35233

-Eu

C I J A-

PART1-CI PAT, -)

Nancy K. Diamond'

|__T his issue of practitioner notes focuses on the________ _ ___ 4 lessons learned by protected area project man-

agers, both within and outside the World Bank, onmaking scaled up conservation activities more par-ticipatory (see Box 1). These insights were gleanedLLOI from interviews, a literature review, a 2002 elec-tronic list-serve discussion and a seminar seriesorganized for the World Bank's ParticipatoryConservation Initiative. These activities represent a

C/o) > collaboration between the Biodiversity and Partici-pation Teams of the Environmentally and SociallySustainable Development Department at the WorldBank, as well the World Bank Institute. Both the

-Pr' Global Environment Facility and the World Bankprovided funding. Because conservation and naturalresource management projects have been more par-ticipatory than some other sectoral projects, theselessons can contribute to the World Bank's broaderwork on participatory development.

C ) 1Sr. Social Scientist consultant, Environment Department,Wk World Bank-

Eank-t} ^ - ;r:snA Environment Facility Program

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

The World Bank (1996) defines participation as "a process through which stake-holders influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisionsand resources which affect them."

In a similar vein, the term, participatory conservation, refers to activities withconservation objectives that are characterized by stakeholder influence and sharedcontrol of decisions and resources.

Although biodiversity conservation efforts have historically been either local or national in

scope, there have been increasing efforts during the last decade to work out conservationcooperation across broader scales (i.e., sub-national, bilateral and regional). In general, part-ners collaborate on a larger scale to manage land and revenue, create resource managementand/or economic development plans, set priorities for conservation and reform or initiatepolicy. Some projects and programs work on land use and conservation within a much larger

landscape (Transboundary Natural Resource Management). Others focus on the cooperativemanagement of protected areas and neighboring communities and lands (TransboundaryConservation) (see Box 2).

There are a number of pressures that drive conservation-related efforts to scale up within and

across international boundaries. Sometimes, the push for scaling up conservation is driven by

Transboundary Natural Resource Management (TBNRM) has been defined as "anyprocess of cooperation across boundaries that facilitates or improves the man-agement of natural resources (to the benefit of all parties concerned)" (source:Griffin et al. 1999).

Transboundary Conservation takes place within the boundaries of Transbound-ary Protected Areas (TBPAs). The latter term refers to areas of land and/or sea thatstraddle one or more boundaries, between two or more states (Trans-Border Pro-tected Areas) and/or sub-national units. The constituent parts of these larger unitsare protected areas, especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance ofbiological diversity and other natural and associated cultural resources and man-aged cooperatively through legal or other effective means.

Sources: Sandwith et al. 2001, World Bank 1996.

2 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

an international agenda such as the emphasis on national conservation planning in the Con-vention on Biological Diversity and globalization (i.e., pressures from international tourism

industry for new adventure opportunities, optimizing land use efficiencies). Donors have

JL -, increasingly tried to scale up many kinds of development activities after being critiqued for the

unsustainability of expensive demonstration efforts. Nation states have also been motivated to. 4 initiate new types of conservation cooperation, between and among communities, government

and the private sector, as a result of security concerns (e.g., easing border tensions and conflict

' > A through environmental cooperation), decentralization (e.g., devolving more natural resource£ rights to communities and local government) and other issues. In addition, communities, local

government and protected area authorities have also initiated collaboration and scaled up

conservation in some situations (e.g., indigenous conservation areas).

Besides contributing to the achievement of conservation objectives, scaled up conservation

projects/programs offer some significant new opportunities related to participation. (SeeBox 3). Larger projects and programs, covering larger landscapes, have the potential to offer

more diverse and valuable incentives to community stakeholders and to share benefits among

those who are separated by state or provincial borders. As a result, these efforts can yield much

broader constituencies that are supportive of conservation efforts. In addition, the formalframework for transboundary conservation cooperation and other processes to achieve con-sensus around objectives can also help to resolve long-standing conflicts among stakeholders.Further, scaled up conservation efforts have the potential to support good governance reforms

Conservation Opportunities with Scaled Up Activities* Promote landscape-level ecosystem management,* Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of protected area/natural resource

management and enforcement,* Share skills and experience related to biodiversity and cultural resource

management,* Maximize scarce research revenues thru cooperative research.

Participation Opportunities with Scaled Up Activities

* Build trust, understanding and cooperation among a wider group of stake-holders, through both formal and informal contact, and develop an expandedconstituency for conservation,

* Help resolve tensions and conflicts and reinforce post-conflict reconciliation,* Equitably extend the benefits associated with conservation, despite adminis-

trative or international boundaries,* Strengthen civil society networking at different scales.

PARTICI RY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 3

by strengthening the role and effectiveness of civil society at multiple levels of environmentalgovernance.

However, the complexity of operationalizing participation, both simultaneously and sequen-tially, at multiple levels and across boundaries should not be underestimated. Scaled upactivities involve more stakeholders, greater administrative complexity and potentially, lessrepresentative and accountable forms of governance. It will not be possible for conservationiststo avoid local citizen or national NGO demands for more involvement in decision-making by"fleeing forward" into government-driven and scaled up conservation activities (source: HansJ. Verolme, Participatory Conservation Conversation participant). Therefore, it is important totake a closer look at how the participation lessons of the last decade can and have been appliedto scaled up conservation projects and programs.

Who Initiates and Who Collaborates?

In some settings, it has been possible for projects and programs to scale up participatory con-servation and/or natural resource management activities that were initiated by communities,themselves (e.g., Box 4). More often, these efforts include conservation within a TBNRM con-text and a wider range of stakeholders, including communities, NGOs, local government,resource management agencies, politicians and donors, have been involved than for TBPAs.Examples include the cooperative efforts of indigenous peoples, particularly those in LatinAmerica and Southeast Asia, who are working to secure their rights to resources and protecttheir indigenous management systems (e.g., indigenous cooperation by organizations locatedin the Bolivian, Paraguayan and Argentinian areas of the Gran Chaco region).

Elsewhere, other types of bottom-up efforts for transboundary cooperation have been initiatedand later formalized by governments and donors. Sometimes, informal cooperation betweencross-border communities has later been formalized to support sustainable natural resourcemanagement or cooperation (e.g., tourism-related cooperation). Sometimes, protected areastaff have initiated joint efforts (e.g., joint park patrolling). In other situations, there is localcooperation between protected area authorities and communities (e.g., South African pro-

' tected area authorities from the Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains are coordinating fire manage-ment and other practices with nearby Lesotho communities (source: Griffin 1999).

Other scaling up efforts have been top-down and driven by governments, regional bodies,LY a donors or third parties (e.g., international conservation organizations) (Sandwith et al. 2001).

, r woAlthough unsuccessful to date, some conservationists have promoted "superparks" that aim toexclude and move local residents. As with many previous local or national level conserva-tion/NRM efforts (e.g., joint forest management, wildlife co-management, integrated coastalmanagement), governments, donors and conservationists typically control the planning

4 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

BOX 4: Expanding participation beyond borders-PROCYMAF& COINBIO

The PROCYMAF pilot project ($25 million), financed in part by the World Bank, hashelped Mexican forest communities to improve their forest-based enterprises innatural forests and create environmental services as well as livelihoods and forestryproducts. Via a community-driven proposal, the more advanced communities inthe PROCYMAF network obtained funding to develop community conservationareas and undertake related forest protection and green market activities in theState of Oaxaca. These efforts evolved into the three-state, GEF-financed biologi-cal corridor program known as the COINBIO. Via a grant program through theWorld Bank, the Dutch government provided parallel financing to develop com-munity regional forest management standards in the both the Meso-American Bio-logical Corridor and in the indigenous peoples' regions of the Andes. The CentralAmerican communities involved with the regional standards initiatives are nowpreparing a full-sized GEF project in Integrated Ecosystems Management for sevencountries in Central America. It will be similar to the Mexican COINBIO project andinclude collaboration among Mexican and Central American communitiesinvolved in both the GEF and the World Bank-financed programs and their ownexpanding network. Their proposal aims to establish a community corridor thatcan gain legitimacy with the environmental community. They want to create analternative model for creating protecting areas in which existing land owners,including indigenous peoples, work with government to balance conservation anddevelopment goals for the global and national good rather than simply handingland over to the government for protection. Indigenous and local communities seekto develop common standards across national boundaries for a common Inte-grated Ecosystem Management framework.

Source: Augusta Molnar, former World Bank Project Manager.

processes for transboundary conservation/NRM. Support for community and stakeholderparticipation has not necessarily been either early enough or consistent. Problems have beenexacerbated because too little has been known about existing conflicts and cooperation amongcommunities and stakeholders or the incentives that will motivate their support for conserva-tion efforts.

Transboundary conservation and NRM efforts involve more stakeholders, the need for socialassessments and social resource people becomes even greater. Early investments in identifyingstakeholders, including their needs, priorities, relationships and conflicts, has helped programsand projects to tailor conservation incentives and to build upon existing relationships. Thesetransboundary social assessments should include collaboration by social scientists from the

PARTICI TORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 5

different provinces or countries involved in transboundary cooperation. Donors, governmentsand conservation organizations need to provide or leverage adequate funding for these activi-ties and sometimes the transboundary nature of an activity translates into more fundingopportunities (see Box 5).

In addition, transboundary conservation or NRM typically takes place at the regional or sub-national level (e.g., multi-district, multi-provincial) and requires new forms of governance.While the formation of these new governance bodies provides an opening and an opportunityto broaden environmental governance, the interests of community stakeholders have not typi-cally been well represented at these levels. It has often been difficult for communities, andminority interests within communities, to be heard at or beyond the local level. Further, thenational-level NGOs, including nature conservation organizations and others, that haveclaimed to represent the interests of communities are often neither representative nor account-able. As with previous conservation efforts, community interests can be marginalized whenexperts, authorities and private sector interests dominate scaling up processes.

How Do Transaction Costs Increase?

Even without stakeholder participation, scaled up conservation generally takes more time. Inthe best-case scenarios, agreements are simple and formalize already-existing local-level col-laboration. Cooperation can start out in a very limited way and expand over time. High-levelagreements can take years to work out and may involve harmonizing of policies and legalframeworks across countries. New relationships may need to be created, both within andacross administrative levels. Additional time may be needed to work out suitable arrangementswith multiple donors. Also, collective decision-making in communities generally takes time asdoes participatory data collection. But if local level experience serves as a model, then thebenefits of participatory approaches for TBPAs and TBNRM are likely to outweigh theincreased costs when costly delays are avoided because stakeholder ownership will increasethe long-term sustainability of these efforts.

BOX 5: Social Assessments and Social Scientists-Creative Resource Leveraging

Despite the extra effort required, many donor staff have found ways to obtaingood social information and organize early participatory activities during thedesign phase. For example, recent interviews with senior World Bank biodiversitystaff revealed how they have creatively leveraged funding from private foundationsand other donors, secured additional resources from other World Bank divisions,convinced other Bank colleagues to contribute their talents and collaborated withstaff and partners from other related projects in the same country.

6 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

As conservation activities scale up, the number of stakeholders increases. These players are

generally located at greater distances from each other. Communication may be problematic

(e.g., problems with border crossings, limited travel budgets for organizations, different radio

; frequencies, language differences and ethnic conflict) and additional resources will need to be

budgeted for face-to-face meetings and information exchange. In addition, the mix and rele-

vance of different stakeholders is likely to change over time.

7 .j e. More stakeholders and greater distances can translate into more misunderstandings and con-

>t igSflicts. In some situations, scaled up conservation agreements have been later destabilized by

factors such as political unrest, indigenous and ethnic conflicts, resettlement, despite the time

-; - a and resources invested. More project and programs resources will need to be devoted to

processes and capacity building in conflict management at different governance levels.

_r -j In addition, the transaction costs related to the marketing of natural resource products may be

higher for transboundary conservation and NRM. Bio-prospecting, biodiversity-related enter-

- - - M - prises and certification already shown limited returns to communities due to high transaction

costs. When these limited benefits are shared across a larger number of communities, the value

of these incentives may be insufficient to motivate pro-conservation behaviors.

Finding the Synergies

The success of scaled up conservation has relied upon strong relationships, within and across

levels, and new synergistic opportunities. Griffin (1999) mentions three types of synergies for

TBNRM: 1) economic efficiency (e.g., better management, marketing and movement of goods

and services for communities across boundaries and borders), 2) equity (e.g., more balanced

revenue and cost distribution) and, 3) sustainability (e.g., better control over illegal use of nat-

ural resources). Elsewhere, ethnic groups have been able to re-connect cultural ties across bor-

ders. Synergies have also arisen when plans, resources, data, learning and perspectives are

integrated across multiple scales (source: Jamison Ervin, Participatory Conservation list-serve

contributor).

The Nature of Institutional Arrangements, Old and New

The new institutional arrangements, typically required by formalized agreements for scaled up

conservation, must be carefully planned to include stakeholder representation from different

levels. Because of the scope involved, these new institutions seem even more likely centralize

resource management. They present more opportunities for cross-border corruption. Without

careful attention, they may be less sensitive to community interests.

Some new transboundary institutions have done a fairly good job of involving various

agencies, conservation representatives and other stakeholders (see Box 6). As illustrated in

the African example above, there are plans for a gradual scaling up and broadening of joint

PARTICIF TORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 7

BOX 6: Participation and the Mozambique TransfrontierConservation Areas (TFCA)

Since 1997, the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility have helpedMozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe to establish ecosystem-based manage-ment for several large trans-border areas. These areas are zoned for both sus-tainable multi-use activities and core conservation areas. Project documentsindicate that besides the regional TFCA Coordinator, working group membersinclude local government authorities, as well as forestry and wildlife officers fromeach bordering country, the co-implementing NGOs and other interested localgroups and community organizations. These groups are charged with establishingan agenda for collaboration. This agenda will later be formalized through theestablishment of International Commissions for each TFCA, with a similar mem-bership structure to the working groups. There have also been a series of trans-border workshops to get community and local government stakeholders togetherto share information and discuss regional topics. Communities from Mozambiqueand Zimbabwe have participated in both exchange visits among communities andto other community development projects.

Source: Project documents.

institutions. However, much work remains to be done to create models of transboundary

institutions that include representative participation of community stakeholders and account-

able NGOs.

However, exit strategies should always be kept in mind. New institutional arrangements for

scaled up conservation need to be kept "lean and mean." Otherwise, transboundary and other

new scaled up bodies for conservation may consume most of the conservation dollars in the

future with little on-the-ground benefit for local communities. While, endowments can cover

=~.. - some transaction and administrative costs in the future, early plans need to be made so that

revenues from eco-tourism and other natural resource enterprises, as well as government

services, can at least partially replace donor-funded project/program activities.

Differences in Natural Resource Governance and Politics

Transboundary conservation work must often harmonize governance and political differences

among partners (see Box 7). For example, one country may be undergoing decentralization

reforms for government, have a high tolerance for civil society and have a supportive legal

framework and experience with participatory conservation. A neighboring country may be

intolerant of participatory governance, offer communities little in the way of communal prop-

erty rights and have a weak tradition of civil society. In some situations it may be possible for

8 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

BOX 7: New Institutional Arrangements for the Red Sea MarinePeace Park

Although Jordan and Israel each manage their own section of a joint coral reefmarine protected area, they have discussed and acted together on important inte-grated coastal zone management issues and shared a cooperative research pro-gram. This collaborative effort has been "one of the few lasting bright spots in theMiddle East Peace Initiative" despite regional political turmoil. The park's estab-lishment followed the 1 994 peace treaty between the two countries. Beyond theIsrael Nature Reserves Authority and the Aqaba Regional Authority, other partnersinclude one Israeli NGO (EcoPeace), one Jordanian NGO (Jordanian Royal Div-ing Society), the Global Environment Facility, the World Bank, USAID, the U.S. StateDepartment and a regional body, the Middle East Regional Cooperation.

Source: Stephen Jameson, Participatory Conservation list-serve contributor.

more progressive governments to utilize peer pressure, via new multi-country conservationbodies, to encourage more regressive colleagues to support participation, adopt common par-ticipatory monitoring, involve organizations that represent stakeholder interests and fight cor-ruption.

To a lesser extent, similar differences may prevail among provinces and local government.Another complicating factor is the parallel formal and traditional legal systems that operate inmany countries. Some of these differences can be negotiated directly for more meaningful par-

ticipation and others may change as a result of pressure from either donors or regional peers.Specific and formal agreements can also be tools to ensure participatory transboundaryprocesses, even when other natural resources/conservation activities are less participatory.

Sometimes, local actors have more ideas about creative ways to overcome these differences.However, because many border areas are often far from national capitals, there is some evi-

dence that local partners have found informal ways to collaborate or hear community voices,despite governance obstacles. In some cases, collaboration and the elimination of constraints

to local collaboration can be resolved with minimal expense (e.g., building a low-cost resi-dence for park staff near the residences of cross-border park staff).

The Role for Civil Society Organizations

Transboundary and trans-border institutions often emphasize national government-nationalgovernment relationships and do not necessarily include other stakeholders, including localgovernment, civil society organizations, communities and the private sector. Without adequatechecks and balances, these new government-dominated institutions are more likely to concen-

PARTICI ATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 9

According to project documents, one World Bank-GEF Project in Indonesia useda conflict resolution mediator to resolve disputes among NGOs over their roles inproject implementation. When the Indonesia Coral Reef Rehabilitation and Man-agement Program (COREMAP) chose a partner NGO to implement a community-based management pilot activity at one site, several other NGOs disputed the waythe selection had been made. This group of NGOs had been involved in socialassessments, community consultations and other activities for the project during theprevious four years. They wanted greater transparency in the development of Termsof Reference, clearer mandates for NGO stakeholders and resolution of conflicts.The conflict mediator convinced stakeholders to sign a memorandum of agree-ment that clarified roles and responsibilities, involved additionol NGOs in publicawareness activities and helped facilitate the creation of a local NGO consortium.

trate power and weaken local participatory conservation. Safeguards are needed to ensuretransparency and accountability at all governance levels.

Transboundary conservation/NRM bodies should include civil society representatives fromthe nations and communities involved. Civil society organizations include but are not limitedto formally registered NGOs (e.g., community-based organizations, church organizations,rural workers unions, local political parties). They are a key partner for participatory conserva-tion and can expand the reach and effectiveness of the conservation community. In scaled upactivities, civil society organizations, including non-government organizations, community-based organizations and others, may have relationships across boundaries that will contributeto the success of conservation activities. Some of these organizations may not have a primaryconservation mission but are better equipped to support and represent community interests.

The selection of civil society members for these new conservation governance units should bebased on their relationship with communities, including accountability and transparency con-siderations. Many national-level conservation groups do not often represent the interests ofcommunity stakeholders. Therefore, other types of civil society organizations (e.g., economicdevelopment, indigenous peoples) should be included in scaled up conservation. It may alsobe helpful to include direct community representation. In many situations, donors may needto provide at least initial support for transboundary networking and capacity building onconservation issues by civil society organizations.

Similarly, the voice of local governments can be represented, either directly or through localgovernment federation representatives. Transboundary conservation or natural resource man-

10 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

- agement activities should take advantage of positive relationships that already exist among local

government representatives across boundaries. As with civil society organizations, those who

*1 CtQ. i3 | t r P W e claim to represent communities must also be capable of looking out for the interests of commu-nity sub-groups (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity) and not just exacerbating these differences.

4- 5The Role of Communities and Community-Based Organizations

The rights and needs of communities, and different stakeholders within communities, can get

lost when conservation activities scale up to provincial, national and regional levels. Other

players, with greater power, economic clout and negotiating skills, often dominate these bodiesand/or communities are not allowed representation. Even when given a seat at the table and a

v -- voice in consultative processes, communities and specific sub-groups within those communi-

- i -eties do not always have the skills to advocate for their own interests. The lack of these skills has

sometimes been used by participation opponents to cast communities as dependent, destruc-

tive and unqualified management partners.

In some instances, community-based organizations are better positioned to represent commu-

nity interests than national NGOs. However, in many situations, community leadership and

leaders of community-based organizations represent only elite interests and ignore the differ-

ences based on gender, age, ethnicity, religion, resource use, etc. Outsiders can play a role in

bringing about more representative representation. Alone, community-based organizations

may have little power. But in some places such as Nepal, federations of community user groups

for forestry have more clout and advocacy capacity for national and trans-border resource

governance.

For scaled up conservation, stakeholders may need greater or different capacities to create

more participatory institutional arrangements.

Donors. Designing participatory activities in multiple countries or provinces involves

understanding complex institutional and social arrangements. While some donor staff for

conservation projects have pursued training in participatory approaches (including negoti-

ation and conflict resolution) or have background in the social sciences and organizational

development, they need to rely more on the expertise of local individuals and organizations

that already understand the cultures and institutions involved. In addition, there is also aneed, within donor agencies, for standardized models of extra-governmental legal agree-

ments with NGOs for services, including research, organizing and management of com-

munity trusts.

Government. Within government agencies, some lower-level field staff have received

donor-sponsored training in participatory approaches, facilitation and conflict resolution.

Although these staff may be innovators in the field and across boundaries, they often do

not receive sufficient institutional support because higher-level staff have often not received

PARTICI ATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 11

THE PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

This series of practitioner notes is part of the World Bank's Participatory Conservation

Initiative, which has been sponsored by the ESSD Biodiversity Teams with support fromthe GEF and the World Bank Institute. In response to the interest of protected area proj-

ect managers within the World Bank, we designed this interactive initiative to expand thedialogue on key operational issues related to participation for protected area projects.

We are focusing on the needs of practitioners, both within and outside the World Bank.

To date, we have interviewed a sample of Sages (long-experienced biodiversity project

managers within the World Bank) to identify key issues, created an annotated bibliogra-

phy of relevant internal and external literature, organized an international, electronic

list-serve discussion and seminar series on three topics and created a web-site for relateddocuments. In addition, this issue of the practitioner notes represents an earlier elec-

tronic dialogue held in 2002 and sponsored by the World Bank Institute. Highlights

from these activities are here incorporated. Our future plans involve technical assistanceand training directly to World Bank staff involved with protected area projects.

For additional information about this series or the Participatory Conservation Initiative,please contact: Gunars Platais (gplatais@worldbank.org) and Nancy K. Diamond

(nkdiamnond@aol.com). Please share these publications with interested colleagues. Other

issues of these practitioner notes include:

Issue No. 1, "Lessons from a 2000 World Bank E-Discussion"

Issue No. 3, "Thinking Outside the Box, Changing the Box: Experiences with Linking

Participatory Conservation to Systemic Governance Reforms"

Issue No. 4, "Crumbs, Christmas Trees, Committees or Control: Buying Constituents for

Conservation"

E THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 202-473-1000Facsimile: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/biodiversity

-~~-e -

"In many senses, TBNRM is NOT about "environmental" or natural resourcesmanagement. TBNRM is about facilitation, conflict management, group processconsultation, negotiation and large systems change processes."

Source: John Griffin, Participatory Conservation List-Serve contributor.

capacity building and support from civil society organizations in advocacy and the forma-tion of democratic local institutions and enterprises. To more effectively advocate civilsociety interests to scaled up conservation bodies, these organizations may be able to learnfrom and with similar organizations across boundaries and cooperate on monitoringactivities.

Communities. Many communities will need greater capacity to elect representative leaders,negotiate with other stakeholders and advocate for their interests. They have sometimes

received direct training in participatory planning and advocacy. In some communities,these skills have been indirectly learned via business training that emphasizes accountabilityand equitable decision-making.

PARTICIP TORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 1 3

Whenever possible, reinforce bottom-up and community-driven efforts to scale up

conservation, especially alliances among indigenous peoples communities for

resource management and conservation.

Build community and civil society participation opportunities into the new processes

and institutions created for transboundary conservation and natural resource man-

agement, paying particular attention to broad-based participation at the sub-

national and multi-national regional administrative levels.

Strengthen capacities in effective participation, advocacy and negotiation in trans-

boundary conservation and natural resource management to help civil society

organizations operate effectively at the sub-national and multi-national regional

levels.

Reinforce new transboundary relationships by supporting the collaboration of multi-

country or multi-provincial social scientist teams for social assessments of trans-

boundary conservation activities.

Avoid costly implementation delays for transboundary conservation and natural

resource management through early broad-based consultation, on-going communi-

cation, community exchange, conflict management and consensus building across

boundaries. Clarify expectations, incentives and benefits.

Between countries, harmonize the legal and policy issues associated with community

access to and control over natural resources and protected areas, as well as the mar-

keting of natural resource products.

Tap the scale-related synergies associated with the economics of natural resource

marketing, the distribution of benefits from conservation and cross-community

enforcement of natural resource regulations.

Promote accountable and representative governance of transboundary conservation

and natural resource management through checks and balances (e.g., participation of

diverse types of accountable civil society organizations that represent the interests of

different stakeholders within communities (e.g., women, minority interests, etc.;

transparency measures to reduce cross-border corruption, use of peer pressure to

encourage more participatory conservation across member countries, etc.)

Support transboundary conservation-related networking among representative and

accountable civil society organizations and among local government representatives.

Allow budget flexibility to accommodate relatively inexpensive but significant barriers

to transboundary collaborations (e.g. border guard housing to facilitate shared gates,

printing costs, radio equipment, etc.).

14 PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS

Diamond, N.K. (ed.) with E. Nkrumah and A. Isaac (abstractors). 2002. Participatory conser-

vation for protected areas: an annotated bibliography of selected sources (1996-2001).World Bank, Washington, D.C. (http://wivwv. worldbank. orglbiodiversity-Themes-

Participatory Conservation).

Griffin, J. et al. 1999. Study on the development of transboundary natural resource manage-

ment areas in Southern Africa. Biodiversity Support Program, Washington, DC.

IUCN. 1994. Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. CNPPA with the assis-tance of WCMC. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge.

Metcalfe, S.C. 1999. Study on the development of transboundary natural resource manage-ment areas in Southern Africa: community perspectives. Biodiversity Support Program,

Washington, DC.

Sandwith, T. et al. 2001. Transboundary protected areas for peace and cooperation. Based onthe proceedings of workshops held in Bormio (1998) and Gland (2000). Series Editor:Adrian Phillips. World Commission on Protected Areas Best Practice Protected Area Guide-

line Series No. 7, IUCN-World Conservation Union, Gland.

World Bank. 1996. The World Bank participation sourcebook. The World Bank, Washington,

D.C.

PARTICIP TORY CONSERVATION PRINCIPLES FOR PRACTIONERS 1 5

THE PARTICIPATORY CONSERVATION INITIATIVE

This series of practitioner notes is part of the World Bank's Participatory ConservationInitiative, which has been sponsored by the ESSD Biodiversity Teams with support from

the GEF and the World Bank Institute. In response to the interest of protected area proj-

ect managers within the World Bank, we designed this interactive initiative to expand the

dialogue on key operational issues related to participation for protected area projects.We are focusing on the needs of practitioners, both within and outside the World Bank.

To date, we have interviewed a sample of Sages (long-experienced biodiversity project

managers within the World Bank) to identify key issues, created an annotated bibliogra-

phy of relevant internal and external literature, organized an international, electronic

list-serve discussion and seminar series on three topics and created a web-site for relateddocuments. In addition, this issue of the practitioner notes represents an earlier elec-

tronic dialogue held in 2002 and sponsored by the World Bank Institute. Highlightsfrom these activities are here incorporated. Our future plans involve technical assistance

and training directly to World Bank staff involved with protected area projects.

For additional information about this series or the Participatory Conservation Initiative,

please contact: Gunars Platais (gplatais@worldbank.org) and Nancy K. Diamond

(nkdiamond@aol.corn). Please share these publications with interested colleagues. Other

issues of these practitioner notes include:

Issue No. 1, "Lessons from a 2000 World Bank E-Discussion"

Issue No. 3, "Thinking Outside the Box, Changing the Box: Experiences with Linking

Participatory Conservation to Systemic Governance Reforms"

Issue No. 4, "Crumbs, Christmas Trees, Committees or Control: Buying Constituents for

Conservation"

E THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 202-473-1000Facsimile: 202-477-6391Internet: www.worldbank.org/biodiversity