The project title "Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development" succinctly expresses the objective of the PRIF project. In the UNDP Activity Initiation Brief (AIB) for the project the development objectives are given as:

Operational objectives are given as:

• To assist rural villages in NWFP and NA to develop and implement biodiversity management plans to demonstrate how sustainable use can contribute to the conservation of biodiversity.
• To build and to determine the capacity requirements for government agencies and NGOs to assist rural villages to develop and implement biodiversity management plans.
• To advise the federal and provincial government on policy and legal requirements to support rural village management of wild species and habitats with sufficient controls to prevent over-exploitation.
• To work out the scope and modalities of the full scale project.

Two further potentially major project functions described in the AIB and the PC-II document are preparatory work for a national Biodiversity Trust Fund and research into plants of economic significance.

The outputs and actions that were proposed for the project are outlined in detail in the AIB and the PC-II, and need not be repeated here. They were summarised in the AIB as:

• staff training
• village selection
• rapid assessments
• preparation of biodiversity management plans
• approval of village biodiversity management plans
• implementation of biodiversity management plans
• monitoring and control procedures

Provision was included for the evaluation of wild plants of potential economic value through arrangements with the Pakistan Forest Institute (PFI) and the HEJ Institute at the University of Karachi.

An activity to research the requirements for a national Biodiversity Trust Fund was included. Public awareness and communication activities were proposed, and a Special Studies Fund to support applied research was to be established.

A discussion of the actual activities and achievements to date is given in 3 below. The PC-II noted that the project would follow a "process" approach rather than a "blueprint" approach, and would be a learning process. The project desc ription, targets and budgetary estimates were recognised to be of an indicative nature. Consistent with this approach, the team has given limited attention to checking that listed outputs have been achieved. It has concentrated more on identifying actual achievements and on assessing their inherent relevance and value in meeting basic project objectives and the needs of the biodiversity and people of the project area.

The selection of project sites or valleys for the PRIF phase of this project was based on a combination of ecological and social factors. For the most part, the project has wisely selected areas that have complementary programmes al ready working in the community. This has resulted in the highly successful relationship between this project and the AKRSP. In NWFP, the selection of valleys differs slightly from the Northern Areas. However, for the most part the selection is consistent and in the valleys visited by the mission was warranted in all cases. The project has developed a tabular valley assessment form that is a very clear indication of the criteria used in selecting each valley. The following sketch map shows the approximate location of the current project sites.

The mission was told that in the Ramboor Valley a conflict between three communities has resulted in a suspension of project activities. The project staff are awaiting the resolution of the conflict before proceeding with further projec t activities.

In light of the above the mission recommends that:

• The selection of further valleys should be an interactive process (possibly through a workshop) of the different implementing agencies (government, IUCN, UNDP), related rural development organisations (AKRSP/IFAD) and representatives from current comm unities.

While it may be useful to develop a ranking of priority areas for project activities, the project should be "demand driven" and contain enough flexibility to respond to communities that may fall outside the set priorities or criteria. The mission has noted and commented that the presence of AKRSP has been a very positive factor in the success of this project through its establishment of village organisations. While the mission recognises this advantage, it would equally be concerned to see this as a limiting factor.

The project areas lie within the mountainous Himalayan and Pamir-Karakoram biogeographical provinces. Major vegetative zones based on Roberts (1991) include:

• the Permanent Snowfield and Cold Desert zone (PSCD);
• the Dry Alpine and Cold Desert zone (DACD);
• the Alpine Scrub and Moist Alpine zone (ASMA);
• the Himalayan Dry Coniferous with ilex oak zone (HDC);
• the Himalayan Moist Temperate Forest (HMTF);
• Sub-Tropical Pine Forest (STPF);
• Sub-Tropical Dry Mixed Deciduous Forest (STDMDF).

The representation of the vegetative zones in the initial project areas in NWFP and Northern Areas is estimated based on the small-scale map provided by Roberts as follows. Note that all areas are expressed in km²:

Thus, the Alpine scrub and moist alpine zone is well represented (17.2%) in the project areas followed by the Dry alpine and cold desert zone (4.0%) and the Himalayan dry coniferous zone (3.6%).

A major component of establishing a relationship with target villages is the use of PRA. The use of PRA can in the initial stages be highly beneficial to establishing a relationship with a community. The techniques currently employe d by PRA have evolved from several applied social science techniques developed during the 1970s and 1980s. However, it is important to realise the limitations of PRA, in that it is only a tool that assists in building relationships with communities, provi ding the framework necessary to develop a greater understanding of the mechanics of a particular community and therefore establishing the basis for developing plans and activities.

Ultimately, PRA cannot substitute for a good working relationship between the project staff and the community. The success of the project in these communities will depend on the level and type of interaction occurring between field staf f and the community. PRA can assist in structuring this and is very useful for self examination by communities. Beyond this, the project staff will need to rely on experience over time in determining the scope of their interactions with the communities. T his point was brought out during the team’s interview with Mr. Khaleel Tetlay, Regional Programme Manager of AKRSP in Skardu, when he referred to three techniques - RRA (Rapid Rural Appraisal), PRA and TRA (Tetlay Rural Appraisal). The point being made wa s that successful project implementation is a combination of techniques determined ultimately by the ability of the field staff to interact and understand the dynamics of each community.

The PRIF project has so far held several PRA workshops with target villages. It is evident that the use of the PRA technique has been of considerable benefit in the following ways:

• The project staff of both NWFP and Northern Areas attended a workshop on PRA techniques facilitated by Dr. Jules Pretty of the International Institute for Environment and Development. According to the 1996 project report, this workshop involved field work in Bunji and enabled the staff of NWFP and Northern Areas to "discuss project issues of mutual interest".
• Using PRA, 6 communities in both NA and NWFP have now drafted village management plans with some now using the technique to assist in the development of resource management plans.
• Using PRA, project staff have been able to establish a relationship with target communities and have collected considerable baseline socio-economic data. This has lead to a greater understanding of the community dynamics by project staff.
• PRAs have enabled women in at least one target community (Khyber) to express their views in the Village Management Plan (this is a notable achievement in the context of a society that has traditionally minimised the role of women in such circumstances ). However, the level of female participation remains insufficient.
• PRAs have enabled communities to examine themselves and establish the communities’ own development priorities. For many of the communities visited by the mission, the concept of self determination is new, for until 1973 these communities were subject to a feudal system of governance, whereby all decision making was the prerogative of the local "ruler".

The PRA technique has clearly shown its usefulness as a tool for both project staff and communities. In discussions in the field, it appears that project staff are comfortable with the methodology. From observations in the Kachura commu nity, it is a tool that is effective in stimulating community participation. It is therefore important to note that in the reports produced by the project staff, very little is said about the PRA process (reportedly there have been two evaluations of PRAs held with women in the project). This is an area that needs to be addressed. The following points should be noted regarding PRA and this project:

• The social science staffing of this project is weak when examined in comparison to the biological and resource management skills in the project. There are several staff with rural development backgrounds, primarily ex - AKRSP. This does not necessaril y provide them with the skills required to critically analyse an approach such as PRA.
• PRA is an approach that has gained wide acceptance globally. In the absence of any other approach, project staff are unlikely to question its effectiveness or test the methodology.
• Time constraints within the initial phase are such that the staff have not been in a position to analyse the effectiveness of the PRA technique to date.

Considering the above, it is recommended that when moving into the next phase of the project the following are considered:

• Experience elsewhere in the world has shown the critical importance of skilled applied social scientists in project development and monitoring. The existence of such personnel, usually located outside the implementing institutions, provides not only a check for the implementing agencies but often also an "honest broker" for implementing agencies and communities alike. The level of skill required for this is generally found only in institutions of higher learning. It is therefore recommended that the p roject look for an appropriate partner, most likely within Pakistan’s university system. The additional cost of this will certainly be out-weighed by the long term benefits of such an association.
• The M&E programme being developed in conjunction with IUCN support staff in Karachi contains a component that examines the application of PRA techniques from the community perspective and at the project staff level. It will also be of benefit to h ave a comparative analysis in the use of the technique between the Northern Areas and the NWFP.

The primary lesson learned during the PRIF project regarding PRA is that the social science skills required for successful project implementation will need to be strengthened. This will be particularly important in the context of a cont inuing programme with an expanded scope and additional communities. It was also noted by the team that the sociologist recruited by the NWFP was no longer in place. This needs to be reviewed and appropriate corrective measures taken by the implementing pa rtners.

The key to this project is the development of the Village Management Plans (VMP), where these plans achieve three things:

• They establish a framework for project activities.
• They develop within the community a sense of direction for the community, its perception of core problems and the solutions.
• They establish a set of commitments within the community and between the community and external agencies.

The VMP for Khyber Village in the Northern Areas is an outstanding document, written by the community. It clearly states the problems being faced by the community, the attempts to date by the community to address the problems, community perceptions of the solutions to the problems and their vision for the future. While project staff facilitated the process, this plan was written by the community and is printed in the simple, colourful language of the people of Khyber. The validity of th is document was impressed upon the mission during our meeting with the community in Khyber. It is encouraging to see a plan of this nature in an era of technical reports and complex (often external) planning.

Not all of the VMPs developed in this project show the same extent of community drafting as shown in the Khyber case. The VMP for the Arkari Valley in NWFP contains an extensive analysis of the Akari community, economic activities and t he status of its natural resources. However, the plan falls short of the clear and simple definition of problems and solutions exhibited in the Khyber plan. It is not the intention of this report to provide a critical analysis of each VMP. However, both c ommunities used a PRA approach but with different results. Such differences should be picked up by the project M&E system and evaluated as such. Experience elsewhere has shown that there will be situational differences in these programmes and that the se differences allow communities to develop a sense of ownership for their own programme. Equally though, it is important to monitor and evaluate these differences. This aspect will need greater attention by the project in the future.

The VMPs are developed in an interactive process using PRA techniques, with a resulting strong sense of proprietorship by the community for the plan. The process for developing the VMPs was broadly outlined to the mission as follows :

• Following initial dialogue with the community by the project staff, a PRA process is initiated with the community.
• The results of the PRA are then used to "fill in" the outline of the VMP. This results in a first draft plan.
• The draft is then taken to the community for examination and revision.
• Following the acceptance of the community, it is placed before the district conservation committee members. The district conservation committee is a new structure and many VMPs precede its constitution. Most of the VMPs were part of a review process t hat involved many of the same organisations as in the district conservation committees and in particular the offices of local government for wide consultation and review.
• Following the wider review process and a further review of amendments by the community, the plan is adopted.

The result is a plan that has been developed through an interactive "grassroots" approach, undergone a wide review process and enjoys the support of all concerned parties. The danger in this process is as follows:

• The sole reliance on structured techniques such as PRA can result in "missed" perceptions. In other words, if the question is not asked the point is never raised.
• If the technical assistance support staff take the PRA information and draft the VMP, the result is a technical VMP. This may be adopted by the village who will accept it as an "expectation" of the external agencies to work with them. The community wi ll not see the VMP as a statement of their own perceptions of the problems and solutions.
• The result of the above is that the concerns of the technocrat can assume a greater importance than the concerns of the community. This can result in futile information being included in the plan. An example from the Arkari Plan in referring to commun ity fuel requirements reads - "Cow dung is neither used nor is it available." Such a statement would not occur in a plan written by the community, as from the perspective of this community the use of cow dung is a non-issue.

The use of techniques such as PRA for the collection of data and information about communities is important. The application of these techniques (and the information gathered) to the planning process must be done with caution. The infor mation contained in the Arkari Plan is important field data and is critical for the implementation of the project. It however, is less critical as the information or inputs required for a community’s own VMP.

The difficulty faced by the project staff is one of divergent perspectives. The project staff work and plan within the hierarchical system of their own institutions, with a set of questions and objectives that are unlikely to be the sam e as those of the community. The challenge of this project is to enable the type of planning done by the Khyber community, the importance of which was noted by Mr. Khaleel Tetlay of AKRSP. The application of the Khyber VMP shows the extent to which the co mmunities view the management of their wild and domestic resources as integral to their community development.

The Khyber community have lived and survived off the resources of their valley for hundreds of years. This community, without the formal terminology, is acutely aware in their own context of concepts such as biodiversity, conservati on and sustainable use. Furthermore, they clearly express this in their VMP:

"The valley is now left with inadequate natural forests. Consequently wildlife habitat and ecological needs demand our attention. In case this need is not met or we do not adopt any appropriate strategy for the use of wild forest the n in the next few years the valley will be deprived of forest and wild plants. As a result it would be difficult to live in the place."

The recognition in the last sentence of the linkage between survival and the sustainable use of natural resources shows the high level of understanding that the people of Khyber have regarding the linkage between themselves and the envi ronment. This community views the management of its resources from an ecosystem level. They realise that by improving lowland pasture they can improve the status of higher grazing utilised by wildlife. This community views this project as a part of its fu ture survival and correspondingly express a high degree of proprietorship over it.

With the intent of providing strategies for the conservation and management of specific species, the project has completed five resource management plans. The plans provide the basis for resource use (through limited trophy hunting) and protection of resources through the designation by local government of Community Conservation Areas. The plans produced so far are:

• Ibex Conservation Plan for Hushey Valley.
• Ibex Conservation Plan for Khyber Valley.
• Ibex Conservation Plan for Arkari Valley.
• Wildlife Plan for the SKB Catchment.
• Natural Resource Management Plan for Begusht Valley.

These plans differ significantly from the VMPs as plans with a high degree of technical content that is developed by the project staff in consultation with the communities. This is not necessarily negative as the audience for these plan s is largely external. As mentioned previously, these communities tend to place great emphasis on management at the ecosystem level. These species plans are very important and will play a significant role in assisting the communities to realise the benefi ts from their natural resources through activities such as trophy hunting. As community capacity increases, so the level of community control in the drafting of these plans should increase. Observing discussions with the Hushey community, it was clear tha t while these plans tend to be technical, they attract considerable discussion and the communities certainly identify with them. Some of the sanctions developed by the communities and incorporated into the plans show the differing methods of local control . As an example, the Ibex Conservation Plan for the Arkari Valley states:

Local project staff report that this sanction has eliminated all local "poaching".

Overall the RCPs developed by the project are of a high standard and are certainly the basis for further development. Commendable points include:

• The inclusion of a monitoring and evaluation component.
• The adoption of an adaptive management approach.
• Work plans and time frames developed as a component of monitoring.
• The building of local capacity through the training of village wildlife guides.
• The conservative approach being taken regarding the hunting of ibex. An off-take quota of less than 2% of the total population is within the recommended sustainable levels.

Specific recommendations for the RCPs include:

• Greater emphasis on the community perception of management solutions. This may require that the technical components are attached as annexes to the management plan.
• Consideration should be given to the immediate development of an RCP for the Snow Leopard. This may be done on a regional basis with the inputs from all communities. This RCP should then form the basis of a national Snow Leopard conservation plan. Fai lure to address the issue of Snow Leopards and their conservation will result in this species remaining on the endangered list.

The village conservation fund is an innovative approach to developing commitments and involving communities in the management of conservation funds. The operation of these funds is outlined in the diagram below:

It is encouraging to see this project testing new ideas such as the VCF. As a result this project has been able to:

• Establish partnership relationships between the communities and implementing agencies based on financial commitments by both parties.
• Develop community skills in managing financial resources at the community level.
• Establish a cost benefit relationship between the community and selected projects.
• Increase the communities’ sense of proprietorship of the project through their own financial investment. For many of these communities this is their first experience at having financial control over projects in their community.

VCFs have now been established in 5 communities in NWFP and NAs, representing an initial investment by these communities of Rs 351 000 or US$ 8775.

The success of any community-based initiative is determined ultimately by the extent to which communities are in a position to make their own decisions regarding species management. The success of community based programmes and the achievement of sound resource management can be assessed by the extent to which a few guiding principles are applied. Five key principles relating to rural communities and the management of natural resources that have been found to apply in initiatives of this nature elsewhere, and that are relevant to the projects in Northern Areas/NWFP, are:

• Effective management of natural resources is best achieved by giving the resources focused value for those who live with them. - People will better manage natural resources when the benefits of management exceed the cost.
• Differential inputs must result in differential benefits. - Natural resources are distributed unevenly in any national context. Equally, the cost of managing and sustaining these assets is unevenly distributed. Therefore, benefits must be direc tly related to inputs.
• There must be a positive correlation between quality of management and the magnitude of benefit. - Good management must be rewarded.
• The unit of proprietorship should be the unit of production, management and benefit. - Proprietorship (the unit of decision making ) cannot be separated from production, management and benefit and is a fundamental component in a communal resour ce regime.
• The unit of proprietorship should be as small as practicable, within ecological and socio-political constraints. - From a social dynamics perspective, scale is an important consideration. Large scale structures tend to be ineffective, increasin g the potential for inefficiency, corruption and the evasion of responsibility. Conversely, a communal resource management regime is enhanced if it is small enough (in membership size) for all members to be in occasional face to face contact. This helps t o enforce conformity to rules through peer pressure, and has a long standing collective identity.

Within the context of the PRIF, this project could not be expected to have addressed all of the above. However, by using these principles as a reference, it is possible to see the direction and extent of achievements during the PRIF. Ov erall this project has done exceptionally well. This project, like similar community based initiatives elsewhere, uses wildlife use as a vehicle for achieving a much broader ecosystem conservation goal. This approach is sound and, in the case of the mount ains of Pakistan, essential if there is to be any serious attempt at biodiversity conservation.

Trophy hunting is one management option. If correctly managed, it has a very low environmental impact. A cost benefit analysis of trophy hunting shows that for the level of input the returns from this form of use are very high. This ret urn in a system managed by local communities results in improved species and habitat management.

Trophy hunting is not the only form of wildlife use that can be employed by rural communities. Other management options include photographic tours, live animal sales and cropping. The critical issue is the extent to which national and i nternational policies on species use are reflective of local situations, needs and interests. Certain options acceptable in one situation may be inappropriate in others.

In discussions with several communities and with project staff, it was clear that a careful and cautious approach is being taken on the issue of wildlife use. The main points from this are:

• The government has issued a quota of five ibex to be hunted as trophy animals in the Northern Areas. This quota is well below sustainable trophy limits and has been issued on a trial basis following several years of a ban on all hunting.
• The communities are determined to see that the ibex hunting is well managed and that the benefits are returned to the communities through the respective VCFs.
• Communities wish to expand their ibex trophy hunting options without opening the option to local hunting.
• Communities are concerned about the threat of other Pakistanis hunting their animals.
• Communities are very concerned about predation by snow leopards. However, they are unsure of the solution. For the most part they do not want to see the animal killed, but they need a mechanism to offset the cost of maintaining the species.
• Trophy hunting options and the existing programme are being carefully monitored by the project staff.

The recommendations following from this are:

• Local solutions to species management problems should be encouraged and supported through interactions and workshops with communities.
• All management options should be considered. It is essential to maintain an open policy to what is perceived as the most appropriate management option at the local level.
• The communities need to continue to develop their abilities in species inventories and developing quotas.
• Species management must be viewed in the wider context of ecosystem management and socio-economic activities.

The PRIF phase of this project has had four external evaluations including this mission (Dr. Steve Edwards has produced four "Mission Reports" as a component of project monitoring) and has now benefited from the establishment of a m onitoring system through the Karachi office of IUCN. Monitoring and evaluation is central to the success of this project. The application of an adaptive management approach requires that there is a continual process of "experimentation" and review. Failur e to establish a good monitoring system will impair the ability of the project and communities to develop management practices based on learned experience.

A comprehensive programme has been developed by IUCN for monitoring and evaluation, and one person (Mr. Shafqat Hussain) has been assigned the responsibility of implementing this programme. As this programme is new, its effectiveness is yet to be determined. The mission was presented with all current documentation (including the Edwards reports) and is satisfied with the approach being taken. In light of this, the following points are made:

• In the overall sense of monitoring this project, the establishment of a relationship between the project and an objective body such as a university department would be desirable (this is also referred to in 3.7). This relationship would provide a cont inuity in monitoring that would remain after the "project" has ended and have broader applications in the development of community-based programmes in Pakistan. Because of the potential importance of this step, it should be a matter for consideration by t he PMC.
• The tabular progress assessment presented in Steve Edwards fourth report is very good. Showing clearly the status of various project activities with performance indicators, it demonstrates the effectiveness of using tables to show and monitor progress . The use of this technique could be applied more by project personnel in monitoring and evaluating their own activities. At the project level, software programmes such as Microsoft Project provide very good visual aids to planning, monitoring and "tracki ng" progress within the project. The M&E unit within the project may wish to investigate these possibilities .
• Often in attempting to develop a good monitoring system, the result is over-monitoring and ineffective evaluation. By keeping the monitoring systems straightforward and simple (apply the KISS principle - Keep it Straight and Simple), the project will be able to effectively evaluate its own progress and instill within the communities the necessary skills required for them to continue evaluating themselves.
• Good M&E is only possible in the context of good planning. Once again the KISS principle applies. There is often a tendency in community-based projects to over-plan. Planning community-based initiatives needs a great deal of flexibility, allowing for the differing nature of each community and the fluid social, political and economic contexts in which these projects are implemented.
• Within the context of this project (and in respect of the above) the mission feels that it is important to realise that there are two separate M&E activities. In the first instance, the project is monitoring and evaluating itself within its own hi ghly focused set of objectives and indicators. The second M&E is one of process monitoring. This monitors the longer term aspects of the community-based programme and is ultimately the process of communities monitoring and evaluating their own perform ance against a set of more broadly self defined objectives and indicators developed over a long period.
• The project should not rely on narrowly defined biological indicators (such as ibex numbers) as indicators for success. In the long term, the indicators of success will be determined by changed community attitudes with a corresponding effect on commun ity behaviour. The monitoring of species and the development of the "biodiversity database" should be viewed as important primarily in respect of improving resource management, not as a mechanism for determining the success or failure of the project.
• The project has already drawn on the international experience of Dr. Steve Edwards of the Sustainable Use Initiative for its own monitoring and evaluation. It is recommended that this be further reinforced by drawing on the wider resources of IUCN thr ough the inclusion of other members of the Sustainable Use Initiative, IUCN Commissions and specialist networks in the internal review process. This will allow the project to draw on and share experiences on a global level.

During October-November 1996, a visit by project staff to Eastern and Southern Africa was undertaken. Following this a report of the tour was prepared by Amjad Virk about the tour and lessons learned. This tour was clearly beneficia l to the participants and some of the recommendations made by Mr. Virk in his report are indicative of the usefulness of this exercise. It is therefore recommended that:

• Another tour be organised. However, the next tour should consist primarily of selected villagers from the project areas. This will provide them with the opportunity to visit community-based programmes in Africa.
• Given the strength of the programme in Pakistan, UNDP may wish to consider sending people to Pakistan from similar initiatives they are supporting elsewhere in the world.

Following extensive discussions during the field visit, the mission noted that the following had been covered under training:

• Training has been done in PRA techniques and wildlife surveys.
• Technical training has been provided to newly recruited staff to assist in the VMPs.
• NAs staff have received computer skills training.
• National level training on the "training of trainers" has been completed.
• A training workshop on community mobilisation was held in Gilgit.
• A training course for village wildlife guides was held in Gilgit and attended by 18 village wildlife guides.
• The mission was advised by several communities of the need to continue further training.
• The mission was advised by the staff of NWFP of the need to provide higher level training in order to facilitate institutional strengthening.
• The community of Hushey stressed the need for training of more Village Wildlife Guides.

It is recommended in light of the above that this project should:

• Proceed with training at the community level in line with the current programme.
• Look into the concerns of NWFP staff and seek mechanisms that can be employed to address the issue of higher level training.
• Keeping in mind the number and size of villages in a particular valley, further Village Wildlife Guides may be selected for training and should be properly equipped.

The PRIF project is scheduled to terminate towards the end of this year. However, the team was told that the efficient use of funds to date will allow the project to continue for up to one more year beyond that time. In the NAs, IUC N has plans to extend the project coverage to include two areas in the Diamer district, the Mushkin-Dushkin-Doyan area and the Bunji area, and the team observed good progress in the new Kachura project area. A feature of the up-coming project areas is tha t they will involve several communities working in collaboration across broader areas, allowing for more continuity of ecosystem management.

In the NWFP, the project is in the first stages of consultation with villages in the Swat valley. The team observed some of the early consultation during a visit to Buner village, and the prospects appear promising. The Buner proposal p rovides an interesting contrast to other project areas, in that the community is comparatively less impoverished. This means that in this area there will be comparatively less initial emphasis on community development.

From our limited observations, the team has no criticism of these forward plans for the remainder of the PRIF project. Probably the main issue to be resolved is the degree to which project resources should be directed over the remaining period "to work out the scope and modalities of the full scale project", which is a stated objective of the PRIF project as set out in the AIB. This issue is discussed further in 12.

As noted in 2.2, operations at field level in the NAs are conducted by IUCN, while in the NWFP, they are conducted by a Biodiversity Project Unit within the Forest and Wildlife Department of the Government of NWFP. It was obviously a matter of considerable significance and interest for the team to observe the results achieved under the two different management regimes. Unfortunately, weather and the resulting transport delays meant that the team was unable to visit the project sites in the Chitral area where the NWFP operation is most active and advanced. However, as a result of the limited field inspections that were possible, and extensive formal and informal discussions with people involved in the NWFP sector, we believe that we can make some useful observations and comparisons.

The first observation is that both operations are very impressive in the success that they are achieving in meeting the PRIF project objectives. Both measure up well against similar operations elsewhere in the world. Both are conduc ted by dedicated, enthusiastic people with a strong commitment to success. In both cases, key people appear to have the ability and leadership style to inspire confidence in the local community people, while ensuring that the communities establish and ret ain a sense of ownership of the process and its results.

The two operations are somewhat different in nature, and both have their strengths and weaknesses. Some points of comparison are:

• As an NGO, IUCN is able to offer much higher salaries than are possible within the NWFP government structure. The converse of this is that the NWFP operation runs at lower salary costs.
• As it is acting from within a government agency, the NWFP operation must follow government regulations, and therefore has less flexibility.
• In the NWFP, the government involvement allows developing community involvement to be paralleled by legal devolution of powers. For example, communities can be given legal responsibility for wildlife management through creation of community game reser ves. Similarly, honorary game wardens can be appointed with full legal authority. By contrast, a common complaint in the NAs was that Village Wildlife Guides have no authority to control hunters and poachers originating from outside their area.
• An inevitable consequence of this greater role in delegating formal authority is that operations in the NWFP are a little more paternalistic in style than those conducted by IUCN in the NAs. The IUCN personnel demonstrate a particularly impressive abi lity to develop a positive informal chemistry with the local communities in the NAs. However, the team wishes to stress that, from our limited observations, the operations in the NWFP are by any measure impressive and genuinely consultative.
• An impressive feature of the NWFP operation is that senior project staff are able to interact directly with communities in their local language. In contrast, some key staff in the NAs operation are ex-patriate with limited local language skills.
• The operation in the NAs has taken a more active and positive approach to gender issues, including the appointment of a WID advisor. In contrast, there appears to be little involvement of women in the activities in the NWFP.
• As an NGO, IUCN may have more flexibility and ability to take innovative approaches.
• As an NGO, it is probably a little easier for IUCN to develop an integral working relationship with other NGOs, in particular the AKRSP.
• In the NAs, the focus has been on producing species conservation plans, while in the NWFP the focus is on producing broader biodiversity conservation plans (refer also to 6.3.1)

The team’s conclusion is that both management systems have strengths and are demonstrating the potential for continued and growing success. We believe that both should have the opportunity to carry on in the short to medium term.

We observed a tendency for competition and mutual criticism between the two systems. There appears to be a need for mechanisms and a willingness to share experiences and lessons and to draw from the strengths of both approaches.

There were suggestions from NWFP personnel that they have not received the same level of technical advice from IUCN that has been available to the IUCN-implemented field operation in the NAs. The team was not able to judge the accuracy of this claim, but it is clearly a matter that must be kept under constant scrutiny.

Over the longer term, it will be appropriate to review the strengths and experiences of the two types of project management, with the objective of devising a common approach which builds on the strengths of both.

The project has certainly not reached sustainability as yet. As a PRIF, it is not reasonable to expect that it should do so, as a fundamental premise of a PRIF phase is that there is a probable need for a larger and longer operation al phase. Nevertheless, there are some encouraging signs that sustainability can be reached in the longer term. Some examples are:

• Staff in the NWFP operation have indicated that it would already be possible for the project to proceed at some level in that area without further outside support.
• Villagers in some areas claim to be already observing an increase in numbers of key wildlife species, but this is yet to be confirmed through systematic surveys.
• The Village Conservation Funds appear to have the potential to become self-sustaining over a longer term.
• There appears to be real potential for generation of significant income from sustainable uses of biodiversity such as ecotourism and closely controlled trophy hunting.
• Participating communities appear to genuinely appreciate the value and benefit of the planning and management processes that have been put in place.
• Many other villages are observing the advantages being experienced by the involved villages and are seeking to become involved.

Perhaps the most encouraging indication of long term prospects is the level of commitment apparent among the communities involved.