Enhance the effectiveness of Bank Group efforts to protect vital local and global environmental services and values by building more meaningful community participation into design and management of protected areas. Consider the following actions: include communities in the design of new or expanded protected areas and in decision-making about management of those areas, assisting with expanded tenure and resource security where applicable, and use innovative techniques to monitor biodiversity assess the welfare and livelihoods of persons living in and around a protected area system and use resettlement instruments to mitigate any potential negative impacts caused by the project intervention include in project preparation an assessment of land ownership and use claims, including but not limited to customary and traditional land claims grazing, harvesting, farming, and transit rights and access to fuel sources and fodder also assess the contribution of forest resources to household security.
Protected areas are more effective at reducing deforestation when they are designed and managed by the people that live in and around them and depend on the forest for resources. Poverty can be exacerbated by limiting or restricting communities access to forests through the creation or expansion of a park or a protected area if due consideration is not paid to livelihoods. While projects are triggering OP 4.12, with few exceptions, those projects are not reporting on whether the potential adverse impacts on livelihoods have been mitigated.
Original Response: Agreed: Management agrees that effective community participation is essential for improving the management of protected areas and will continue to support this approach in its forest biodiversity conservation projects. Communities however lack the specialized technical skills needed to design protected areas, especially when a park is being gazetted to protect biodiversity. Solid technical knowledge about which biomes need to be protected as global public goods, and the role of the public sector in establishing protected areas and regulating land use within them, remain critical and should not be compromised because of a perception that somehow communities can do this better. Having said this, management effectiveness ultimately depends on deal making and negotiation and agreement over rights of use and access. The Bank has consistently supported measures more fully to engage communities in protected area management, and has an impressive record to support this view. With respect to OP4.12, Management agrees that more systematic reporting of progress in mitigating and, where necessary, offsetting adverse impacts on livelihoods would also be useful. The Bank is already working on ensuring that reporting on the application of safeguard instruments is more thorough. Currently, reporting on safeguards performance is covered in publicly disclosed supervision mission reports. More systematic report at project completion would be helpful.
WB Action 1A: Prepare a âBiodiversity Roadmapâ which describes the broad institutional approach for mainstreaming biodiversity into WBG operations, including a focus on community participation in design and management of protected areas.
Indicator: Clear institutional approach for mainstreaming forest biodiversity conservation is in place.
Baseline: The last position paper on biodiversity was prepared 5 years ago.
Target: Biodiversity Roadmap completed
Timeline: FY14
WB Action 1B: Work with Biodiversity Community of Practice (BioCOP) to design database framework which accurately captures information about community engagement in forest biodiversity operations
Indicator: Database design completed
Baseline: Existing database
Target: Re-designed database framework is in place ready to be populated
Timeline: FY14
Status: Completed
WB Action 1C: Launch and complete the process of populating the new biodiversity database
Indicator: Robust database exists with comprehensive information on biodiversity operations.
Baseline: The current database tracks project budget only, is not robust and is inconsistently updated
Target: The database is populated and up-to-date, including staff assigned with responsibility for populating and managing it. Timeline: Operational by FY14.
WB Action 1D: Through the Biodiversity COP, collate and prepare ESW on proxy indicators which will enable TTLs to better engage communities and maximize poverty alleviation in biodiversity operations.
Indicator: Number of tools and guidance notes developed.
Baseline: Various guidance notes which address CDD are available, but few of these explicitly address biodiversity conservation.
Target: ESW prepared.
Timeline: FY15.
WB Action 1E: Pipeline forest biodiversity conservation investments have stronger community participation in development and implementation.
Indicator: Number of operations targeted for ramping up support in this area
Baseline: No operations are specifically targeted and tracked with this objective in mind.
Target: 5 operations in the forests portfolio pipeline include monitorable outcomes related to improved community participation in forest protected area design and management.
Timeline: Ongoing after completion of Action 1D, as project pipeline permits.
Actions A, B, C and D were completed. These outputs were sequenced to provide a biodiversity roadmap, a database, to populate the database and to produce a piece of AAA on proxy indicators.
Action 1E is directly aligned with the recommendation. The Forest team supplemented METT and Citizen Engagement data with new information on the way that communities are being integrated into the design and management of protected areas in fragile areas, including in projects that change land use schemes. Prior, the response had lacked evidence that the recommendation was was completed. This is because the METT was cited as evidence, but the METT is an index. In the METT, there are 5 questions that could generate scoring on participation (7a, 24 and 24 a,b,c), with a max. score of 7 out of a possible score of 99. The METT questions on Design (#5) does not include a score for participation, and the question on the Management Plan (#7) has only one possible bonus point. The reference to the METT is thus insufficient to determine how affected persons were engaged and the strength of this engagement.
This recommendation was focused on protected area creation or strengthening. There are several forest project examples provided, not all of which include support for PAs. The CE indicators are very meaningful and in some cases are aligned with the spirit of the recommendation. However, IEG's Portfolio review of projects approved after the Forest Evaluation found that Forest projects that are seeking to create or strengthen protected areas, including in support of wildlife preservation, are not tending to or measuring the social and welfare related risks that are inherent to more restrictive land use schemes. These projects are gazetting or increasing the level of protection of forest areas - in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Lao - but they do not include indicators to track welfare effects that occur as a result of the World bank supported land use change. The potential loss of access to natural capital and thus economic assets was pointed out as a risk in the forest evaluation.
Most projects (13 our of 16 ) refer to the need to address land tenure or rights and propose some form of land tenure activity as part of the operation. These activities include reviewing existing land tenure legislation, informing stakeholders of land rights issues, considering land-use decisions and management, or placing greater emphasis on land tenure arrangements. But only a small number of projects are designed to adjust land tenure arrangements and to monitor these achievements. The Argentinian AR GEF Rural Corridors and Biodiversity Project conducted a field consensus to determine use rights. With the completed consensus, the province is expected to carry out a process of land regularization to ensure that settler's livelihoods are protected and so they can remain on the forested land legally. The Lao PDR Second Lao Environment and Social Project (AF) included a component activity whereby villagers signed a National Protected Areas Conservation Agreement to ensure communities' rights to use project land for NTFPs.
IEG notes that this recommendation has been highly achieved, but that this is still an ongoing activity.
Action 1B: N/A Action 1A: N/A
Action 1C: A new database for Forests, Landscape, and Ecosystems has been developed with closed, active and pipeline projects since 1990. The new dashboard will go on line in FY18 and will be automatically updated. Please see attached file. Action 1D: Proxi indicators were designed as part of the FAP.. Building on an in-depth review of the World Bank's portfolio of forest operations from FY02&ndash 15 and statistical analysis, the Program on Forests produced a report that concludes that predictive proxy indicators (PPIs) do exist and can be used in practice in forest-related interventions. The report presents a list of top-ranking indicators based on an assessment of their predictive potential and their SMART score. The indicators are presented in an indicator menu organized by major objective (poverty, biodiversity, climate, or governance), which includes brief notes on how the indicators might be used. However, the report highlights that there are no standalone "silver bullet" predictive proxies. A major conclusion is the idea that multiple indicators, considered together, can have strong predictive potential. The report describes a series of seven indicator clusters that form PPIs. Miller, D. C., and C. Benson-Wahlé n. 2015. "Understanding Long-Term Impacts in the Forest Sector: Predictive Proxy Indicators." PROFOR Working Paper, World Bank, Washington, https://www.profor.info/content/understanding-long-term-impacts-forest-…
Action 1E: Community participation is one of the three cross cutting themes of the FAP. The WBG is mainstreaming citizen engagement in its interventions to give stakeholders the opportunity to participate fully in decision-making processes, with the objective of improving the intermediate and final development outcomes of the interventions. Projects are now reflecting the commitment made under the FAP. For the components related to Protected Areas, the indicator used is the Protected Areas METT tracking tools (developed by GEF), that includes community participation in the design and management of the protected areas. The METT tracking tool was, for example, included as an indicator in the Zambia Integrated Forest Landscape Project, (a blended IDA/GEF BIOCF operation) along with other CE indicators.
WB Forestry operations have progressively incorporated citizen engagement in their design as a result of the WBG commitments in this area. According to the WBG CE Secretariat databases the following forests and landscapes projects (approved in FY16 and FY17) incorporated Citizen Engagement indicators.
FY17:
- P160033 Mozambique Forest Investment Project,
- P151030 Tunisia Integrated Landscapes Management in Lagging Regions Project,
- P154698 Madagascar Sustainable Landscape Management Project,
- P161490 Zambia Integrated Forest Landscape Project, GEF
- P157127 Vietnam Forest Sector Modernization and Coastal Resilience Enhancement
FY16:
- P151102 Kyrgyz Republic Integrated Forest Ecosystem Management
- P149620 Mozambique Agriculture and natural resources landscape management project - PROJECT 1
- P156021 Sri Lanka Ecosystem Conservation and Management
Some of the CE indicators included in the projects were:
Share of target beneficiaries with score 'Satisfied' or above on application of integrated landscape approach in targeted landscapes (disaggregated by sex) (Female)
- Target beneficiaries in lagging regions with rating 'Satisfied' or above on project interventions (disaggregated by sex, age: 15- 35) (Percentage)
- Enabling environment for improved wildlife conservation and community engagement diagnostic tool (index)
- Male and female forest resource user participation at public hearings at leskhoz level (Number)
- Citizens and/or communities involved in planning/implementation/evaluation of integrated ecosystem management plans (Yes/No)
- Smallholders' satisfaction with services provided by SECFs (Percentage)
- Client satisfaction with land administration services (Percentage)
- Beneficiary satisfaction with project services (Percentage)
- Beneficiaries feel that properties and crops have increased protection and livelihoods have been enhanced due to project investments (percentage)
In these projects, beneficiaries and mechanisms for their participation were clearly identified in the PAD and in the Results Framework. Those projects adopted a broad range of citizen engagement mechanisms, such as multi stakeholder platforms, regular and participatory evaluations of the national forest sector, promotion of participatory land use planning, consultations with beneficiaries and other feedback mechanisms.
LAO
The Second Lao Environment and Social Project (LENS-2) and the Nam Theun 2 Project's biodiversity offset have both designed their protected area investments to emphasize community participation in protected area management and to deliver direct benefits to participating villagers in their efforts toward more sustainable use of protected area resources. 220 villages are expected to receive direct financial benefits across 11 protected areas (typically Lao villages range from 500 to 1,000 people). For every village included in the project: community awareness, participatory planning and mutual agreements are developed, a process that culminates in the signing of Community Conservation Agreements whereby villages agree to stop hunting threatened species and/or collecting certain natural resources from the forest. To support lost income opportunities, financing is delivered to Village Development Funds and additional paid patrolling opportunities in government teams are also offered to villagers.
Depending on the protected area, the amount of funding can be significant. Biodiversity offset funding by the Nam Theun 2 Hydropower facility, plus IDA/GEF funds, provide 7,000 people in 31 villages within the Nakai Nam Theun National Protected Area with over $800,000 over 5 years. These funds are channeled into Village Development Funds, and additional investments in nutrition, health, education, and electrical power investments are not included in that figure. Other protected areas not supported by infrastructure offsets have more modest, but potentially important contributions of $10,000+ per village to village development funds. Patrolling incomes can also be an important opportunity for absorbing excess village labour to contribute positively to protecting the forest and wildlife populations -- instead of hunting, logging, or informal mining as is currently common.
MOZAMBIQUE
Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project (MOZBIO) contradicts the general idea that increasing PA protection concomitantly increases social and welfare related risks. This is because MOZBIO objective is twofold, first aims at conserving biodiversity in Protected Areas (PA) through strengthening the management by building technical capacity, providing law enforcement material and equipment, developing basic infrastructure such as roads, bridges, piers, etc., conducting wildlife monitoring, attracting tourism industry, improving the legislation, etc. Paradoxically, the second objective aims at improving the living conditions and enhance the livelihoods of local communities inside and in the buffer zones of the PAs by directly investing in community development projects (agricultural conservation, non-wood forest products, watering supply, irrigation schemes, fisheries, etc.).
However, the project objectives are in harmony as People and Wildlife can Co-Exist in PAs, for instance the outcomes of the first MOZBIO objective augments the social and welfare benefits already directly delivered by objective 2 since it: (i) improves forest provision of ecosystems services (ii) provides better accessibility to schools, hospitals, markets (iii) diversifies income generating activities e.g. tourism chain value, PAs revenue sharing mechanism (iv) improves knowledge on wildlife to map areas of high risk of Human Wildlife Conflict, etc.
Furthermore, the Theory of Change is imbibed in the project through a comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation methodology which uses three main indicators for this context: i) Areas brought under enhanced biodiversity protection - measures biodiversity protection through formally converting an area into a protected area and establishing a functioning or improving a management system ii) Number of Direct Project Beneficiaries - measures the number of people or groups who directly derive benefits from an intervention: alternative livelihood interventions, 20% of revenues from CAs shared with local communities, jobs creation in CA, etc. and iii) Index on local communities' perception of benefits from target CAs - measures the perception of benefits to individuals, family and community members in the targeted CAs. These indicators, in order words, measures the degree of successfully restricting local communities unregulated access to biodiversity in PAs while evaluating the tangibility of direct and indirect benefits of the project
While the reference to the new forest action plan is welcome, IEG notes that the MAR response should have tracked the Roadmap and provided information against last yearâs Management Update. In the absence of this type of information, IEG conducted a (1) portfolio review of the Objectives and Indicators associated with all new Forest projects mapped to ENV that have been approved between FY14-FY16 (2) a safeguard review of ENV projects using ICRR data from the projects that exited in FY16 (3) and relatedly, raises questions with regard to the safeguard commitments in light of the new Environmental and Social Standards, which no longer include a stand-alone Forest Operational Policy.
The first recommendation made by IEG was to: âbuild more meaningful community participation into design and management of protected areas.â The original roadmap and the original management response made several commitments in line with the IEG recommendation on community participation. In the Roadmap, WBG management committed to âhave stronger community participation in development and implementation (of biodiversity projects).â The Roadmap includes a commitment to âtrack the number of operations targeted for ramping up support in this areas.â It also commits to report on the ânumber of operations in the forests portfolio pipeline include monitorable outcomes related to improved community participation in forest protected area design and management.â
IEGâs Portfolio review found 31 forest sector operations approved between FY14-FY16, excluding carbon offsets, that are mapped to the ENV GP. These include 8 biodiversity projects and 11 projects financed by the Forest Investment Program and the Dedicated Grants Mechanism.
Across this portfolio, there is a better use of indicators, as compared to the ongoing portfolio to track trade-offs within the forest landscape and to monitor multiple-use. This was a key finding of the IEG review, that Bank projects tended to meet single objectives, but were not tracking or addressing the inherent trade-offs, across the three pillars of the forest strategy.
o Projects that support REDD+ (including the use of the Dedicated Grant Mechanism) continue to demonstrate strong community engagement. In these projects, projects include objective level include indicators such as âIntended beneficiaries that are aware of Project information and agree with Project supported investmentsâ (Brazil).
o One-third of the Portfolio now includes the new core indicator âPeople in targeted forest and adjacent communities with increased monetary or non-monetary benefits from forests (#).â IEG recommends that attention be paid to biodiversity projects such as those in Zimbabwe (P124625), Sudan (129156), Mauritania (144183), where neither community participation nor community benefits are included in the core indicators.
With respect to OP4.12, Management agreed in the MAR update that a more systematic reporting of progress in mitigating and, where necessary, offsetting adverse impacts on livelihoods would also be useful and that more systematic report at project completion would be helpful. The current MAR update does not provide an analysis of the quality of safeguard repointing in the forest sector, with regard to the forest OP and other environmental and social safeguards (including resettlement). IEG reviewed all exited environment and forest projects over the last two years, that are mapped to ENV and found inadequate reporting on safeguard compliance, using the harmonized guidelines, the ICRs and the safeguard sections in the ICRRs. This included projects that lacked adequate reporting on resettlement issues.
The endorsed Forest Action Plan FY16-20 underscores that forests make a vital contribution to the overall economy through the generation of essential services that sustain key sectors (agricultural, energy, water, mining, transport), and rural and urban areas by maintaining the fertility of the soil, protecting watersheds, providing habitat for biodiversity, and reducing the risk of natural disasters (such as floods and landslides). Potential areas for investments under the FAP Investment Area 1 'Sustainable Forestry" include the protection and optimization of the Management of Natural Forests, through:
- Participatory Forest Management
- Sustainable Management of Production Forests
- Sustainable Production of Non-Timber Forest Products
- Forest Biodiversity Protection
- Nature-based Tourism
- Payment for Ecosystem Services
The FAP also notes that forests and their biodiversity make a crucial contribution to mitigating the impacts of climate change not only by absorbing GHGs from the atmosphere but also by regulating water flows, protecting coastal communities from extreme events and sea level rise, and offering plant and animal species migratory corridors to more suitable habitats. Forests and trees are the cornerstone of the land restoration agenda: some two billion hectares of lost or degraded forests and landscapes could be restored and rehabilitated to functional and productive ecosystems. Essential to this process is the restoration of the biodiversity within forest systems, as that is the backbone of a healthy ecosystem. The restoration of ecosystems and their biodiversity would generate increased economic opportunities in rural areas, deliver improved rural livelihoods and food security, help fill the household energy gaps as a renewable energy source, enhance climate resilience, and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions while taking pressure off pristine forests.
The WBG recognizes the importance of preserving forest wealth and biodiversity. It will continue supporting efforts from its clients to establish and properly manage their forest protected areas by helping them tap into designated resources (such as the Global Environment Facility, GEF). The WBG has long promoted an integrated approach to biodiversity in its portfolio. Under the Forest Action plan, this trend will be reinforced with the push for more integrated interventions, where protected areas are fully embedded into a broader landscape.
Under Focus Area 2 of the FAP "Forest-Smart Interventions in Other Economic Sectors" , strong emphasis is given to good land-use plans, which should give particular attention to protecting high-value forests (in terms of biodiversity, watershed functions, carbon stocks, and cultural values, in particular). Optimally, economic development triggering forest conversion should be directed away from high-value forests. The land use planning exercise can help identify those forest areas that need to be preserved, the areas that can coexist with other land uses, and the areas that could potentially be converted into other uses. Spatial planning can also help gear the potential development of economic activities toward degraded lands. This is particularly relevant to the agribusiness sector where prioritization of agribusiness development on degraded lands could avoid costly and uncertain mitigation schemes needed to compensate for lost forest resources. Another key benefit of land use planning is the possibility to define aggregated biodiversity offset schemes. For sectors such as mining and infrastructure, impacts on high biodiversity forest areas are sometimes not avoidable. In order to achieve "net gains" of forest biodiversity and after avoidance and other forms of mitigation have been pursued, compensation of impacts through
The Biodiversity roadmap has been produced and the database is completed and is being populated. The Forests Sector Proxy Indicators ESW has been developed. Indicator 1D requires more information about the Tools and Guidance notes which have been made available to enable TTLs to better engage communities and maximize poverty alleviation in biodiversity operations. WB Action 1E is ongoing.
WB Action 1 A: Completed - the Biodiversity roadmap has been prepared and is being disseminated. Decision meeting was held June 2, 2014. The Road map is available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/. There will an update the overview at the website (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/biodiversity/overview) to ensure that the Roadmap and the overall GP narrative are coherent. The communication staff are exploring possibilities to create a web page/ brief about the Roadmap's different pillars. The Roadmap has been disseminated through BBLs, blogs, etc and also in the IUCN World Parks Congress in November 2014. WB Action 1B: Completed - database completed in June 2013, and is being populated as per Action 1C. WB Action 1C: Completed/ongoing - database operational and populated, last updated in June 30, 2015. - the database can be accessed by contacting the designated Help Desk at x85881. This Help Desk is available for consultation and interpretation of the data, and maintains and updates the database on a regular basis. WB Action 1D: Completed - ESW on developing proxy indicators for project impact delivered FY15: Forests Sector Proxy Indicators (P145206) (see WB Action 4A) WB Action 1E: Ongoing - progress subject to pipeline development MozBio (Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project - P131965) project is a good example of integration of biodiversity conservation with community development. Other examples are Zimbabwe Hwange-Sanyati Biological Corridor Project (P124625) and DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887).
Additional Information: We have completed 4 out of 5 (80%) actions in this category and in the remaining ongoing activity we identified 3 out of 5 (60% of the uncompleted 20%) "operations in the forests portfolio pipeline [which] include monitorable outcomes related to improved community participation in forest protected area design and management." One action is Completed/ongoing as it included developing a database (completed) and keeping it updated (ongoing). As a mathematical exercise this gives us 92% completion rate, i.e. High by IEG guidance (>90% completion).
IEG has rated the level of adoption of the protected areas recommendation Neglible and considers the Recommendation to be Active. Management fully agreed to implement IEG's recommendation of "building more meaningful community participation into design and management of protected areas." The database and the Biodiversity Roadmap are useful stocktaking exercises and the Roadmap provides a thorough portrayal of biodiversity values and their contribution to well-being -- but it neither further diagnoses the challenges IEG raised in achieving livelihood solutions in protected areas nor does it propose new ways of doing business to enhance performance against the Bank's twin goals or the multi-pronged approach of the Forest Strategy. IEG recognizes the ongoing work in Mozambique and Zimbabwe but notes that these pipeline projects are not yet under implementation.
WB Action 1 A: Completed
the Biodiversity roadmap has been prepared and is being disseminated. Decision meeting was held June 2, 2014. The Road map is available at http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/environment/. There will an update the overview at the website (http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/biodiversity/overview) to ensure that the Roadmap and the overall GP narrative are coherent. The communication staff will explore possibilities to create a web page/ brief about the Roadmapâs different pillars. The Roadmap will be disseminated through BBLs, blogs, etc partly leading up to the World Parks Congress.
WB Action 1B: Completed
- database completed in June 2013 and being populated as per Action 1C.
WB Action 1C: Completed/ongoing
- database operational and populated, with occasional updates planned.
- The database can be accessed by contacting the designated Help Desk at x85881. This Help Desk is available for consultation and interpretation of the data, and maintains and updates the database on a regular basis.
WB Action 1D: Ongoing
- ESW on developing proxy indicators for project impact ongoing with expected delivery FY15 (see WB Action 4A)
WB Action 1E: Ongoing
- progress subject to pipeline development MozBio (Mozambique Conservation Areas for Biodiversity and Development Project â P131965) project is a good example of integration of biodiversity conservation with community development.
Other examples are Zimbabwe Hwange-Sanyati Biological Corridor Project (P124625) and DRC Improved Forested Landscape Management Project (P128887).