The Challenge of Low-Carbon Development - World Bank Internet ...

After 20 years of effort, systematicinformation is still lacking on the impactof protected areas on biodiversity, carbonstorage, and the welfare of forest-dependentpeople.Limited information is available from the Bank’s WorldWildlife Fund Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool,a simple checklist that describes management elementsbut lacks outcome measures. For projects financed partlyor fully with GEF funding, the GEF Secretariat requirestracking reports at inception, mid-term, and completion.Compliance with the latter two submissions is imperfect,and the Bank does not compile Management EffectivenessTracking Tool reports from its projects. The latest overallevaluation of the GEF (GEF Evaluation Office 2010), recognizedthe limitation of the tool and called for greaterreinforcement of it by including indicators for progress towardimpact and integrating these systems into the overallresults based management system of the fifth replenishmentof the GEF.IEG reviewed 34 protected area projects in forest ecosystems(approved between fiscal 2006 and 2008) for thisstudy and found severe limitations in monitoring. Onlysix of the projects included indicators that could track thefinancial sustainability of the targeted protected area—indicators such as revenue generation, park income, personnelbudgets, or fund-related information. And onlytwo projects included baseline measurements of vegetationcover and species count, although quantitative targets(usually in percent terms) for increased cover and greaterspecies resilience are often targets set in protected areaprojects.In the absence of good information, controversy persistsabout the effectiveness of protected areas. Some derideprotected areas as ineffectual “paper parks.” Others fear,to the contrary, that these areas are too effective, excludinglocal people from access to land and forest resources.As part of this evaluation, Nelson and Chomitz (2009)sought to fill the evaluation gap by assessing the globalimpact of all pre-2000 tropical forest protected areas ondeforestation over 2000–08. They used spatial data on thelocation of protected areas and of forest fires, an indicatorof deforestation, and controlled for potentially confoundinginfluences such as terrain and remoteness.Protected areas have been effective inreducing tropical deforestation, especiallywhere sustainable use is permitted;indigenous areas have been even moreeffective.They found that protected areas were on average effective inreducing deforestation (table 4.1). Multiple-use protectedareas—those that permitted some forms of sustainable useby local populations—were at least as effective as strictlyprotected areas. Areas that had been returned to indigenouscontrol were most effective of all. Similar results were foundin a sample restricted to World Bank-supported projects.These effects have been obscured in studies which did notallow for the possibility that some protected areas are preferentiallysited in regions of low deforestation pressure(because there are no politically powerful claimants on theland) or high pressure (because of the perceived importanceof conservation).In Costa Rica and Thailand, protected areashave reduced poverty rates.A recent study (Andam and others 2010) that also usedcontrolled comparisons shows that protected areas havereduced local poverty rates in Costa Rica and Thailand.Again, this impact had been obscured by the tendency forprotected areas to be located in impoverished regions.Table 4.1Impact of Protected Areas in Tropical Forests on Forest Fire IncidenceArea Mean fire incidence Mean reduction fromstrict protected areasMean reduction frommulti-use protected areasMean reduction fromindigenous areasLatin America and the Caribbean 7.4 2.7–4.3 4.8–6.4 16.3–16.53.8–7.7 6.2–7.5 12.7–12.8Africa 6.1 1.0–1.3 (0.1)–3.0 Not applicable4.4–4.5 Not calculatedAsia 5.5 1.7–2.0 4.3–5.9 Not applicable2.9–3.1 6.7–5.1Source: Nelson and Chomitz 2009.Note: Table reports percentage point reduction in forest fire incidence, a proxy for deforestation over the entire period 2000–08. Figures in italicsare for protected areas established 1990–2000; in plain text, all pre-2000 protected areas.Beyond Energy: Low-Carbon Paths in Cities and Forests | 57