisions already made by external stakeholders with limited possibility of
41
substantive influence by local communities or training was identified by outsiders to
advance project goals in relation to global environmental assets, but did not respond to
local needs and interests.
160. In general, the approaches to participation in project design were not based on an
effective assessment of local social dynamics and capabilities and were therefore not
adequately tailored to the specific circumstances. This limited their scope and
effectiveness. In particular, the inclusion of local participation in decision-making was
found to be limited. Even when information from social analysis was available, there was
little evidence of its use to guide project decision-making. Often participation was
reduced to informing people of decisions taken by government or project authorities and
organizing local people to contribute to the implementation of activities defined by
others. Participation rarely entailed empowerment under which local stakeholders could
exercise influence over key decisions on the allocation and management of natural
resources. Where such an approach was adopted, it proved more effective in generating
sustainable local "buy-in" than less intensive forms of stakeholder involvement.
4.3.9 Project Design and Implementation
161. Inadequate assessment of the feasibility of activities upon which the attainment
of project objectives depended was found to be a pervasive challenge. In many of the
solar PV projects in the climate change portfolio, the design was based on the
establishment of widespread dissemination through commercial channels based on small-
scale local entrepreneurs. The commercial feasibility of this business was not established
through market research and cost analysis. The same was observed in biodiversity
projects that sought to establish tourism as a key livelihood alternative to the extraction of
resources from conservation areas. Alternative income generating activities and eco-
tourism were promoted on the basis of insufficient market or capacity assessment to
enable the development of effective socio-economic incentives and ensure affordability
of technologies among poor rural communities. In many locations, where opportunities
for sustainable livelihoods are very limited, alternative income generating programs did
not deliver the anticipated benefits and it was clear that the best options for generating
and sustaining local support lie in linking improved environmental management with
broader development programs through co-financing or blended approaches
162. A contributory factor to low awareness and integration of local community
concerns is the skills mix deployed at portfolio and project levels. The GEF project cycle
currently depends largely on "technical" skills in design, appraisal, monitoring and
evaluation. Although the Implementing Agencies have staff or consultant expertise on
rural development, poverty, NGO cooperation and social involvement, it is clear that
inputs to most GEF projects are heavily weighted towards specialists with natural science
and economic expertise. Furthermore, the GEF Secretariat currently incorporates no
social science experts and is advised by a Scientific, Technical and Advisory panel with a
strong predominance of natural scientists.
163. In view of the conclusion of this study, that local benefits play a key role in
substantial areas of the GEF portfolio, in generating and sustaining improved
42
environmental management, the inconsistent application of social science expertise
across the GEF family is a shortcoming, which needs to be addressed.
164. The study found limitations in the supervision, monitoring and evaluation of
projects related to aspects of local benefits. These made it difficult to identify problems
as they emerged, to assess the effectiveness of activities, and to generate lessons that
could guide changes to approaches and implementation modalities. For example, a total
of 131 projects included the intention of participation in their design, but only 55 referred
to this participation in their supervision or evaluation reports.
165. With regard to monitoring during implementation, the systems of reporting to the
GEF do not provide sufficient information on stakeholder involvement or local livelihood
benefits and impacts. Participation is often referred to in terms of the number and
attendance of project meetings, without verification of local responses to the process or
detailed assessment of community involvement in stakeholder participation. Poverty and
gender, two factors intrinsically linked to natural resource management, were rarely
addressed in supervision reports. The failure to undertake planned project components
intended to provide local benefits was often not mentioned in supervision reports. In
practice, there is a clear downward trend in project intention from awareness raising
exercises, which are almost universally present, towards full participation, which is
relatively rare. Project management documents are generally vague concerning the level
of actual community engagement achieved and almost any level of contact with local
communities is counted as participation.
166. Further, a number of evaluations did not analyze why project components related
to local participation or benefits were not implemented; while many lacked substantive
analysis of the practice and achievements of community involvement. One underlying
cause is that the GEF project design systems do not require detailed information in these
areas and they are not therefore included in Terms of Reference for Evaluations. The lack
of specificity in project design of participatory processes, intended local benefits and
development outcomes makes their subsequent assessment difficult.
167. Many evaluations were limited by Terms of Reference, which did not grasp the
importance of social issues because these do not figure prominently in the original project
documents. Since the GEF has not yet attempted on any scale to evaluate impacts after
project completion, there is little objective information to assess the most effective
approaches in the long term for linking local to global benefits, which could inform
approaches to replication or to the adaptation of approaches of projects in the pipeline or
under implementation.
4.3.10 Knowledge Sharing and Strengthening Management Systems
168. The GEF portfolio now encompasses more than a thousand projects, many of
which have been evaluated by the relevant IAs. Yet, the study found little evidence of
systematic learning on issues relevant to local-global benefits linkages. Knowledge
sharing and learning from experience did not emerge as major themes in the GEF
portfolio. This is an important constraint given the intention of the GEF to use its limited
43
resources to develop innovative and catalytic approaches, which others may replicate or
learn from. The GEF Secretariat has welcomed the recommendations of the recent
Program Studies that it should develop a knowledge management strategy and system
and tap into the systems of the IAs in a more effective manner. Recently, project review
criteria have placed more emphasis on this dimension.
169. This study finds that GEF processes present specific impediments to lesson
learning with regard to local community involvement, linkages between local and global
benefits and participation. Primarily, knowledge is generated within focal areas and for
focal area practitioners, and tailored accordingly. Cross-cutting lessons are less regularly
captured. The emerging GEF Knowledge Management strategy is proposed to be
implemented through a focal area pilot, the Climate Change area, which has already been
active in producing lessons documents. So far, these have been mainly organized
according to technology or Operational Program. There is a danger that the lack of a clear
institutional champion for lessons on social aspects of the portfolio will mean that this
area is under-represented in the emerging knowledge products.
170. This presents a challenge: how to establish an effective process of learning from
experience which incorporates the areas of local community involvement and benefits.
This process should not just be internal to the GEF. Other institutions, large and small,
local and international, have a wealth of experience from which lessons could be derived.
It will be important for Council to ensure that its emphasis on measurable results does not
promote a conservative and uncritical approach. Some of the elements of a potentially
effective approach, derived from the current shortcomings, are suggested in Box 4.8.
Box 4.8 Elements of an Approach to Generate More Effective Learning from Experience of
Linkages Between Local and Global Benefits
Availability of staff with appropriate specializations to address the issue
More effective use by the inter-agency Task Forces of evidence from evaluations and other
independent studies commissioned by IAs or by GEFOME
More effective recording of innovative activities in the portfolio and of their achievements
Systematic gathering and verification of evidence of good practice, together with analysis of
which elements are context specific and which can provide a more generic basis for improvement
Incentives for the adoption of improved approaches
Increased sharing of experiences and lessons with external players active in fields relevant to the
GEF
4.4
Constraints on "Win-Win" Outcomes
171. The fourth finding is that expectations of `Win-Win' situations for global and
local benefits proved unrealistic in many cases. It has been difficult to attain in practice
win-win situations that are sustainable and replicable, partly due to insufficient attention
to the development of alternative courses of action and trade-offs, the potential for
negative impacts, and the need to develop mitigation strategies. Many GEF interventions
require trade-offs to be made between environmental conservation or restoration and
existing local or national resource uses. This is implicit in the core GEF concept of
incremental costs.
44
172. Most projects in the biodiversity portfolio and many in international waters
involve some form of restriction of existing patterns of resource exploitation, which will
lead to a loss of livelihood to communities or sectors of communities. Indeed, the
provision of alternative income generating activities and eco-tourism incentives in many
projects implicitly acknowledges a trade-off relationship, but such interventions often
lacked analyses of the community to ascertain appropriate targeting of interventions. The
climate change portfolio is in this sense less involved in trade-offs at community level,
since provision of energy or gains in energy efficiency are likely to produce both local
and global benefits.
173. The evidence of this study points to the need for projects and programs to assess
varying possible relationships between resource users and the environment, as well as
trade-offs between different levels of intervention. In essence, there are initially winners
and losers at local and national scales in almost all interventions. One of the key
contributions of local benefits components is to provide opportunities for recompense to
local community members who have suffered livelihood loss from project-induced
changes in environmental management regimes, thereby promoting sustainable support
for those changes.
174. Projects studied, which carefully assessed losses likely to be sustained by
different community groups and tailored appropriate compensatory approaches, achieved
significant improvements in local support for enhanced environmental management. Such
approaches were based on detailed understanding of existing natural resource use and
management obtained through early social and stakeholder analysis. Effective
interventions were built on community participation at the design stage, producing an
appropriate blend of sustainable use and additional income generating opportunities,
combined with well-focused capacity-building and strengthened local and customary
institutions.
45
END-NOTES
1 See GEF (2003) The Nature and Role of Local Benefits in GEF Program Areas: Inception Report and
Methodology. GEF Office of Monitoring and Evaluation. Washington DC.
2 GEF (2002) The First Decade of the GEF: Second Overall Performance Study, Washington D.C., page 5.
3 This typology is discussed in detail in the study inception report GEF (2003) The Nature and Role of
Local Benefits in GEF Program Areas: Inception Report and Methodology Outline GEF, Washington D.C.
http://thegef.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEOngoingEvaluations/MEOLocalBenefits/DOC13__Methodo
logy15th_AUG.doc and
http://thegef.org/MonitoringandEvaluation/MEOngoingEvaluations/MEOLocalBenefits/DOC14__Inceptio
n_report.doc
4 GEF (2003) The Nature and Role of Local Benefits in GEF Program Areas: Inception Report and
Methodology Outline GEF, Washington D.C.
5 Including national policy contexts.
6 See also UNCCD Article 20; GEF also serves as `a' financial mechanism to the Stockholm Convention on
Persistent Organic Pollutants and also provides financial support for the Montreal Protocol of the Vienna
Convention on Ozone Depleting Substances and the regional seas and international waters agreements such
as the UN Law of the Sea.
7 As the financial mechanism to the GEF agreed that financed activities would conform to the CBD articles
and guidance received from the Conference of Parties (COP).
8 See Preamble and Articles 8 (c), (j); 10; 11; 13 of the UNCBD
9 Although issues surrounding access and benefit sharing have yet to be resolved.
10 The COP meets biannually to provide further guidance and specificity to the parties (countries) on the
implementation of the Convention. Critically, it also provides guidance to the GEF, in terms of funding
priorities.
11 Decision I/2 annex III. Program priorities.
12 Decision V/6. The ecosystem approach is a `strategy for the integrated management of land, water and
living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. Thus, the application
assists the convention in reaching a balance between the objectives of conservation, sustainable use and
benefit sharing. The ecosystem approach principles place a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary
management through decentralization of governance over biological diversity and stress `ownership,
accountability, participation and use of local knowledge'; management of temporal and spatial scales
involving managers, scientists and indigenous and local communities; consideration of all forms of relevant
knowledge including scientific and local, and indigenous knowledge, innovations and practices; and
involvement of all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines.
13 See Decision VII/20. The Bonn Guidelines (Decision VI/24) and the Addis Principles stress involvement
of local and indigenous communities, synergies between conservation and poverty alleviation efforts.
14 Particularly in relation to articles 8 11, 13 & 15 and Decision II/6 para.10 (UNEP, 2003: 341); Decision
III/5 para 2; 3 5 (ibid: 374); Decision IV/13 para 8 (ibid: 501); Decision V/13 para 2 (a), (b), (g), (h), (i),
(l); Decision VI/17 (ibid: 775)
15 For example the IUCN World Parks Congress in 2003 with its focus on `benefits beyond boundaries'
raised the issue of poverty and conservation prior to COPVII. The issue was further debated and explored
at the World Conservation Congress in November 2004. The GEF has not actively been involved in the
discussion of these issues.
16 The CBD has recently issued guidelines on biodiversity and tourism development -
http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/socio-eco/tourism/guidelines.asp
17 SBSTTA Program of Work on Protected Areas Decision VII/28.
18 The sampled projects in the study span COPI (1994) to IV (1998).
19 Article 6 para.1
20 Particularly Articles 4.1, 4.6, 4.8 and 4.10.
21 Decision 6/CP.7 para.1 (b).
22 Ibid para 1 (h)
46
23 At COP7 it was decided that there was a need for new and additional funding beyond allocation already
made to the GEF Trust Fund23. The Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) was established to provide
support for technology transfer and capacity building, adaptation, forestry, energy, transport and economic
diversification.23 The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) was established to fund national adaptation
strategic planning for LDCs23 in recognition of their particular constraints and vulnerability to climate
change; and the Adaptation Fund (AF) will provide `concrete funding' for projects and programs under the
Protocol. COP9 further decided that the SCCF activities should be linked to poverty reduction strategies.
These activities are not covered by any of the sampled projects.
24 Previous to this GEF viewed implemented measures related to land degradation and desertification under
the aegis of guidance from UNCBD and UNFCCC. See UNCCD Article 20, para.2 (b).
25 See Article 2, para.1
26 See UNCCD Articles 4 6
27 Page 10: GEF (2004) Instrument for the Establishment of the Restructured Global Environment Facility.
GEF Secretariat. Washington DC.
28 GEF (1996) Operational Strategy. GEF Secretariat. Washington DC.
29 Ibid: 3.
30 Ibid: 3
31 Ibid: 4
32 Ibid: 3 7
33 Note: land degradation was not included as a Focal Area. It is included in Table 1 based on the draft
scoping paper presented to GEF Council in November 2004 GEF/C.24/6 and OP15.
34 GEF (1996) Operational Strategy. GEF Secretariat. Washington DC
35 Ibid: 20
36 Ibid: 32 33
37 Ibid: 49 & 51
38 See page 85 87 in Griffiths, T (2004) Indigenous Peoples and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)
Indigenous Peoples' experiences of GEF- funded Biodiversity Conservation - A critical study. Forest
Peoples Program. Morten-in-the-Marsh.
39 One added to Biodiversity and Climate Change; one for Persistent Organic Pollutants and Land
Degradation; and one Multi-Focal OP covering `integrated ecosystem management'
40 Based on convention guidance where necessary and appropriate.
41 GEF Council Joint Summary of the Chairs (February 1995): para.3
42 GEF (1994) Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase. UNDP, UNEP and
World Bank. Washington DC.
43 GEF (1996) Public Involvement Policy. GEF Secretariat. Washington DC.
44 In 1995 GEF Council requested the GEFSEC to prepare a `policy on information disclosure and public
involvement. GEF Council Joint Summary of the Chairs (February 1995): para.3
45 The need for a policy on public involvement stemmed from problems concerning stakeholder
involvement and particularly in relation to local community and NGO that were highlighted by the Pilot
Phase evaluation. GEF (1994) Global Environment Facility: Independent Evaluation of the Pilot Phase.
UNDP, UNEP and World Bank. Washington DC.
46 GEF/C.10/Inf.6 Finance for GEF projects that have Incremental Domestic Benefits.
47 The project cycle does not provide a clear definition of `marginal groups'.
48 Including indigenous peoples.
49 For example, related to sustaining social and cultural reception of climate change mitigation technologies
50 Social assessment is a process for ensuring that development operation (i) are informed by and take into
account the key relevant social issues; and (ii) incorporate a participation strategy for involving a wide
range of stakeholders. Social assessment typically identifies stakeholders (including institutional
arrangements) and identifies and prioritizes social issues such as poverty, age, ethnicity and gender and also
establishes a participatory process. Social analysis is a one of the components of social assessment it
focuses on one or more of the following demographics, socio-economics (including resource access and
use), social and institutional organization and capacities and needs and values; in order to account for social
difference, assess risk and impact, mitigate adverse impacts and build capacity of individuals and
institutions. See Rietbergen-McCracken et al., (1997) A Resource Kit for Participation and Social
Assessment. World Bank. Washington DC
47
ANNEXES
1. STUDY TEAM
David Michael Todd Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Task Manager
Lee Alexander Risby Consultant Evaluation Specialist
Professor John Soussan Stockholm Environment Institute
Aaron Zazueta Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
Siv Tokle Senior Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist
Rebecca Frischkorn Consultant Research Assistant
2. GEF SECRETARIAT AND IMPLEMENTING AGENCY PARTICIPANTS
Gonzalo Castro GEFSEC Team Leader Biodiversity Program
Mario Ramos GEFSEC Biodiversity Program Manager
Juha Uitto Senior Evaluation Specialist UNDP Evaluation Office
Jyotsna Puri Consultant Evaluation Specialist UNDP GEF
Olaf Lundstol Senior Climate Change Specialist UNDP Regional Office (Bangkok)
Miguel Perez-Torralba Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist UNDP GEF
Kanta Kumari-Rigaud World Bank Senior Environmental Specialist
Kathy Mackinnon World Bank Lead Biodiversity Specialist
Sam Wedderburn World Bank Senior Operations Officer
3. ADVISORY PANEL
Professor Michael Cernea Department of Anthropology, GW University
Dr. Jon Hutton Regional Director Africa Program. Fauna and Flora International
Dr. Julia Carabias STAP Chairperson
Christoper Whaley STAP Coordinator
Esther Camac NGO Representative
Clemencia Vela Indigenous Peoples Representative
Eric Bjornebye Government of Norway
Ole Overaas Government of Norway
Eva Tobisson Government of Sweden
Amalia Garcia-Tharn Government of Sweden
Britt-Marie Hartvig Government of Sweden
Valerie Young Canadian International Development Agency
Ellen Hagerman Canadian International Development Agency
48
4. NATIONAL CASE STUDY TEAMS
Argentina and Bolivia (International Waters)
Aaron Zazueta (GEFOME)
Christoper van Dam (National Consultant)
Miguel Castro-Arze (National Consultant)
Belize (Biodiversity)
Professor John Soussan (SEI)
Kanta Kumari (GEFSEC now World Bank)
Kathy Mackinnon (World Bank)
Stacey Noel (National Consultant)
Rachael Graham (National Consultant)
Bolivia (Biodiversity)
Miguel Castro-Arze (National Consultant)
Ghana (Biodiversity)
David M. Todd (GEFOME)
Sam Wedderburn (World Bank)
Dr. Paul Sarfo-Mensah (National Consultant)
Ernestina Fredua Antoh (National Consultant)
Rev. Dr. Akwasi Owusu-Bi (National Consultant)
Ghana (Climate Change)
David M. Todd (GEFOME)
Sam Wedderburn (World Bank)
Stephen Nkansa Buabeng (National Consultant)
Ernestina Fredua Antoh (National Consultant)
India (Climate Change)
Juha Uitto (UNDP)
Dirk R Frans (SEI)
Nilufar Matin (SEI)
V. Ratna Reddy (SEI)
Indonesia (Biodiversity)
Andreas Liebenthal (World Bank OED)
Kenya (Biodiversity)
Lee Alexander Risby (GEFOME)
Jyotsna Puri (UNDP)
49
Dr. Robert Malpas (National Consultant)
Robert Craig (National Consultant)
Elizabeth Kamau (National Consultant)
Nepal (Biodiversity)
Lee Alexander Risby (GEFOME)
Mario Ramos (GEFSEC)
Jyotsna Puri (UNDP)
Santosh Rayamajhi (National Consultant)
Kanta Singh (National Consultant)
Pakistan (Climate Change)
Lee Alexander Risby (GEFOME)
Jyotsna Puri (UNDP)
Philippines (Biodiversity)
David M. Todd (GEFOME)
Enrique A. Nuņez, Jr. (National Consultant)
Philippines (Climate Change)
David M. Todd (GEFOME)
Olav Lundstol (UNDP)
Sam Wedderburn (World Bank)
Enrique A. Nuņez, Jr. (National Consultant)
Romania (Biodiversity)
Professor Michael Cernea (Advisory Panel Member)
Gonzalo Castro (GEFSEC)
Mirela Apostol (National Consultant)
Alexandra Clemett (SEI)
Nicoleta Damian (National Consultant)
Dirk R Frans (SEI)
Veronica Mitroi (National Consultant)
Emil Pîslaru (National Consultant)
Cosima Rughini (National Consultant)
Senegal (Climate Change)
Siv Tokle (GEFOME)
Miguel Perez-Torralba (UNDP)
Abdoulaye Sene (National Consultant)
Ndickou Fatou Diaw (National Consultant)
Ibrahima Dieng (National Consultant)
Tanzania (Biodiversity)
Lee Alexander Risby (GEFOME)
50
Jyotsna Puri (UNDP)
Professor George Jambiya (National Consultant)
Yemen (International Waters)
Professor John Soussan (SEI)
Professor Michael Cernea (Advisory Panel Member)
Dr. Khalid I Al-Hariri (National Consultant)
Yemen (Biodiversity)
Professor John Soussan (SEI)
Professor Michael Cernea (Advisory Panel Member)
Dr. Khalid I Al-Hariri (National Consultant)
5. CONSULTATIONS
The study team undertook a number of informal and formal internal and external
consultations during the study to gain additional insights and input, including from other
studies.
GEF Secretariat
Yasemin Biro Environmental Specialist
Chona Cruz Former Senior Social Scientist (Now World Bank)
Al Duda Lead Environmental Specialist
Mohammed El-Ashry Former CEO
Len Good CEO
Andrea Kutter Natural Resource Specialist
Walter Lusigi Senior Environmental Specialist
Ramesh Ramankutty Head, Operations and Business Strategy
UNDP
Clarissa Arida Project Officer (Philippines)
Benoit Bihamiriza Project Manager (Tanzania)
Darshani De Silva Project Officer (Sri Lanka)
John Hough Principle Technical Adviser (Biodiversity)
Alexandra Kakekaho Program Officer (Uganda)
Abdul Qadir Program Officer (Pakistan)
Asenaca Ravuvu Project Officer (Fiji)
Alan Rodgers Regional Coordinator (East Africa)
Nina Saalisma Project Officer (Guatemala)
Vijaya Singh Project Officer (Nepal)
Godfrey Turyahikayo Project Manager (Uganda)
UNEP
Shelia Aggrawal-Khan Assistant Director (GEF)
Segbedzi Norgbey Director Evaluation and Oversight Office
51
World Bank
Gabriella Arcos Operations Officer (Ecuador)
Koffi Ekouvei Energy Economist (Mali)
Anil Cabraal Lead Energy Specialist (Indonesia)
Steve Gorman Lead Environmental Specialist
Kristine Ivarsdotter Senior Social Development Specialist (Kenya)
Ian Johnson Vice President ESSD
Steen Jorgensen Sector Director Social Development
Richard Kaguamba Natural Resources Specialist (Kenya)
Asmeen Khan Senior Rural Development Specialist (Indonesia)
Andreas Liebenthal Lead Evaluation Officer (Indonesia)
Ernst Lutz Senior Economist (Kenya / Tanzania / Uganda)
Patience Mensah Senior Agricultural Economist (Ghana)
William Magrath Lead Natural Resource Economist (Lao)
Fanny Missfeldt-Ringius Energy Specialist (Tunisia)
Keith Oblitas Lead Operations Officer (Philippines)
Felicity Proctor Rural Development Adviser
Robert Ragland-Davis Senior Forestry Specialist (Argentina)
Claudia Sobrevila Senior Environmental Specialist
Warren van Wicklin III Consultant Quality Assurance Group
Alonso Zarzar-Casis Senior Social Scientist
IUCN
Alejandro Imbach IUCN Asia Program Coordinator
Nancy MacPherson IUCN Senior Adviser Performance Management
Stewart Maginnis IUCN Head Forest Conservation
Edmund Barrow IUCN East Africa Regional Office
Eldad Tukahirwa IUCN East Africa Regional Office
Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend IUCN CEESP
Taghi Farvar IUCN CEESP Chairperson
Others
Tom Blomley Royal Danish Embassy (Tanzania)
Dan Brockington Institute of Development Policy & Management, Manchester Uni
Jock Campbell Exeter University
Marcus Colchester Forest Peoples Program
Phil Franks CARE International Integrated Conservation & Development Coordinator
Joanna Elliot Department for International Development (UK)
David Howlett Department for International Development (UK)
Sam Kanyambiwa World Wildlife Fund East Africa Regional Director
Michel Pimbert International Institute of Environment and Development
Dilys Roe International Institute of Environment and Development
Kai Schmidt-Soltau GTZ conservation consultant
Michael Wells Independent consultant / evaluator
Karen Zwick Social Scientist (Tanzania)
52
Document Outline