impact evaluation of gef support to protected areas and protected area systems

154 Pages·2015·2.51 MB·English

GEF/ME/C.49/Inf.02
October 06, 2015
49th GEF Council Meeting
October 20-22, 2015
Washington, D.C.

IMPACT EVALUATION OF GEF SUPPORT TO PROTECTED AREAS AND PROTECTED
AREA SYSTEMS
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................IV
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................... V
PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 1
Background ........................................................................................................................ 1
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 2
Opportunities and Recommendations for achieving greater impact .................................... 3
EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHOD ........................................................................................... 7
Objective and key questions ............................................................................................... 7
Evaluation scope ................................................................................................................ 8
Theory-based framework for assessing impact ................................................................... 8
Evaluation components .................................................................................................... 12
Portfolio Analysis Component ............................................................................................... 12
Global Analysis Component ................................................................................................... 13
Case Study Analysis Component ............................................................................................ 14
Mitigating methodological challenges and limitations ...................................................... 16
Substantial information gaps on GEF support ....................................................................... 16
Difficulties in estimating the counterfactuals ........................................................................ 17
Multidisciplinary and mixed methods approach ................................................................... 18
GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY TRENDS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................... 19
Global Biodiversity Trends................................................................................................ 19
Threats to Global Biodiversity .......................................................................................... 21
Protected Areas as a Biodiversity Conservation Tool ......................................................... 23
Evolution of Approaches to Protected Areas Conservation and Management ................... 25
Looking Ahead – Challenges of Conserving Biodiversity in a Rapidly Changing World ........ 26
GEF SUPPORT TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PROTECTED AREAS ............................................... 28
i
GEF financing of non-marine protected areas and protected area systems ........................ 30
BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS IN GEF-SUPPORTED PROTECTED AREAS ........................................................... 34
Trends in Forest Cover ..................................................................................................... 34
Loss across biomes ................................................................................................................. 35
Loss across countries ............................................................................................................. 36
Loss over period of GEF support ............................................................................................ 38
Contextual factors contributing to loss ................................................................................. 38
Trends in Species Populations Outcomes .......................................................................... 42
Trends in Environmental Outcomes at Project End ........................................................... 47
MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS .................................................................................................... 49
Management Effectiveness at a Global Scale .................................................................... 49
Management Effectiveness in Visited PA Sites .................................................................. 54
Management capacities ........................................................................................................ 58
Expanded management ......................................................................................................... 59
Sources of funding ................................................................................................................. 60
Continuing threats ................................................................................................................. 60
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................ 63
Community Attitudes and Interactions ............................................................................. 65
Social and Economic Benefits ........................................................................................... 67
Socioeconomic Impacts and Distribution of Benefits......................................................... 70
GOVERNANCE.......................................................................................................................... 76
Legal Frameworks for Protection and Co-management ..................................................... 76
Support at Higher Scales .................................................................................................. 77
Policy development ................................................................................................................ 78
Management capacities and approaches ............................................................................. 80
Contributing contextual factors ............................................................................................. 82
Clarity and Coordination of Mandates .............................................................................. 83
Local Pressures, Large-scale Drivers .................................................................................. 86
GEF’S CATALYTIC ROLE.............................................................................................................. 89
Extent of progress towards impact at project end ............................................................. 89
Factors Affecting Progress towards Impact ....................................................................... 91
ii
Broad Adoption Processes in Visited Protected Areas ....................................................... 92
Key Characteristics of GEF’s catalytic support ................................................................... 96
Long-term engagement ......................................................................................................... 97
Financial sustainability ........................................................................................................ 100
Creation of links across multiple approaches, scales and stakeholders .............................. 102
CONCLUSIONS, OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 107
Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 107
Conclusion 1 ......................................................................................................................... 107
Conclusion 2 ......................................................................................................................... 108
Conclusion 3 ......................................................................................................................... 109
Conclusion 4 ......................................................................................................................... 110
Conclusion 5 ......................................................................................................................... 111
OPPORTUNITIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACHIEVING GREATER IMPACT ......................................... 112
Ensuring that GEF support targets areas rich in global biodiversity ................................... 112
Addressing the socioeconomic conditions that will ensure local community commitment to
biodiversity protection ......................................................................................................... 113
Investing in broader governance issues to address large-scale drivers .............................. 114
Developing a more reliable and practical monitoring system to track and assess results at
the project and portfolio levels ............................................................................................ 115
Investing in understanding what works and why ................................................................ 117
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 119
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................. 140
Annex 1 – METT Questions ............................................................................................. 140
Annex 2 - GEF supported protected areas overlapping areas of high biodiversity value ... 142
Annex 3 – Forest Area loss (sq. kms) in GEF supported protected areas .......................... 143

iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Indicators and methods used for the portfolio analyses _________________________________________ 12
Table 2 Indicators and methods used for the global analyses __________________________________________ 14
Table 3 Indicators and methods used for the case study analyses _______________________________________ 15
Table 4 Overview of the Direct Drivers of Biodiversity Loss and their Implications __________________________ 22
Table 5 GEF funding for PAs by Operational Phase ___________________________________________________ 29
Table 6 GEF funding to PAs by Implementing Agency _________________________________________________ 30
Table 7 GEF funding for non-marine PAs and PA systems by Implementing Agency _________________________ 31
Table 8 GEF funding for non-marine PAs and PA systems by Operational Phase ____________________________ 31
Table 9 GEF funding to non-marine PAs and PA systems by region ______________________________________ 32
Table 10 Comparison of forest cover loss in GEF and non-GEF PAs and their respective 10-km buffers within the
same country and biome ________________________________________________________________________ 34
Table 11 Highest and lowest estimates of forest loss in GEF PAs by biome ________________________________ 35
Table 12 Highest and lowest percent forest loss in GEF PAs by country ___________________________________ 37
Table 13 Highest and lowest forest area loss by country ______________________________________________ 37
Table 14 Reported environmental impact at GEF project completion ____________________________________ 47
Table 15 Type of environmental outcomes recorded at project completion ________________________________ 48
Table 16 Types of the GEF contribution in visited PA sites ______________________________________________ 57
Table 17 Types of GEF interventions at the level of the PA system _______________________________________ 78
Table 18 Occurrence of Broader Adoption and Environmental Impact in GEF Non-marine PA Projects __________ 90
Table 19 Regional Distribution of Broader Adoption and Environmental Impact ____________________________ 90
Table 20 Factors Most Commonly Cited in Terminal Evaluations as Affecting Progress towards Impact _________ 91
Table 21 Broader adoption in visited protected areas _________________________________________________ 93
Table 22 Key characteristics of GEF support by country _______________________________________________ 97
Table 23 Examples of long-term GEF investment in visited countries through phased or complementary projects _ 98
Annex 2 - GEF supported protected areas overlapping areas of high biodiversity value _____________________ 142

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Framework for assessing the impact of GEF support to PAs and PA systems............................................... 10
Figure 2 Location of GEF- Supported Pas ..................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3 High resolution examples of animal pen identification along with Landsat data for comparison ................ 40
Figure 4 Location of GEF and Non-GEF Protected Areas in Mexico ............................................................................. 41
Figure 5 Distribution of species population outcomes by the level of GEF contribution .............................................. 43
Figure 6 A population time series for African Elephant from Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda ................... 44
Figure 7 Location of PA where METTs were conducted ............................................................................................... 50
Figure 8 The difference in the mean standardized scores depending on who was present when the METT
assessments were concluded ....................................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 9 Estimated correlation between the number of years between assessments and changes in scores ............. 51
Figure 10 Changes in the individual questions’ mean scores for the first and last METT ............................................ 52
Figure 11 Strong Management capacities in visited PA sites ...................................................................................... 58
Figure 12 Tree loss during different time-periods in Monarch butterfly habitats, Monarch Butterfly Biosphere
Reserve, Mexico ........................................................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 13 Example of tree loss due to clearcutting operations in Mariposa Monarca ................................................ 73
Figure 14 Map of the Ria Lagartos Biological Reserve, Mexico outlined in red. .......................................................... 75

iv
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AFR Africa Region
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BMCT Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation Trust
CABPM Central American Biodiversity project
CONANP The National Commission of Natural Protected Areas
COMPACT Community Management of Protected Areas for Conservation
Community Development and Knowledge Management for the Satoyama Initiative
COMDEKS
Programme
CSO Civil Society Organization
CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
DESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
ECA Europe and Central Asia
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GEF Global Environment Facility
GLCF Global Land Cover Facility
GIZ German Corporation for International Cooperation
IADB Inter-American Development Bank
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
ICEMA Integrated Community-Based Ecosystem Management
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected
WCPA-SSC Areas Species Survival Commission
KAFRED Kibale Association for Rural and Environmental Development
KAZA Kavango-Zambezi
LAC Latin America and Caribbean Region
LPI Global Living Planet Index
MKEPP Mount Kenya East Pilot Project for Natural Resource Management
MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism
METT Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool
MAE Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MBC Mexican Biological Corridor
NAMPLACE Namibia Protected Landscape Conservation Areas
NACOMA Namibia Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
OPS Overall Performance Study
PA Protected Area
PAMSU Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use
PAME Protected Area Management Effectiveness
PES Payment for Ecosystem Services
QCA Qualitative Comparative Analysis
v
RBM Results-based management
RLI Red List Index
SPAN Strengthening the Protected Area Network
SCBD Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity
SINAP Supplemental of Consolidation of Protected Areas System Project
TAG Technical Advisory Group
TOC Theory of Change
TNC The Nature Conservancy
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNDP-GEF
SGP UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
NASA US National Aeronautics and Space Administration
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WWF World Wildlife Fund

vi
PREFACE
The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has been the major international source of financial and
technical support to countries seeking to conserve their biological diversity and use their
biological resources in a sustainable manner. Since 1991, in collaboration with its implementing
agencies, notably the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Bank,
the GEF has provided US$ 4.8 -- billion in grants, and mobilized an additional US$ 17.9 billion in
co-financing from public, multilateral and private sources to 1167 projects supporting countries
in biodiversity conservation initiatives1. Of these, GEF has granted over US$ 3.7 billion towards
interventions in Protected Areas (PAs), PA systems and adjacent production landscapes. The
evaluation the relevant GEF support provided since 1991 to April 2015.
This evaluation assesses the impact of GEF investments in non-marine protected areas (PAs)
and PA systems. This evaluation adopts the OECD-DAC (2002) definition of impact as the
“positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development
intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended”. The evaluation analyzes the
extent to which the management and governance approaches supported by GEF have led to
the achievement of GEF objectives on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. The
evaluation probes into how future support can best contribute to the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity by assessing the factors and conditions that affect the
interaction between human livelihood objectives and biodiversity objectives. In addition, it
looks at the extent to which GEF support has promoted human well-being as a key contribution
to the effective management of PAs and their immediately adjacent landscapes. When
information was available, the analysis included evidence comparing supported areas with
those lacking such support, or receiving other types of intervention. The evaluation also
explored new methods and approaches to assess the impact of GEF support, several of which
have been incorporated into other GEF IEO evaluations. It is so far the most comprehensive
global evaluation undertaken on the impact of protected areas on biodiversity, in terms of the
diversity of methods used and the scope of inquiry.
While the evaluation covers all relevant operations supported by GEF through all the relevant
GEF Agencies, the GEF IEO and the UNDP IEO have undertaken this evaluation jointly2. The
approach paper was approved by the directors of both offices in June 2013. From the GEF IEO
perspective, this is the fourth impact evaluation addressing a specific focal area. For the UNDP
IEO, this constitutes the first impact evaluation of UNDP programming, and builds on the

1 Based on GEFF Project Management Information System (PMIS) data as of 28 May 2015
2 The independence of the two evaluation offices precludes any general conflict of interest. Both offices adhere to evaluation
policies and codes of conduct that deal with conflict of interest issues. Other specific measures taken to prevent conflicts of
interests include: (1) consultants have responded to the joint team managing the evaluation; (2) a Technical Advisory Group
(TAG) was established composed by a representative of the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group and three other
biodiversity experts; and (3) UNDP IEO staff refrained from evaluating GEF projects in which UNDP was not involved, and GEF
IEO staff did not evaluate UNDP projects outside of the GEF partnership
vii
findings and conclusions of a thematic evaluation focused on the nexus of issues linking UNDP
poverty and environmental protection support to countries. Different analyses were performed
in collaboration with the Global Land Cover Facility (GLCF) at the University of Maryland, the US
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the International Union for
Conservation of Nature World Commission on Protected Areas-Species Survival Commission
(IUCN WCPA-SSC) Joint Task Force on Biodiversity and Protected Areas, and the Institute of
Development Studies (IDS). A Technical Advisory Group (TAG) was established, composed of a
representative of the World Bank Independent Evaluation Group, and three biodiversity and
social science experts as peer reviewers of the different analyses. A Reference Group consisting
of members from the GEF Secretariat and GEF agencies working in the biodiversity focal area
was convened at key stages of the evaluation to provide expert opinion and information, as
well as technical feedback and verification
.
viii