In the "Need for Project" section of the AIB, it is noted that "there are no incentives for rural people to maintain or manage renewable natural resources sustainably". It is noted that, although protected areas have been designated and threatened species have been identified and listed for strict protection under national and provincial laws, populations of certain species continue to decline. It suggests that "an alternative approach is needed that involves rural people in the sol ution rather than considering them the cause."

This suggests that the root causes of biodiversity loss in the mountain areas include:

• the lack of incentives for rural people to conserve or manage their surrounding natural resources
• the lack of involvement of local rural people in decision making and problem solving about the use and management of natural resources
• the limited success and suitability of conventional conservation tools in this social and physical environment

The team has no reason to disagree with this definition. It also sees a related problem that there has been insufficient recognition of the ownership and stewardship rights and obligations of local communities in respect of their surrou nding natural resources.

As will be apparent from other sections of this report, the team believes that the PRIF project is showing considerable success in addressing these root causes.

As noted in 1.2, the mission team lacked a female member with experience in gender issues. In the communities of the project area, it was simply not possible for the all-male team to ask for or participate in any direct dialogue wit h women of the communities. In the NAs, we were fortunate to have the company of Razina Bilgrami, UNDP Programme Officer and Siobhan Warrington, the project’s WID Advisor. They were able to have some useful and meaningful discussion with women in some com munities. The following sections are based largely on their experiences and input. In its visit to the NWFP, the team did not have the benefit of such assistance, but we believe that the findings and principles outlined below will apply equally in the NWF P.

The PC-II for the project states that, "Where practicable women will be incorporated into the management of wild species and or habitats....To address more comprehensive issues related to population management... the project will lin k up with the appropriate agencies." However, on examining the project’s history since its inception, it is evident that gender issues have only recently begun to be incorporated in the project activities. The project was initiated in early 1995, and it was only in mid-1996 that some action was taken.

Though women were involved in the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) in Khyber using AKRSP female staff as facilitators, the information gathered from them was not represented in the Village Management Plan (VMP). Women were not involv ed in the PRAs in either of the initial Baltistan sites (S-K-B) or Hushey, due to the lack of resources and the lack of Women’s Organisations in these areas.

In June 1996, a female consultant Durdana Malik was invited to consult women in three project sites, and to suggest the potential for involving women in the project. Her main conclusion was that it is important to promote the formation of WOs in the project sites as a platform for development in the village. The gender sensitisation of IUCN staff was also indicated as being a major requirement. She identified women’s immediate needs such as family planning, health and drinking water sup ply schemes. Following this research, another female consultant Rabiya Ali Khan carried out research with women in Khyber. She highlighted afforestation efforts, the development of fuel efficient stoves and the marketing of local apricot produce as possib ilities for the involvement of women in biodiversity conservation activities.

Following are the major recommendations made by both female consultants:

• The formation of WOs in the project sites should be encouraged.
• Women should actively be included in PRAs to be conducted for new project sites.
• Women should be involved in the development of VMPs.
• Linkages with other agencies are an important part of work with women, as the project does not have the expertise to deal with women’s immediate needs.
• It was suggested that a full time female staff member should join the team in the last quarter of 1996
• IUCN project staff should receive some gender awareness training.

As a result of these recommendations, a full-time female gender specialist joined the project at the end of January 1997 as a WID Advisor, and has begun interaction with women belonging to the new valleys selected under the project. In both of the new sites (Kachura and Astore), PRAs were carried out with women with the assistance of AKRSP female staff and other local women. The results of these PRAs were incorporated into the draft VMPs prepared for these two project sites, and it is i ntended that women from the project sites will be briefed on the contents of these plans to obtain their feedback and approval. Formation of Women’s Organizations (WO’s) at village level has also been initiated with the help of AKRSP female social organis ers.

A one day gender training workshop was held for the project staff and representatives from the government forest department, as a first step to familiarise staff with the concept of gender and related issues.

• Gender Roles are different between Villages and also change over time

• Women have immediate social and health needs

• As a result of women’s various household responsibilities and NRM activities, they have less time than men to meet, discuss issues and be involved in extra activities.
• Women in the Northern Areas face a lack of mobility at varying degrees across the project sites. During recent PRAs carried out under the project, it was not possible to gather women at the valley level and in some cases it was not even possible to me et women at the village level.
• Only in Khyber village the Women’s Organisations were mature and active. In most of the other villages in the project sites, there are no WOs or if there are, they are inactive (eg. lower Kachura).
• Gender issues have received little attention to date due to the lack of female staff in the project and the absence of a clear strategy for involving women.

• There is evidently potential for involving women in this project, as they are the managers and users of land, forest pastures and water, and possess extensive knowledge about these aspects of NRM and the environment. In recent PRAs, women provided much information about wild plants and tree species and fuelwood collection.
• The co-operation of AKRSP female staff is a major advantage for the IUCN project team, as they are familiar with the IUCN project sites and speak the local languages. There are few women in the project sites who speak Urdu, and it is essential to alwa ys work with women who can speak the particular local language.
• The co-operation of men in the project sites is essential if any work with women is to succeed in these areas. They can help facilitate meetings, serve as translators and convince other men that it is important to involve women in the project.

AKRSP female staff provide strong support to the PRIF project in mobilising and ensuring the active participation of women. Without their co-operation, the task would be much more difficult.

The Need for Integrating Gender Issues

The following are suggestions about the ways in which gender issues may be better integrated in the future phase of the project.

At Project Level

Gender Training for Project Staff

Gender training of staff must be an on-going process. General communication skills and the concept of gender and related issues need to be dealt with in the context of the project and the communities it is working with.

Hire Local Female Staff

A capable and suitable local woman should be hired as a trainee who will in the future take the position of WID advisor. There might also be the need in the future for strengthening female field staff and also for effective linkages work.

Research and Gender Analysis

Women need to gain a higher profile in this project by ensuring that they are consulted in future research exercises, and also that their views and activities are considered and documented. Two multi-lingual local women have been tr ained in participatory research techniques, and it is intended to involve them in such research work.

Project Gender Strategy

There is an emerging need for the development of a clear gender strategy for this project. This should address activities, linkages, institutional issues and the way that women will be involved at different stages of the project cyc le. The project gender strategy will need to address the issue of women’s participation in the Village Conservation Committees and their role in decision-making regarding project activities. It is important to consult women at various stages of the projec t and especially during the preparation of the Village Management Plans.

The WID Advisor is currently undertaking the background work for this strategy. Other project staff could also provide some input. A working session with all project staff is required to be able to work through such a strategy and to se e where it is possible and realistic to involve women given the above constraints. This practical approach will be more useful than a concept paper as it will allow for follow-up. It is equally important to address this at the village level to ensure that men in the village support such a strategy. The co-operation of the men in the village is also linked to the importance male project staff give to the issue.

At Community Level

Social Organisation/Institutional Issues

There is a need to address this urgently and to establish how the project will work with women at the village level. As mentioned above, the WO structure does not exist in most of the sites, but there are new WOs being formed in sev eral villages. In certain communities, this would take more time due to constraints imposed by religious leaders. It may be appropriate to consider creating small interest groups of women in individual villages.

Activities Related to Biodiversity Conservation

If women are involved at different stages of the project cycle, they will be in a position to demand certain inputs and technical assistance from the project. There is a possibility to involve women directly in areas such as protect ion of natural forest, afforestation and to a lesser extent, the domestication and marketing of economic wild plants. The project will be investigating the possibilities for fuel efficient stoves, initially by consulting secondary material from existing w orking sites throughout the world and especially models which have been successful in Northern Pakistan.

 

Addressing Women’s Immediate Needs

It is necessary to deal simultaneously with women’s immediate social and health needs such as drinking water supply, health care (especially reproductive) and education. This can be done through effective linkages work with relevant organisations.

Project Impacts and Contributions

Impacts at Community level

Despite the project being only part way through its PRIF phase, impacts at the community level are positive, with the potential for very positive results as the project proceeds to its operational phase. Indications are that the inv olved communities believe that the conservation and management of natural resources is not only the responsibility of the government but also of the community. They have developed an increasing sense of ownership of the resources and of the planning and m anagement processes.

Communities are now realising that their natural resources are a potential source of sustainable income, but have a very realistic appreciation of what is possible. As noted elsewhere, there have recently been two cases where villagers have voluntarily released back to the wild snow leopards that had been trapped in and around the villages. This is a promising indication of the attitudinal impacts of the project at community level.

In many of the project areas, the AKRSP had already done much to raise awareness and establish community institutions. The AKRSP has assisted many villages in undertaking infrastructure developments such as irrigation channels, roads, b ridges and small power stations. The PRIF project has complemented the activities of the AKRSP, and has created an awareness that the natural resources around them are very important for their own long term livelihood. As a result, some communities have b anned hunting, established penalties for violations, and adopted rules for rotating grazing.

Contribution to national efforts to conserve biodiversity

The PRIF project is making a very valuable contribution to national efforts to conserve biodiversity in Pakistan. Pakistan is a signatory to the Biodiversity Convention, and is therefore committed to the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of its components. The National Conservation Strategy emphasises the need for sound conservation and management of biodiversity. More specifically, it makes provision to "promote community-based management systems so that local people participate in the protection and conservation of habitats and related wildlife species." The PRIF project is demonstrating that this is both practicable and achievable.

Previously, conventional conservation efforts in Pakistan that did not involve local communities had little success. The PRIF project is proving that a community-based approach to conservation can be beneficial both to conservation and the welfare of the communities. In a country such as Pakistan, this is very significant for the future conservation and management of natural resources.

Global Benefits and Contributions

Contribution to the larger context of GEF

The PRIF project is contributing directly to meeting GEF biodiversity objectives, and in particular to the operational programme for conservation of mountain ecosystems, through promoting conservation and sustainable use of the uniq ue mountain ecosystems of northern Pakistan. The northern area of Pakistan, the operational area of this project, is the meeting place of three of the world’s great mountain ranges, the Himalaya, Karakoram, and Hindu Kush. The project thus falls squarely within the objective of Operational Programme Number 4 (Mountain Ecosystems) as expressed in the GEF Operational Strategy which states:

"Activities in this operational programme will initially address the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity areas under increasing pressure and imminent threat of degradation, including the Mesoamerican, Andean, Easy Africa n, and Himalayan regions."

A draft of the supporting document for Operational Programme 4 makes it clear that, for the purposes of the programme, the Himalayan region includes the Hindu Kush and Karakoram ranges. As detailed in 11.2, the operational area of t he project contains various ecosystems and species of undoubted high significance.

Perhaps just as importantly, the PRIF project is making a very important contribution to the development of techniques and processes for effective community involvement in conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. As has been no ted elsewhere, the processes and achievements here compare very favourably with similar efforts in other parts of the world. The team is satisfied that the project is adding very significantly to the international body of experience in this very important area of endeavour.

A matter of initial concern to the team was that, with its apparent focus in some areas on species conservation and management, for example through species conservation plans, the project may not be giving sufficient attention to broade r issues of ecosystem conservation which are important in the GEF context. However, the team is satisfied that the project approach is satisfactory and realistic, and that it is in fact being effective at the ecosystem level.

For people at community level, broad concepts of biodiversity and ecosystems are difficult to understand, but they can relate to the conservation of large and visible animal species. The choice of a single species acts as a focus and ca talyst for action. In practice, the approach taken is through the protection of natural habitat and total systems rather than artificial management of species numbers. For example, one approach is to control and limit grazing of livestock on high altitude pastures, and to grow alternative forage on irrigated land at lower levels. This has general benefits for the high altitude ecosystem. As a further illustration that actions and commitments are not confined to single species management, it was interestin g and encouraging to note that all communities visited were adamant that they will not harm snow leopards, even though they are a genuine threat both to game animals and domestic livestock.

It was also encouraging to note that, in the NAs, the next major area selected for inclusion in the project is a large contiguous area encompassing several communities, with the potential to protect a large continuous ecosystem. It was suggested that it is considered to be a centre of biodiversity in the NAs, but the team was not able to ascertain for itself whether this is true.

The team believes that the project is making a very effective contribution to the objectives of the GEF, and that it is essential that it should be given the resources and opportunity to build on and consolidate the good work to date. T his will not only benefit the people and environment of the project area, but will provide important and useful lessons for application elsewhere.

Contribution to Commitments under the Convention on Biodiversity

The primary objective of the Convention on Biodiversity has three main elements:

• conservation of biological diversity
• sustainable use of its components
• fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the use of genetic resources

As distinct from the many projects, both within the GEF and elsewhere, which concentrate on in-situ conservation of biodiversity in protected areas, the PRIF project is testing and demonstrating processes and techniques which rel ate to other key objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity.

The project addresses the difficult but important issue of the in-situ conservation of wild species and habitats outside protected areas through community initiatives and involvement, and this is already showing beneficial result s in terms of animal numbers in some areas. The project is also showing promise in addressing the difficult issue of sustainable use of components of biodiversity in this extreme environment.

It is exploring practical ways to address the need for equitable sharing of the benefits that might result from sustainable use of natural resources. For example, at the community level there may be future economic returns from activiti es such as ecotourism, limited trophy hunting or economically valuable plants. Careful consideration is being given to the ways in which benefits will flow into the communities. As one example, the government has already agreed that, if trophy hunting doe s occur, 75% of trophy fees will be paid directly by the client to the community concerned, with the remaining 25% going to government.

The Village Conservation Funds being developed with project support will also be an important mechanism for ensuring equitable flow of benefits within the communities.

In summary, the PRIF project is making a useful contribution to meeting the key objectives of the Convention other than the conventional in-situ conservation of biodiversity within protected areas. It thus performs a very relevan t complementary role in relation to existing and proposed protected areas management operations in Pakistan.

Application of Incremental Cost Principle

The PRIF was launched under the pilot phase of the GEF. There was therefore no specific requirement that it respect the principle of meeting incremental costs, and there was no conscious decision to take it into account. In practice , however, the PRIF provides a very good example of the application of the incremental costs principle.

The project operates in very close co-operation with the AKRSP, which is active in many aspects of rural social and economic development throughout much of the NWFP and NAs, operating within a region with a total area of over 74,000 km< SUP>2, and with an annual budget in the order of US$ 12,000,000. The AKRSP places particular focus on the building of social organisations. The AKRSP also acts as a catalyst for various other donor inputs into its area of interes t, such as in education and health services. The presence and role of the AKRSP appears to be well accepted in the villages of the region.

In effect, the PRIF project meets the incremental costs of adding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to the work of the AKRSP. Physically, the PRIF project can be seen as operating in the natural and near-natural envir onment, including traditional summer grazing pastures, above the more intensely used and developed areas in and around the villages which are the AKRSP’s main focus of activity. The boundary between the two areas of interest can in many cases be considere d to be divided by the irrigation channels that many villages have constructed around the slopes above to bring water to their cultivated areas.

The degree of co-operation and synergy between AKRSP and IUCN is very encouraging and constructive. On the one hand AKRSP, as a much bigger operation, frequently provides logistical and transport support to IUCN, and can be seen as prov iding considerable co-financing support through contributions in kind. On the other hand, the village management planning processes conducted by IUCN under the PRIF have a very positive spin-off for AKRSP operations, as they take an integrated approach to the full range of conservation and development needs in the villages as a pre-cursor to identifying those aspects related to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. In at least one area, Begusht, the two organisations have collaborated on the prep aration of a joint Natural Resources Management Plan.

Perhaps most importantly, the PRIF approach and activities start from and build on the base of the very effective village organisational structures and community processes that have been built up under the AKRSP programme. This is a key element in the undoubted success of the PRIF project to date.

There are other programmes which can be considered as part of the baseline activity underlying the PRIF activity. For example, in Swat and Chitral, the Environmental Rehabilitation Project is active. This is a programme funded by the Ne therlands Government, the World Food Programme and the Government of NWFP. Its aim is to "support Village Development Committees and Women’s Organisations to strengthen their social organisation, skills and capital formation towards sustainable village de velopment and fair sharing of natural and other resources for all sections".

In the NWFP, the project builds incrementally on the capabilities and existing baseline activities in that area.

Sharing of lessons

The project is in a pilot phase, and is only recently coming to fruition. As yet, there has been little reason or opportunity to attempt to share the experiences of the project internationally. An exception is the exchange visit to Zimbabwe, although that was more concerned with acquisition of knowledge rather than imparting it.

As has been indicated elsewhere, the project is showing a high potential as a model for conservation through community involvement. The lessons are also applicable outside mountain environments. For the future, it is important that oppo rtunities are created to share the experiences and approaches with the outside world.

Leveraging of Additional Resources

In its pilot phase, the project has been aimed primarily at developing, testing and proving techniques and approaches. As yet, there has been little stress on leveraging other donor contributions to the process.

An important contribution has been the practical support that has been provided by the AKRSP. While this has not been a direct financial input, it has been nonetheless an extremely valuable contribution to the success of the project.

For the future, there is a high potential to attract other resources and make appropriate linkages as the local planning processes identify specific needs to be met. The Village Conservation Funds provide a good vehicle for the input of donor funds to meet community needs. As is discussed elsewhere, the team sees benefit in the establishment of a fund or funds focused directly on supporting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the northern and north-western mountain ecosyste ms of Pakistan. This would also have potential as a reliable and attractive channel for transmission of donor funds into implementing conservation programmes identified through the community planning processes.

District and provincial conservation strategies that are currently in preparation may also be a vehicle to bring the attention of potential donors to the community-based conservation approach.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In the team’s opinion, the PRIF project is fulfilling its purpose admirably. It has certainly proved the efficacy of a community-based approach to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use in the mountain areas of northern Pakis tan. It provides a very good foundation for the launching of a full-scale project. Given that the project is still only part way through the PRIF phase, and considering the great difficulties imposed by remoteness and logistics, the progress has been exce llent. Some key findings are:

• The processes leading from initial selection of project valleys through to preparation and implementation of village management plans and conservation plans is innovative and is proving to be very effective.
• Stakeholder participation at the community grassroots level is the fundamental core of the PRIF project. The project is providing for very effective participation and ownership at the community level. The project is making a strong contribution toward s building the capacity of communities to manage and conserve their own natural resources.
• The PRIF project is showing considerable success in addressing the root causes of biodiversity deterioration in the northern mountains.
• The overall impression is that the project is managed efficiently, and it is proving to be highly effective in meeting its core objectives related to conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in conjunction with community development.
• The project has not reached sustainability as yet. As a PRIF, it is not reasonable to expect that it should do so, but there are some encouraging signs that sustainability can be reached in the longer term. Perhaps the most encouraging indication of l ong term prospects is the level of commitment apparent among the communities involved.
• Gender issues have received limited attention to date due to the lack of suitably qualified female staff in the project and the absence of a clear strategy for involving women. This needs to receive more attention in future.
• Despite the project being only part way through its PRIF phase, impacts at the community level are positive, and the project is making a very valuable contribution to national efforts to conserve biodiversity in Pakistan. It is contributing directly t o meeting GEF biodiversity objectives, and in particular to Operational Programme Number 4 for conservation of mountain ecosystems.
• As distinct from the many projects, both within the GEF and elsewhere, which concentrate on in-situ conservation of biodiversity in protected areas, the PRIF project is testing and demonstrating processes and techniques which relate to other ke y objectives of the Convention on Biodiversity.
• Although it is a pilot phase GEF project, the PRIF provides a very good example of the application of the incremental costs principle, in that it meets the incremental costs of adding the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity to the work of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme and other programmes.
• For the future, there is a high potential to attract other resources and make appropriate linkages as the local planning processes identify specific needs to be met. The Village Conservation Funds provide a good vehicle for the input of donor funds to meet community needs.

The project has the potential to rank very highly among efforts worldwide to involve communities in the conservation of their resources. Indications are that it can achieve this for a comparatively modest input of resources.

The evaluation team has identified aspects where improvements can be made and lessons learnt from the experience to date. However, we see no major problems, and there is every reason to suggest that the full-scale phase should proceed w ith much the same thrust and approach as the PRIF project.

 

 

PART II:

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

INTRODUCTION

This section of the report examines the strategy and approach that might be adopted in leading from the PRIF phase to an operational GEF project.

Based on its findings and observations, the team’s fundamental approach is that the PRIF phase has more than adequately established the relevance and effectiveness of the community-based planning and management approach as a means towar ds conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the mountains of Pakistan. It is demonstrating a high potential to be a model that can be replicated with suitable adjustments in other parts of the world. In the team’s opinion, there is a very stron g case to move to a next phase of full operation as originally planned, subject of course to careful planning of the on-going project.

A particularly important factor is the very high level of expectation and commitment that has been built up among the communities involved. There is a potential for a major level of disappointment and loss of credibility if the good wor k cannot continue. There is also a distinct danger that the very positive progress in attitudinal change towards biodiversity protection would be reversed, with potential severe consequences for the globally significant species and ecosystems of the regio n.

The team therefore strongly recommends that an on-going operational project is approved and launched on schedule.

In regard to the design of the future phase, the team takes the approach expressed in the cliché "If it’s not broken, don’t fix it." In other words, we see no benefit in interfering with the basic thrust and approach of the core community-based activity that has been developed in the PRIF phase. Every indication is that it is relevant and effective. However, there is of course a need to examine all aspects of the design of the future project with great care to ensure that it is a s effective as possible, that it learns from the lessons of the PRIF phase, that it complies with all the necessary requirements and criteria, and that it represents efficient and effective use of GEF funds.

In the following sections, we discuss some of the issues involved. We set out a suggested concept and outline for the future phase as a basis for the more detailed planning phase which must follow, and which is beyond the scope of this present mission.

GOVERNMENT STRATEGY

The GOP’s national strategy for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity has four components:

• Biodiversity Action Plan (under action with World Bank support)
• Protected Areas Management Project (at proposal stage for funding by GEF/World Bank)
• Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development (the PRIF project and its successor)
• Protection and Management of Pakistan Wetlands (at pre-proposal stage for funding by GEF/UNDP)

The GOP is clear in "its commitment to a holistic approach to conserving biodiversity so that no single initiative by any one of the implementing agencies compromises the opportunity to obtain funds for other initiatives." This was reit erated verbally to the team.

GOP/WORLD BANK GEF PROPOSAL

Background

In assessing the nature and design of the operational phase of the community-based project, it is necessary to consider its relationship with the GOP/World Bank Protected Areas Management project proposal being developed for possibl e GEF funding. As outlined above, the GOP wishes to consider all elements of GEF support for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as a holistic package. The team supports this approach.

The following commentary is based on consultation with World Bank and project personnel in Washington and Islamabad and on examination of some preparatory written material. There was no draft proposal for the Protected Areas proposal av ailable to the team.

The GOP/World Bank proposal plans to support the management of three existing protected areas in Pakistan. The team’s understanding is that the three have been chosen by the Biodiversity Working Group, an inter-agency committee, in coll aboration with IUCN, out of a short-list developed through an analytical process using selection criteria developed for the purpose. Of the three chosen, one is within the NWFP/NAs area which has been the operational area of the PRIF phase of the present project. This is Chitral Gol National Park in the NWFP. Unfortunately, the disruption of the team’s itinerary through weather and access problems made it impossible to visit the Chitral Gol site.

Issues

With an area of 77.5 square kilometres (30 square miles), Chitral Gol is very small in relation to the total area of the northern mountain ecosystems of Pakistan, constituting about 0.04% of the total area of the NWFP and NAs. Even assuming that activities under the proposed protected areas project extend into a broader sphere of influence with Chitral Gol as a focus, which we understand is planned, the team considers that it cannot be seen as a significant contribution to the conse rvation and sustainable use of the globally significant and diverse mountain ecosystems of northern Pakistan. It is clear that other major measures for conservation and sustainable use in this area are essential and must be pursued.

In contrast, the total area of valleys that have been selected already to participate under the PRIF project in the NWFP and NAs is 5397.5 square kilometres (2080 square miles), with potential for a major inc rease under the operational phase. Sections 3.4 and 3.5 give more detail on the geographical coverage and representation of ecosystems achieved so far. There are many additional villages anxious to participate, and it seems likely that a very high proport ion of the northern ecosystems can be brought under this style of management if sufficient resources are available (see 11.1). Based on the experience to date, the resources required are relatively modest in relation to the potential returns. While the ob jectives are of course different and it is not reasonable to claim that conservation can be as intensive as inside protected areas, the team is satisfied that the potential for overall positive impact on biodiversity in this environment is higher under th e PRIF project approach than through management of protected areas, particularly protected areas of small size.

We also have little doubt that, in biodiversity terms, the PRIF project approach will show a greater return on investment for each dollar spent. On the information available, we do not know what proportion of the proposed US$ 10 million GEF funding of the protected areas project is intended to be applied in Chitral Gol. If it comprises any significant proportion of the proposed total project budget, it will be of a similar order to the total expenditure of the PRIF project to date.

The team has noted the World Bank proposal to employ a strategy of buffer zones and "clustering of satellite core areas" to extend the conservation impact beyond the specific national park area and adjoining buffer zone. On the basis of the brief information that we have about this concept, we find it hard to envisage how it might be successfully applied in the Chitral area without conflicting with or overlapping the successful community-based activity already in progress in that area u nder the PRIF. In the Chitral district, existing and proposed project valleys under the PRIF project total approximately 1800 square kilometres. Some of these coincide with any buffer zone for Chitral Gol.

We have noted some apparent difference in perception among various officials in the World Bank and government agencies on the degree to which the project will be active beyond the boundaries of the protected areas, and also regarding th e degree of community involvement and empowerment that it will lead to in and around the protected areas.

Options

There does appear to be a real and potentially serious issue here for the GOP to consider. In the team’s view, it is unlikely that the GEF Council will be prepared to consider either or both projects singly or together unless it is satisfied that the issues outlined above are resolved adequately. Because of the obvious overlap of functions and territory under present planning, we do not believe that it will be sufficient to simply forewarn the GEF that a further project is to come. We suggest that it is essential that there must be dialogue at a high level among the GOP, UNDP, World Bank and IUCN (in its role as an advisor to all parties) to resolve the issues before any proposal is submitted for GEF consideration. Some options to r esolve the issues are set out below:

	Option	Comments
1.	Confine the activity in the Chitral Gol component of the PA project to park management, with the community-based conservation project attending to management of the buffer zones and wider areas in the Chitral District.	This would require close co-operation. It should work in practice because the same NWFP officials will be in key roles in each project.
2.	Withdraw the community-based project from the whole Chitral district.	This would be unfortunate, as there are several communities already at various stages of consultation and involvement with the PRIF project. Change would inevitably be disruptive and may lead to a loss of credibility and willingness to par ticipate.
3.	Replace Chitral Gol in the PA project with another PA from the priority list already established, with the community-based project assuming responsibility to address the issues of conservation and management in Chitral Gol.	The team understands that the habitat in Chitral Gol is being damaged through grazing use from adjoining communities. To address this, the successor project to the PRIF could have as a priority the extension of its coverage to include the Chitral Gol valley as a project area. This would provide an opportunity to test the applicability of the community-based management approach in promoting better management of a small protected area. Another benefit of this option is that it provides an opportunity to use the PA project to address conservation needs in another type of ecosystem outside the mountains, adding to the overall coverage and effectiveness of the strategic package. In this respect also, the team would suggest that the replacement PA chosen for the PA project should not be the Indus dolphin reserve, as it is likely that this will receive protection under the forthcoming UNDP/GEF proposal on wetland conservation.
4.	Replace Chitral Gol in the PA project with a proposal to investigate, identify, create and manage a new national park designed to give firm protection to a large sample of juniper forest.	This is a variation on Option 3. The team notes with some concern that none of the currently proposed GEF projects address the issue of conservation of the juniper forests ecosystem, although the "Biodiversity Guide to Pakistan" notes that juniper forests have been identified as one of three ecosystem types of unique ecological interest and international importance. In the team’s opinion, this option would substantially strengthen the PA proposal as a potential GEF project.

 

Options 3 and 4 have the potential to provide a logical and effective national strategy for biodiversity which would include:

1. an operational successor to the PRIF project with the aim of achieving conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in association with community development throughout the mountain ecosystems in the Northern Areas and NWFP, building on the succes s of the PRIF project to date and using the techniques which it has proven.
2. a protected areas management project focusing on three protected areas in three different important ecosystem types outside the area covered in (a)
3. a wetlands/Indus flyway project as has been proposed by UNDP

RECOMMENDED STRATEGY AND APPROACH

The team recommends that an operational phase project for community-based management should proceed on the following basis.

Geographical Coverage

In the team’s opinion, the project should have the whole of the mountain ecosystems of the NWFP and NAs as its operational area, with specific project areas being chosen within this. The total area of these two political units is 17 4,700 square kilometres, the great majority of which falls within the mountain systems proposed as the operational area of this project. Within this broad operational area, the project will focus on identifying and working in specific project areas that c ontain fragile alpine ecosystems under threat from human use, and which contain the most important biodiversity values and species. First estimates are that the project can aim to include perhaps 20% of the broad operational area within community-managed project areas.

It has been suggested that the operational project should be extended to other areas of Pakistan or even the whole of the country. On the basis of its inspections and knowledge, the team is unable to comment on the suitability of the ap proach in other parts of the country. The team is convinced that the continuation and extension of the community approach in the mountain areas is appropriate and justified, and should be the first priority. During the preparatory phase, the GOP and UNDP may want to investigate whether the approach might be extended elsewhere, but in the team’s opinion this should not be at the expense of the mountain areas. As noted in 10, the team sees the opportunity of protecting representatives of other ecosystems of Pakistan through other elements of an integrated GEF package.

Global/GEF significance

As outlined in 6.3.1, the operational area of the project is the meeting point of three of the great mountain ranges of the world, the Himalaya, Karak3333oram and Hindu Kush, which are a specific focus of GEF Operational Programme N umber 4. Northern Pakistan contains the greatest concentration of high mountain peaks in the world. In the Central Karakoram National Park alone, there are 58 peaks estimated to be over 7,000 metres in elevation. Five of the world’s peaks greater than 8,0 00 metres are within the operational area of the project.

As outlined in 3.5 and 3.6, the specific project areas already under action are providing for community-based conservation of representative samples of the full range of ecosystems of these mountain areas. In the initial feasibility pha se, pilot project areas have included approximately 5% of the total land base and the total human population in Northern Areas and Chitral.

The Western Himalaya is one of four principal areas of endemism on the Indian subcontinent attesting to the innate biodiversity value of this area. The convergence of two biogeographical provinces (Himalayan and Pamir-Karakoram) has res ulted in an impressive richness of ecological diversity based on elevation and aspect. This region of Pakistan has been identified as a centre of floral endemism with approximately 90% of the endemics occurring at altitudes over 1,200 m. There are an esti mated 2,000 medicinal plants in Pakistan, although few of them are exploited and about 90% of the country’s medicinal herb requirement is imported.

The Western Himalayan region has also been considered an Endemic Bird Area (EBA) of urgent biological importance. Breeding birds are a mixture of Palaearctic and Indomalayan forms and show the diverse origins of the avifauna. While inte nsive bird inventories of the project areas have not yet been completed, several species at risk probably occur there.

Through its selection criteria, the PRIF project focuses on areas that have high biodiversity values and that are under threat from human activities such as excessive deforestation, livestock grazing and illegal hunting particularly in the fragile high altitude ecosystems. These areas also constitute critical habitat to a number of endangered mammal species, including the markhor, snow leopard, Ladakh urial and the woolly flying squirrel. It is estimated that over 50% of the global popu lation of markhor are within the operational area of the project.

The endemic woolly flying squirrel, until recently believed to be extinct, has now been re-discovered in one part of the Northern Areas. Its global distribution is practically confined within the boundaries of the project area, where a number of other, near-threatened mammals are also known to occur (asiatic black bear, musk deer, blue sheep, grey goral, and long-tailed marmot). Of the 13 officially threatened mammal species in Pakistan (1996 IUCN Red List), at least 4 are known to occu r in one or more of the existing project valleys.

The project will address protection of fragile and threatened alpine ecosystems through community-managed conservation and sustainable use programmes and activities. These will be developed through planning and management programmes own ed by the mountain communities using innovative techniques developed during the PRIF phase. It thus will address very directly the objectives of Operational Programme 4 as outlined in the GEF Operational Strategy.

The project can thus bee seen as a focal point activity within Operational Programme 4, both in the geographical and functional senses.

Title

The official title might be "Biodiversity Conservation and Community Development in the Mountains of Pakistan." However, as outlined in 11.5, it is recommended that a more catchy and charismatic title be adopted as a permanent ident ity.

Duration

The suggested project duration is five years. This might be broadly divided into two phases. The first three years would concentrate on consolidating the activities and building experience and would to a large extent be a continuati on of the activities under the PRIF phase. In the final two years, the emphasis would shift to the development of a long term sustainable programme and structure that learns from and consolidate the experience gained. The objective would be to leave a ful ly operational and sustainable system in place when the external support finishes. This may entail some quite major changes in organisational structures and arrangements.

Project Identity

An issue which deserves some consideration is the long term identity of the programme. The team noted that in the NAs, the project is closely identified with IUCN. For the communities in this area, the project is clearly seen as an IUCN project. In the NWFP, the project is centred in the Biodiversity Project Unit within the Forest and Wildlife Department of the Government of NWFP, but is identified under the official UNDP/GEF project title "Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development".

There is an element of inconsistency here which might be addressed in the next phase. However, a more important issue is that in the long term, the aim must be that the programme becomes sustainable and that there is no longer need for input either from IUCN or UNDP/GEF. It would therefore be desirable that the project quickly develops a permanent identity that is independent of the current organisational and funding involvement. We see benefits if this identity can be developed soon, p erhaps to coincide with the commencement of the operational phase. The aim should be that the project develops an identity in its own right, with the current funding and implementing agencies being seen as interim facilitators, each contributing in their own way towards establishing the project as a permanent entity which maintains its identity and sustainability beyond the GEF support phase.

The current official project title is obviously too cumbersome as a permanent identity. The need is for a simple but meaningful distinctive word or phrase. The team is attracted to the approach that has been adopted in various countries in Africa, where similar programmes have adopted a catchy and charismatic single word title. An example is the "CAMPFIRE" programme in Zimbabwe (Communal Areas Management Programme For Indigenous Resources). A possible example for the Pakistan programme is "IBECS" (Integrated Biodiversity Enhancement for Communities and Sustainability", pronounced "ibex", and this is used below as an illustration. However, the team stresses that this is only an illustrative example. It recommends strongly that a permanen t identity for the programme should be devised and selected through a participatory process involving the stakeholders. One approach would be to organise a regional competition in the north to develop a suitable identity and logo for the programme.

If such an identity can be devised and adopted, we suggest that all activity and organisations involved would operate under this identity. For example, all project field offices would assume this identity, regardless of the particular a gency responsible for implementation of the programme in that area. All correspondence and publications would also be under the common identity. It may be that the District Conservation Committees and any future regional bodies should also act under the c ommon title, for example as the "District IBECS Committee" and/or the "IBECS Fund."

Objective

The objectives of the PRIF phase reflected its preparatory and pilot nature. Objectives for the operational phase can be more definitive. A proposed basic objective is:

To assist and enable rural people in the mountain ecosystems of northern Pakistan to achieve conservation of their globally significant surrounding biodiversity, the sustainable use of its components and an equitable sharing of benefi ts deriving from sustainable uses.

This is designed to be directly relevant to the problems to be solved, to reflect community ownership of the resources and process, while also being directly relevant to the primary objective of the Convention on Biodiversity.

Section 4.10 suggests that the root causes of biodiversity loss in the mountain areas can be defined as:

• the lack of incentives for rural people to conserve or manage their surrounding natural resources
• the lack of involvement of local rural people in decision making and problem solving about the use and management of natural resources
• the limited success and suitability of conventional conservation tools in this social and physical environment

The project must be designed to specifically address these root causes, building on the success of the PRIF project.

Implementation Arrangements

The implementation arrangements for the operational phase will of course be a subject for consideration and decision during the preparation process.

The team’s opinion is that, given the success of the PRIF phase, and the need to allow the agencies concerned to consolidate their achievements and their relationship with communities, there appears to be no need for fundamental changes to the present implementation arrangements. In fact, there are dangers of a loss of momentum and effectiveness if major changes are introduced at this stage of the process. We see benefit in continuing the different implementation arrangements in the NAs and NWFP in the medium term. However, one objective of the project during its life should be to draw on and integrate those different experiences to move towards a consistent, effective and sustainable organisational arrangement that can be in place when external assistance ceases.

The team cannot attempt to pre-empt these longer term decisions on permanent organisational arrangements. We suspect that the best solution will be some form of non-government or quasi-government organisation established specially for t he purpose, under direction of a board drawn widely from within the region. The existing District Conservation Committees perhaps give a hint of the type of representation that might be sought. As noted in 11.5, such a body would best operate under the id entity and logo chosen for the programme. In addition to management of the programme, it might also administer the trust fund referred to in 11.9.

Core Outputs and Activities

The team envisages that the core activity of facilitating community conservation management should proceed essentially unchanged. This includes the valley selection process, dialogue with communities, PRAs, village management plans, conservation plans and the village conservation funds. In both the selection of project areas and in the planning processes, the on-going project should seek to place increasing emphasis on conservation of ecosystems. In the valley selection process, thi s will entail consideration of the ecosystem values of areas, and of the desirability of choosing adjoining areas to create large contiguous areas. In the planning processes, it will require attention to ensure that ecosystem and habitat conservation rema in a primary underlying objective, although this might be expressed in the form of species management plans.

Over the project period, the objective will be to extend the community planning and management processes over the greatest practicable proportion of the mountain ecosystems that meet the selection criteria. The priority should be on are as under threat or pressure from human activity, such as vulnerable high pastures used for summer grazing.

Biodiversity Trust Fund

The team suggests that continuing action towards a national biodiversity fund should be kept distinct from the core thrust of this project. We note that the World Bank GEF proposal envisages the creation of a "Park Trust" to mobilis e internal and external funds to support park management activities. We also understand that there is a possibility of a trust fund aimed at combating desertification. There is an obvious need for coordination, as it seems likely that the functions of all these proposals can be integrated.

We suggest that, in the detailed planning for the operational phase project, the concept of a permanent regional biodiversity fund should be investigated. This would be aimed directly at supporting the project objectives. It would be ba sed and administered in the mountains region, under the management and direction of representatives drawn from all levels in the region. Its objective would be to attract funds and to direct them through village conservation funds to projects identified t hrough the village planning and conservation planning processes. Projects chosen would be those that can be shown to contribute directly or indirectly to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

As noted in 11.5, we suggest that such a fund should be identified directly with the biodiversity conservation programme through the use of the chosen programme identity and logo.

Plants of Economic Importance

As noted in 3.14, the team believes that, in the operational phase project, plants of potential economic importance should be considered only to the extent that they contribute directly to the project objective. Where appropriate, t hey should be a matter for consideration within selected project areas as a social resource and as a possible source of sustainable economic return. The focus should be on assisting the communities to best realise the potential sustainable benefits. In so me cases, this might entail more detailed scientific research where there appears to be some wider commercial potential.

There may be a case for development of a more general national programme to inventory, discover and research plants and organisms of potential economic importance, perhaps on a model similar to that in Costa Rica. However, the team beli eves that it is better that this is pursued separately rather than as a part of the community-based biodiversity project.

Capacity Building

The future project must pay close attention to capacity building, particularly in the NAs. It should be an aim that, at the end of the project period, there is an established capacity to continue the programme on a permanent and sus tainable basis without external support.

This capacity building will include but not necessarily be confined to government agencies. The team believes that, in the long term, it is likely that the programme is better managed by a special body outside the core government system (see 11.7).

Budget Requirements

The team has not yet been able to give any detailed consideration to budget requirements for the operational phase project. Taking into account the achievements under the PRIF phase, economies of scale, the project infrastructure al ready established, the efficiency of the operation to date and the benefit of the experience that has been gained, it seems likely that the planned $ 3.5 million, along with the balance of the PRIF funds not yet spent, will enable a very effective operati on.

In the PRIF phase, the percentage of project funds budgeted for direct support to projects in communities has been necessarily quite small. In the operational phase, it will be important that a greater proportion of project funds goes i n this direction.

Incremental Costs

General

The detailed identification and calculation of incremental costs will be an important matter for attention in the project preparation phase. The team believes that GEF criteria for incremental costs will be well met in this project. As was noted in 6.3.3, the project is already effectively operating in an incremental manner in relation to the activities of the AKRSP and other programmes.

System Boundary

The proposed project area is largely isolated from other parts of Pakistan by difficulties of access. Physically, it will probably be reasonable to define the system boundary for the purposes of calculating incremental costs as the boundaries of the NWFP and NAs, although more detailed investigation might show the need to adjust this to coincide more with ecosystem boundaries than political boundaries. Functionally, the system boundary might be seen to encompass the existing project s and programmes in that area that are addressing other aspects of community development and/or natural resource management. The AKRSP is the major example, but there are others.

Baseline

Similarly, the baseline will presumably be the resources currently committed to community development and natural resource management across the same regions under other programmes, both government and non-government. In addition to government baseline activity, a major element will be the community development programme of the AKRSP. The forthcoming UNDP/IFAD Northern Areas Development Project may also be an important baseline component. In addition to general capacity building at the provincial government level, it will be active in on-ground development in the Diamer district, where the AKRSP is not active, but where there are proposed new areas for inclusion in the community-based conservation project.

Domestic Benefits

There are some limited potential domestic economic benefits which might accrue as a result of the programme, and which might not occur otherwise, and which will therefore be a factor in incremental costs calculations. The most obvio us is the potentially large trophy hunting fees which might become available to communities if and when species numbers increase to the point that a limited trophy hunting take is acceptable and desirable as a sustainable use. Another possible source of d omestic benefits is ecotourism.

Co-financing

There is a strong need under GEF requirements to identify co-financing partners. This is a matter that UNDP and the GOP will need to pursue.

As noted in 6.3.3, the AKRSP can be seen as effectively providing a significant degree of co-financing through contributions in kind. Regarding other sources of support, the team suggests that emphasis should be given to establishing an d promoting the proposed regional trust fund as a vehicle for transmittal of donor funds directly to relevant projects at the community. A suggestion is that a grant is sought from another source, such as an international NGO, a bilateral donor or private foundation, to provide the seed funding for the proposed regional trust fund.

Other Design Issues

In various sections of the preceding evaluation report, there are recommendations which may influence the design and activities of the operational phase project. These should be considered in the design phase.

PROJECT PREPARATION

If the strategy outlined above is accepted, there is a need to enter the formal project preparation phase. There is provision under the GEF for the obtaining of special funding grants under the Project Development Fund (PDF) for pre paration of projects. In this case, provision to "work out the scope and modalities of the full scale project" is a component of the PRIF project.

Because the proposed operational project is largely a roll-over and quite minor adjustment of the PRIF activities, there does not appear to be the need or justification to seek PDF funding. The team believes that the necessary planning and preparatory work can readily be undertaken within the scope of the PRIF. This may require some minor re-direction of priorities for the forthcoming period, and it will be necessary to carefully plan and schedule the sequence of actions required to mov e towards submission and approval of a new GEF project brief.

CONCLUSION

In the team’s opinion, the PRIF project is performing its function very well. It is testing and proving the efficacy of the community-based approach as a means of achieving conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the ext reme mountain environment. It is laying a very solid foundation for a longer term operational project.

Subject to the design considerations outlined in the previous sections, the team recommends strongly that the roll-over to the full scale operational phase should proceed as planned. To do otherwise would lead to a major loss of credibi lity and a sense of disappointment among the affected communities. It would also compromise a very promising opportunity to conserve the globally significant ecosystems and species of the mountains of Pakistan.

 

ATTACHMENT 1

MISSION PROGRAMME

Monday, 7 April
1000	Team assembles, meets with UNDP personnel
1400	Team discussions
Tuesday, 8 April
0830	Meeting with IUCN project personnel
1030	Meeting with UNDP Deputy Resident Representative and staff
1200	Meeting with Additional Secretary, Ministry of Environment and staff
1330	Lunch with IUCN staff (Karachi and Islamabad) and Project Director, Peshawar
1430	Meeting with staff from IUCN Karachi
1630	Meeting with UNDP senior staff - discussion of mission programme
Wednesday, 9 April
0400	Depart hotel for airport
0600	Depart by air to Gilgit
0700	Return to Islamabad (bad weather in Gilgit)
0900	Depart for Gilgit by road
2345	Arrive Gilgit
Thursday, 10 April
0800	Briefing on NAs project activities at IUCN Gilgit
1100	Depart for Khyber village
1530	Arrive Khyber village
1600	Attend General Body meeting of Khyber village
1800	Depart for Hunza
2000	Arrive Hunza
Friday, 11 April
0800	Depart for Gilgit
1000	View project video at IUCN office, Gilgit
1200	Depart for Bagicha
1530	Markhor sighting from road
1630	Arrive Bagicha, meeting with community leaders, Skoyo, Krabathang, Basingo
1800	Depart for Skardu
1930	Arrive Skardu
Saturday, 12 April
0900	Meeting with Regional Director and staff, AKRSP
1030	Meeting with District Commissioner, Skardu
1130	Depart for Kachura
1200	Attended village management planning workshop, Kachura
1800	Depart for Skardu
1900	Arrive at Skardu
Sunday, 13 April
0600	Depart for Hushey (Team Leader remained in Skardu for detailed consultations with IUCN staff.)
1130	Arrive Hushey, consultation with Hushey village
1500	Depart for Skardu
2030	Arrive at Skardu
Monday, 14 April
1000	Flight to Islamabad canceled, depart for Besham by road
1700	Onset of rainstorm, encountered many slips and boulders on road
2000	Road blocked, took overnight shelter at Dassu
Tuesday, 15 April
1000	Depart for Besham
1300	Arrive Besham, lunch with NWFP project staff
1400	Depart for Mingora
1745	Arrive Mingora
2000	Dinner and discussions with project staff
Wednesday, April 16
0900	Depart for Buner village
1030	Arrive at Buner, consultation with local community
1330	Depart for Mardan
1530	Arrive Mardan, lunch with NWFP project staff
1930	Arrive Islamabad
Thursday, April 17 - Sunday, April 20
Study of background material, preparation of draft report
Monday 21 April	Consultations with UNDP, meeting with Protected Areas project formulation team, preparation of draft report
Tuesday 22 April	Meeting with NWFP project staff, preparation of draft report
Wednesday 23 April	Submission of draft report, consultations on future stage.
Thursday 24 April	Consultation meetings with World Bank, IUCN, UNDP
Friday 25 April	Revision of report
Saturday 26 April	Finalisation of report

ATTACHMENT 2

PEOPLE CONSULTED DURING THE MISSION

 

The table below lists the names and positions of various people met during the course of the mission. However, perhaps the most important consultations were those with the leaders and community members of the villages vi sited by the team during its field inspections. These villages included Khaiber, Skoyo, Krabathang, Basingo, Kachura, Hushey and Buner. Unfortunately, it is not possible to list all these people by name. The team wishes to thank the many members of those communities who gave their time, and who participated in the various discussions. The team wishes also to record its thanks to those villages for the hospitality and friendship that they showed towards the team.

 

Name	Position	Institution
Nileema Noble	GEF Coordinator, RBAP	UNDP, New York
Eduardo Fuentes	Principal Biodiversity Advisor, Biodiversity Management, GEF/UNDP	UNDP, New York
Thore Hansen	Programme Manager, Country Office Support Division, RBAP	UNDP, New York
Peter Hazlewood	Coordinator, GEF Small Grants Programme	UNDP, New York
Edythe Arturi	RBAP/GEF	UNDP, New York
Nadim Khouri	Agriculturalist	Agriculture and Natural Resources Operations, Country Department 1, South Asia Region World Bank, Washington DC
Malcolm Jansen	Environmental Specialist,	Environment and Natural Resources Division, Asia Technical Department, World Bank, Washington DC
Harumi Sakaguchi	Deputy Resident Representative	UNDP, Pakistan
Parviz Fartash	Assistant Resident Representative	UNDP, Pakistan
Yasumitsu Doken	Programme Officer	UNDP, Pakistan
Razina Bilgrami	Programme Officer	UNDP, Pakistan
Farhan Sabih	Programme Officer	UNDP, Pakistan
Dr. Chaudhry Inayatullah	Sustainable Development Advisor	UNDP, Pakistan
Mohammad Mateen uddin	Programme Officer	UNDP, Pakistan
Dr Javed Ahmed	Head, Natural Resources Group	IUCN, Islamabad
Saeed-uz-Zaman	Project Manager	PRIF Project
Shafqat Hussein	Project Administrator	PRIF Project
Zafarullah Khan	Additional Secretary	Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development
Mahboob Elahi	Director General, Environment	Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development
Imram Habib	Section Officer	Ministry of Environment, Local Government and Rural Development
Dr Mumtaz Malik	Conservator Wildlife	NWFP Government
Aban Kabraji	Country Representative	IUCN Pakistan
Nelma Akhund	Head, Business and Law Unit	IUCN Karachi
Stella Jafri	Social Strategies Group	IUCN Karachi
Scott Perkin	Programme Support Unit	IUCN Karachi
Imtiaz Alvi	Programme Support Unit	IUCN Karachi
Amjad Tahir Virk	Project Coordinator	PRIF Project, Gilgit
Qasim Mehboob	Assistant Project Coordinator	PRIF Project, Gilgit
Kent Jingfors	Technical Advisor	PRIF Project, Gilgit
Siobhan Warrington	WID Advisor	PRIF Project, Gilgit
Fida Hassan	Assistant Project Coordinator	PRIF Project, Skardu
Alyoscha Gloekler	Consultant	PRIF Project, Gilgit
Khaleel A. Tetlay	Regional Programme Manager	AKRSP, Skardu
Aurengzeb Zia	Agricultural Economist	AKRSP, Skardu
Dr Iqkel	Livestock Expert	AKRSP, Skardu
	District Commissioner	Skardu
Safdar Ali Shah	Project Coordinator	PRIF Project, Peshawar
Abdul Hamid	DFO (Wildlife)	PRIF Project, NWFP
Junaid Khan	RFO (Wildlife)	PRIF Project, NWFP
Jan Wind	Senior Technical Advisor	Environmental Rehabilitation Project, Swat
Richard Garstang	Team Leader	Protected Areas Project
Najib Murtaza	Projects Advisor	World Bank, Islamabad
K M Siddiqui	Director General	Pakistan Forest Institute

 

ATTACHMENT 3

PROFILES OF COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT

 

Region	Project Area	No. of Villages	No. of House-holds	No. of People	Size of CCAs (ha)
Northern Areas	Khyber	1	84	800	20,000
	Hushey	1	120	1,000	80,000
	S-K-B	3	150	1,500	36,000
	Bunji	1	300	2,500	30,000
	M-D-D	6	660	6,600	40,000
	Kachura	6	500	5,340	50,000
Subtotal		18	1,814	17,740	256,000
NWFP	Arkari	11	600	4,400	100,000
	Begusht	3	570	5,400	50,000
	Goleen Gol	5	150	1,250	49,750
	Keso Gol	1	400	4,000	23,700
	Nanser-Kinger Gali	5	500(?)	5,000(?)	20,300
	Kumrot	3	750	7,300	70,000
Subtotal		28	2,970	27,350	313,750
TOTAL		46	4,784	45,090	569,750

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT 4

DOCUMENTS CONSULTED DURING EVALUATION

 

Author	Title	Date
	Village Management Plan for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources and Conservation of Biodiversity, Khaiber Valley.	January 1996
	Village Management Plan for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources and Conservation of Biodiversity, Arkari Valley, District Chitral.	January, 1996
	Ibex Conservation Plan for Arkari Valley, District Chitral. Draft
	Minutes- Tripartite Review Meeting for PAK/93/G41	September 1996
	Biodiversity Conservation Plan for Arkari Valley, District Chitral
Akhund, Nelma and Baqir, Fayyaz.	Developing a National Environment Fund in Pakistan; Using Lessons Learned from the Field. UNDP/IUCN	March, 1997.
AKRSP	Aga Khan Rural Support Programme. Thirteenth Annual Review, 1995	1995
AKRSP	Operational Plan of Natural Resource Management (NRM) in Begusht Valley, Chitral	July 1996
Alvi, Imtaz	Developing a Monitoring and Evaluation System for the Biodiversity Project	September 1996
Alvi, Imtaz	Biodiversity Project, Gilgit, Field Visit Report
Edwards, Stephen R.	Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development: Second Mission Report	November 1995
Edwards, Stephen R.	Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development: Third Mission Report	June 1996
Edwards, Stephen R.	Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development: Fourth Mission Report	December 1996
Environment and Urban Affairs Division, GOP.	The Pakistan National Conservation Strategy
Environment and Urban Affairs Division, Government of Pakistan.	Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development. PC-II
Environmental Rehabilitation Project.	HUJRA (Monthly Newsletter).	April 1997
Government of NWFP	Notification - Policy for Trophy Hunting	February 1997
Hushey Village Organisation (HVO)	Ibex Conservation Plan, Hushey Valley (Ghanche District)	March 1997
Hussein, Shafqat	The M and E System to the Biodiversity Project	April 1997
IUCN	Biodiversity Action Plan And Protected Areas Management Project Inception Report	1996
IUCN	Wildlife Policy for Pakistan - Draft Discussion Paper	1996
IUCN Pakistan/WWF Pakistan.	Rapid Surveys of Short-listed Protected Areas Summary Report.	February 1997.
IUCN.	Pakistan Biodiversity Fund: Concept/Options Paper.	April 1997
IUCN.	Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development: Annual Progress Report, January-December 1996.	1997.
Khan, Rubiya Ali	Role of Women in the Conservation of Biodiversity, Khyber Valley, Gilgit District	August 1996
Leaman, Dianna J.	A Review of the Medicinal Plant Component of "Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development". (Draft for internal circulation only).	March 1997.
Ministry of Environment, Urban Affairs, Forestry and Wildlife.	Strategic Approach to Financing Biodiversity Conservation in Pakistan.
Mock, John	Mountain Protected Areas in Pakistan
Qureshi, Zianab.	Pakistan Biodiversity Fund: Legal Research Paper 1, Trust Structure.	January 1997
Roberts, T. J.	Birds of Pakistan.	1991
Shahi Khyber Imamabad Welfare Organisation (SKIWO)	Ibex Conservation Plan, Khyber Valley (Gilgit District)	March 1997
SKB Conservation Committee	Wildlife Conservation Plan, Skoyo-Karabathing-Basingo (Skardu District)	March 1997
UNDP	PDF "B" Application- Protection and Management of Pakistan Wetlands	August 1996
UNDP	Northern Areas Development Project (NADP) - Appraisal Mission, Aide Memoire	1997
UNDP.	Activity Initiation Brief. Maintaining Biodiversity in Pakistan with Rural Community Development.
Virk, Amjad,	A Study Tour of East and Southern Africa, Trip Report,	March 1997
Warrington, Siobhan	Report on the Gender Workshop, IUCN Gilgit, 9 March 1997	April 1997
Warrington, Siobhan	With a Pen in One Hand and a Child in the Other - Carrying Out PRA with Women in Astore and Skardu	April 1997
World Conservation Monitoring Centre	Biodiversity Guide to Pakistan	1991

 


Go Back