Key Lessons from UNDP-GEF biodiversity conservation projects in the Asia Pacific Region Sameer Karki Regional Technical Adviser UNDP Regional Centre in Bangkok for Asia and the Pacific

Background to UNDP-GEF Biodiversity Portfolio in the Asia- Pacific Project Ratings –Progress towards achieving objectives –Implementation Lessons Learnt on: –Project implementation –Protected Areas’ Management –Mainstreaming Biodiversity Presentation Outline

Lessons based on annual report for the period July June 2009 Include 29 ongoing projects in 16 countries: – 18 are on mainstreaming biodiversity –10 are on catalyzing the sustainability of protected areas –1 on safeguarding biodiversity. Projects are from GEF2, GEF3 and GEF4 funding Total US$ million GEF funding and US$ million in co-financing. Background to UNDP-GEF Portfolio in the Asia Pacific Region

Progress towards meeting project objectives: 1 Highly Satisfactory: 522 Malaysia: Tropical peat swamp forest and wetlands 22 projects: Satisfactory 5 projects : Marginally Satisfactory Implementation ratings 1 project Highly Satisfactory: 2177 Cambodia: Establishing Conservation Areas Landscape Management 20 projects: Satisfactory 8 projects Marginally Satisfactory Project Ratings

Critical elements highlighted by project staff for success: A qualified and motivated project team Strong local community engagement Incentive-based biodiversity conservation for meaningful and lasting impacts at the site level. Strong partnerships at all levels Lessons Learned: Project Implementation

Capacity building of conservation partners (government, communities and other sectors) should be undertaken within the context of a supportive enabling environment and organizational development Innovations in the geographic or spatial scope of biodiversity conservation – e.g. landscape level could lead to better results as the impacts of human activities Critical milestones in project design such as new laws, regulations and institutions should consider complex political process and be realistic Changes in project’s scope should consider available resources and be built on f lessons from implementation. Project inception is a critical phase of project implementation and should be well-organized and with sufficient in duration. Lessons Learned: Project Implementation (2)

11 projects in 8 countries : Cambodia, India (2), Iran (2), Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Vietnam (2). Projects impact approximately 8.4 million hectares of protected area, including: –11 new PAs established, totalling 2.4 million hectares; –4 PAs are in the process of being established (0.7 million hectares) –24 existing PAs being strengthened (5.3 million hectares) Lessons from Strategic Objective 1: Protected Areas’ Projects

PA Management Project Lessons Marine, coastal and wetland protected areas need to be designed with clear understanding on institutional complexities and seasonality impacts Decentralization of PA management to local governments and communities should take into account their capacities PA management should anticipate emerging problems such as climate change and institute adaptation measures Financial sustainability should be a primary component of exit strategies of projects Communications through constructive dialogues is instrumental in containing threats from illegal activities within protected areas. Protected areas authorities can play a role in mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into the wider landscape – such as in local community activities and local development plans, their mandates and capacities need to be strengthened to fulfill on such roles

Lessons related to Biodiversity Mainstreaming Projects 18 SO2 projects in 13 countries : Bangladesh; Bhutan; Cambodia; China (3); India; Iran; Korea; Malaysia (2); Maldives; Mongolia; Nepal (2); Pakistan (2); Vanuatu. Demonstration activities cover 4.4 million ha in terms Key sectors covered—tourism, agri-business (agricultural biodiversity), fisheries, and forestry.

Lessons from Biodiversity Mainstreaming Projects Risks and uncertainty in multi-year, multi-stakeholder and geographically expansive projects should be anticipated and addressed to avoid costly delays. Inclusive and participatory management should be encouraged particularly at the highest level of project management. In mainstreaming projects, policy-related outcomes and outputs are common. However, the intricacies of the policy processes should be recognized in formulating project frameworks. Mainstreaming into decision-making can proceeds at a different pace at the local, national and policy-making levels. Hence progress in different project components will often vary, resulting in disconnects between change at the national level and at the local level

For further information