Having these broader frames of working modalities, with the continuation of the policy and institutional building, IUCN has also been conducting area- specific projects in these countries. Among them, Pakistan has been the most focused country since 1982, where IUCN has completed more than 100 projects and followed by Bangladesh from 1991. Until 1995, Nepal also had several projects mostly funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, which begun to downsize because of the Maoist insurgencies in the country; however, still some of the core programs have continued. In India, there are only a relatively few programs running because the country administrators see themselves as more of a program implementing country vs.
8.4 Conservation Programs in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan 165
Table 8.1 IUCN Asia SWOT analysis
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
Credible and good reputation among donors,
governments, and regional institutions Active conservation programs in 12+
countries Highly committed staff
Decentralized and dispersed operations with strong backup systems and
“mobile” units (e.g., Finance team and ELGs) Culture of self-reflection, internal reviews, and change management
Large project base – susceptible to donor agenda Planning and budgeting time horizon too short Different parts of region at different stages of evolution (not in sync) Overstretched staff (bigger budgets – fewer staff. . . ) Still not using full potential of Union (Mem-
bers/Commissions)
Enhanced acceptance of
“broker” and
“convener” roles Increased awareness of need for resolving transboundary issues New strategic partners (ADB, CARE, private sector) Influencing investments in the wake of global economic crisis (“Mother Nature does not provide bail-outs. . . ”) Recognition of need for quantum change (CC, economic models, etc.,)
Reduced attention and funding to environment Continued conflicts and security concerns in Asia (e.g., Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal) Donor withdrawal or reduced priorities in some countries Current financial model
Pre-occupation with program planning, monitoring and reporting (who pays. . . ?)
Source: Based on IUCN-ARO 2009:39.
program recipient country. As a general established notion in each country, IUCN identically works in the same core areas as set in the policy directive from the headquarters and the regional office. Recently, in all four countries, programs and projects have been implementing within the following core themes.
• Environmental governance – institutional mechanisms and strengthen- ing, policy advocacy, legal frameworks and tools, MEAs, and integration of environmental imperatives into development planning.
• Landscape restoration, rehabilitation, and management – community- based integrated natural resource management, forests and protected areas’ system management, and sustainable agricultural systems and practices.
166 IUCN’s Role for Conservation of Nature
• Environment, peace, and security – conservation for peace, conflict resolution and environmental security, gender and social policy, commu- nication and education for sustainable development, multi-stakeholder networks and alliances, and rights-based resource governance.
• Development, economic growth, and environment – payment for envi- ronmental services, environmental fiscal reforms and valuation, strategic and environmental impact assessment, corporate social and environmen- tal responsibility, poverty reduction strategies, and further MDGs.
• Climate change, energy, and ecosystems – impact assessments, adap- tation and mitigation strategies, policies, and plans, sustainable energy, and clean air (IUCN 2003; Rademacher 2005; Hasan 2005; IUCN 2009;
IUCN 2006, 2010).
On the basis of these core program themes, several projects have been ongoing in all four countries (Table 8.2).
Table 8.2 Ongoing projects to support core programs IUCN’s Ongoing Projects and
Country Programs Donors and Important Partners
Bangladesh Ongoing projects Species Conservation and Protected Areas
Ecosystem and Landscape Management
Water Management Economics, Law, and Policy Assessment
Community-Based Sustainable Management of Tanguar Haor Program
Enhancement of Bangladesh’s Capacity to participate in Road to Copenhagen Negotiations and Enhancement of Capacity in Post-Copenhagen Regime Improving Environmental Governance for Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Bangladesh: Empowering local communities through natural resource governance
Ministry of Environment and Forest
Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
UK AID Department for
International Development (DFID) Embassy of Denmark, Bangladesh United Nations University The Netherlands Climate Assistance Program Care Bangladesh USAID
U.S. fish and wildlife service United Nations Environment Program (UNEP)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
United States Department of Agriculture
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
8.4 Conservation Programs in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan 167
Table 8.2 Continued IUCN’s Ongoing Projects and
Country Programs Donors and Important Partners
One stop service: facilitating conservation of medicinal plants and traditional health services to ethnic communities of Chittagong Hill Tracts. Phase II: One Stop Service – herbal healing
The Global Environment Facility (GEF; The World Bank)
Selection of recently completed projects (10) like
Climate adaptation and
Environmental awareness climate variability and other 75 major projects from 1991–2008 Pakistan Ongoing projects
Balochistan Partnership for Sustainable Development
Establishment of Biodiversity Park in Area Development Scheme, Tehsil Murree
Mainstreaming Biodiversity Conservation into Production Systems in the Juniper Forest;
National Impact Assessment Program
Sindh Coastal Community Development Project
Recently completed by 2008 (major 25), Afghanistan Environmental Capacity Building; EIA, etc.
And about 100 from 1982 to 2005
Royal Netherlands Embassy, the Canadian International Development Agency, the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), the DFID, the Royal Norwegian Embassy, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DGCS), GTZ, the French Development Agency (AFD), the Government of Finland, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), GEF, the UNDP, the UNEP, the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the European Union, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO).
Nepal Ongoing Projects
Practical Innovations for Inclusive Conservation and Sustainable Livelihoods Project:
Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands Project
SDC
Government of Nepal, Global Environmental Facility/UNDP Nepal and IUCN Nepal.
ICIMOD, NTNC, and WWF Nepal
(Continued)
168 IUCN’s Role for Conservation of Nature Table 8.2 Continued IUCN’s Ongoing Projects and
Country Programs Donors and Important Partners
Environmental Justice Rhino Conservation
Mainstreaming Environmental Rights
Economic Valuation
(more than 25 by 2005 and more than 55 by 2000)
India Ongoing Projects
Livelihoods and Landscapes Strategy (LLS)
Mangroves for the Future (MFF) Initiative
The Water and Nature Initiative (WANI)
Dhamra Port Project
Regional cooperation on climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Himalayan region
Linking grassroots action to policy debate
Tata Steel Ltd. and engineering and construction firm Larsen &
Toubro (L&T), CARE, FAO, UNEP, and Wetlands
International, with support from Norad and Sida
the Netherlands Directorate General for International Cooperation (DGIS)
Source: (IUCN 2003; Rademacher 2005; Hasan 2005; IUCN 2009; IUCN 2006, 2010).
IUCN is not treating India the same as other three countries in the region and has also not entered to India to help nation for the environmental empowerment. Instead, IUCN has engaged India for strengthening regional collaborations and improvements in knowledge, capacity, and governance.
IUCN’s conservation priorities for India are:
Enhancing India’s cooperation with other countries on issues where national, regional, and global conservation concerns converge;
influencing mainstream policy and programs to recognize the trade- offs between social, economic, and environmental considerations, and to integrate conservation concerns into the process of decision making; employing effective instruments that encourage environ- mentally sensitive resource use and discourage unsustainable prac- tices by resource users; designing special measures to ensure the survival of fragile ecosystems in different parts of the country;
promoting community conservation of common pool resources,
8.4 Conservation Programs in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan 169 whether owned by the state, or by local entities; and managing pro- tected areas, reserved forests, and other habitats controlled by the state in a manner that balances conservation imperatives with local needs, synthesizes scientific conservation principles with indige- nous knowledge, and provides local communities a long-term stake in conservation (IUCN 2006:21–22, 2010).
Similarly, IUCN’s India strategy also states that there is the need of international cooperation in developing knowledge because of:
• the nature of sub-regional, regional, and global environmental threats;
• social and environmental impact of international development choices on India and social and environmental impact of India’s development choices on other countries;
• also need for the building capacity through the bilateral and multilateral cooperation in areas of mutual concern, by national and sub-national agencies;
• essential for improving governance for the equitable and effective arrangements for environmental conservation at the regional and global levels (IUCN 2006:9).
These are vague but essential parameters in addressing the degrading natural resource wealth in the region. The performance of achieving these goals depends on the various factors because India is not as passive of a recipient as Nepal, Bangladesh, or Pakistan. For example, one of the first projects of IUCN in India, which was initiated with under the theme of BBP, was with the Associated Cement Companies Limited(ACC). It a branch of Holcim and The Dhamra Port Company Limited (DPCL), a joint venture of Tata Steel and Larsen & Toubro (IUCN 2008), has already generated considerable debate among its members. The debate is whether IUCN should handle the joint programs with the profit making big business organizations.
The DPCL project is not directly managed by IUCN India office; instead, it is managed by the Regional HQ under the BBP. However, after having the country office in India, it has been a focal point and to some extent bears the responsibility. IUCN India office is facing criticism because of its unclear stand about the controversial Dhamra Port project.
As noted in the Marine Turtle Newsletter (MTN), the Dhamra Port devel- opment in Orissa, India, has been characterized by conflict. The tension exists not only between developers and environmental groups, but also among local and international environmental organizations and individual experts around differing approaches, processes, and uses of information. For more than a
170 IUCN’s Role for Conservation of Nature
year, the issues surrounding the Dhamra Port development have sparked passionate and sometimes vehement discussion on email listservs and during the Marine Turtle Specialist Group meeting at the International Sea Turtle Society’s annual symposium (January 2008, Loreto, Baja California, Mexico;
MTN No. 121, 2008:10). The MTN has been publishing the controversies regarding port and several discussions have been held but there is no agree- ment between the local stakeholders and Dhamra Port authority and IUCN.
Instead of criticism, IUCN has been supporting the project and has asserted that IUCN’s support will be continued (IUCN 2008).
Regarding these concerns, IUCN (2008) gave the response noting that it is important to remember that IUCN is not a regulatory organization and does not have a mandate to adjudicate in cases such as this. Rather, it provides independent scientific advice when called on to do so (IUCN 2008:1). It further elaborated that “Any such involvement is neither intended nor should be construed as approving or disapproving a particular development but rather as a means to help those making decisions with respect to the conservation of nature” (IUCN 2008:1; IUCN 2009:1; The MTN 2008:12–13). And regarding this controversy, I tried to understand the public views during my field visit in India with both who were against and supportive of the project. The people who have been criticizing the project argument have two parts. First, they say that the project was begun without complete environment assessment which is mandatory by existing environmental rules and regulations. They argue that the turtle breeding ground has been affected and IUCN involvement in the project is unfortunate. However, the people who were involved in the decision making process argue that the project has used the most modern technology to minimize the impact on turtle breeding and the development of port is essential for the nation (the respondents include the current president of IUCN, IUCN staff in Bangkok, Gland, and NGOs’ leaders).
IUCN headquarters has begun to response to its stakeholders at least by providing the details about the ongoing business and biodiversity projects.
In response to the Dhamra port case, as demanded by various stakeholders related to turtle conservation in India and the globe, IUCN has had made available most of the documentation related to this project and has also provided the link on its home page.
The other few ongoing projects of India are mostly linked to the regional environment in which one of the largest programs in the region is MFF which is a unique partner-led initiative to promote investment in coastal ecosystem conservation for sustainable development. It provides a collabo- rative platform among many different agencies, sectors, and countries who
8.4 Conservation Programs in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, and Pakistan 171 are addressing challenges to coastal ecosystem and livelihood issues, to work toward a common goal. It has six MFF “focal countries: India, Indonesia, Maldives, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, and Thailand and three UN agencies (FAO, UNDP, and UNEP) and three IOs (CARE, IUCN, and WI) in implementation (MFF 2008). India implemented the first phase of this initiative (2006–
2009); as a result, a detailed national strategy and action plan for Mangrove conservation was drafted and adopted by the National Coordination Body that oversees this initiative. This document identifies five focus states: West Bengal, Orissa, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu along with gaps in knowledge, research priorities, and currently implementing various programs in the identified areas with success.
IUCN India program is still in the beginning stage. India office has only four staff and two volunteers (when I visited in July 2009). However, it has undertaken couple of groundbreaking activities such as (1) the Himalayan Region Water and Nature Initiative (WANI) – which is an innovative man- agement practices to support mainstreaming of an ecosystem approach to water management; (2) the Regional Environmental Law Program – which is a study on the access to legal resources by the rural communities to enforce already created norms and the role of NGOs in legal systems; and (3) the Tiger Reserve Assessment – IUCN Asia worked with the Ministry of Environment and Forests to undertake an independent review of tiger reserve assessment reports and provide technical assistance to improve tiger census methodologies (IUCN 2010). In addition to that at the regional level, IUCN has formulated two innovative strategies which include (1) the livelihoods and landscapes strategy (LLS) which is a global initiative that examines the rights and access of the rural poor to forest products in the context of the entire landscape in which people and forests interact, and (2) the MFF, which seeks to address long-term threats to coastal ecosystems and promote investment in conserving coastal ecosystems as development “infrastructure,” respectively.
LLS livelihoods and landscapes strategies are plans to address human and environmental needs in large areas of land. They have a special emphasis on improving livelihoods through the sustainable use of forests. The purpose of LLS includes improving livelihood security and governance, enhancing ecosystem services, linking biodiversity and poverty reduction, and support- ing national and global priorities. It is a joint project of IUCN with “Winrock International India” and “The Energy and Resources Institute,” respectively.
The major components of the program include poverty reduction, market linkages and incentives, and improved governance (IUCN 2010).
172 IUCN’s Role for Conservation of Nature
According to the Report of the IUCN Scoping Mission to the Dhamra Port Project, Orissa, India (2008:1)
“In July 2006, Aban Marker Kabraji, IUCN Regional Director for Asia met Mr. Ratan Tata, Chairman of the TATA Sons in Mumbai to discuss various aspects of environment and corporate social respon- sibility for TATA’s operations. This also included the conservation of turtles in view of the impending development of Dhamra Port in Orissa State, on the east coast of India. The project is to be implemented by the DPCL as a joint venture between L&T and Tata Steel. The ensuing communication exchanges between IUCN and TATA Steel led to an agreement between DPCL and IUCN for the latter to undertake a mission for scoping out the issues that could be followed by the setting up of an independent scientific review panel (or some other intervention) organized by IUCN, should the two organizations so agree. Accordingly, the objectives of the Scoping Mission, undertaken during November 29 to December 02, 2006, were to:
(a) Develop an understanding of the Dhamra port project and its implications for the environment in general and for the conservation of turtles in particular;
(b) Develop an understanding of the debate and efforts under- taken thus far between the NGOs, DPCL, and the Govern- ment, and establish a list of key outstanding issues that remain to be addressed;
(c) Establish the need and expectations of key stakeholders, in particular DPCL, as to the potential IUCN intervention and support;
(d) Clarify with DPCL the conditions, requirements, and sched- ule for potential follow up work (should such a follow up be agreed between IUCN and DPCL);
(e) Establish the scope for the agreed follow-up.”
The same documents also list the concerns of local conservation organi- zations. According to the Report of the IUCN Scoping Mission to the Dhamra Port Project, Orissa, India (2008:3)
Under Section 5, Environmental Impact Concerns note:
“The issues related to turtle conservation and the Port develop- ment have been the subject of protracted and, at times, strongly