Financing Plan (In Us$) s20

MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECT PROPOSAL REQUEST FOR FUNDING UNDER THE GEF

FINANCING PLAN ($) PPG Project* GEF Total 250,000 AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: P102200 Co-financing (provide details in Section b: Co- financing) GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3361 GEF IA/ExA COUNTRY: Global Government PROJECT TITLE: Assessment and Recommendations on Improving Access of Indigenous Peoples to Conservation Others 360,000 Co-financing Funding 360,000 GEF AGENCY: World Bank Total OTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): First Peoples Total 610,000 Worldwide (FPW). Financing for Associated Activities If DURATION: 2 years Any: GEF FOCAL AREA: Biodiversity FOR JOINT PARTNERSHIP** TRATEGIC OBJECTIVES GEF S : SP1 GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT ($) GEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: All (Agency Name) (Share) (Fee) IA/ExA FEE: (Agency Name) (Share) (Fee) (Agency Name) (Share) (Fee) *** Projects that are jointly implemented by more than one IA or ExA CONTRIBUTION TO KEY INDICATORS IDENTIFIED IN THE FOCAL MILESTONES DATES AREA STRATEGIES: The key macro-indicators for this project are: 1) A framework through which Indigenous Peoples can increase PIF APPROVAL Dec. 22, 2006 their capacity to access conservation funding; 2) An active PPG APPROVAL (if applicable) network of Indigenous Practitioners who participate in an MSP EFFECTIVENESS August 2007 Indigenous stewardship Network; At least 25 Indigenous MSP START September 2007 communities represented at each of 4 regional consultations to discuss access to conservation funding. MSP CLOSING February 2009 TE/PC REPORT* January 2009 Approved on behalf of the World Bank. This proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the Review Criteria for GEF Medium-sized Projects.

Christophe Crepin

Steve Gorman GEF Executive Coordinator, World Bank Regional Coordinator, Africa Region Date: June 28, 2007 Tel and email: 202 4739727 [email protected] PART I - PROJECT CONCEPT

1. PROJECT SUMMARY

1 The proposed MSP addresses the issue of limited access to international conservation funding experienced by Indigenous Peoples. First Peoples Worldwide plans to identify the main obstacles to Indigenous Peoples access to these funds, to document these obstacles and to provide strategic and innovative options on alternative practices that would make international conservation funding more available and accessible to Indigenous Peoples. The project will also establish an active network of Indigenous Practitioners to share knowledge on best customary conservation and stewardship programs by IPs that have been successfully funded. This project will likely result in increased conservation funding made available to and successfully obtained by Indigenous Peoples. This in turn would lead to the long-term effective management of IP controlled protected areas and increased biodiversity conservation outcomes worldwide.

A) PROJECT RATIONALE, OBJECTIVES, OUTCOMES/OUTPUTS, AND ACTIVITIES

Indigenous Peoples’ territories span much of the last remaining biodiversity-rich wilderness areas and most of the major conservation priorities for this century. It is no coincidence that 80 percent of Earth’s remaining biodiversity areas are also Indigenous homelands. Indigenous Peoples have lived in harmony with their environment for millennia. They know from experience that positive and sustainable environmental practices are a matter of survival. Conservation systems implemented by Indigenous Peoples are based on generations of experience, trial and refinement exclusive to Indigenous communities. The provincial rejection of this traditional knowledge by Western science in efforts to conserve biodiversity is not only a grievous waste of proven resources, it also contributes directly to the extinction of Indigenous knowledge systems through lack of use.

There are a number of approaches to conservation. The science-based model, widely practiced by conservation groups, aims for pristine and people-free protection. The Indigenous stewardship model focuses on sustainable production and protection. Traditional communities see themselves as an integral part of the landscape. They perceive protection of lands as avoiding destruction, not avoiding use. Although Indigenous Peoples’ methodologies for conservation are more qualitative, experiential, and sometimes more spiritual than those of conventional science, they are inherently rooted in functional ecological concerns and conservation strategies. Incorporating the alternative methodologies of Indigenous Peoples in current conservation efforts will expand, enhance and improve the possibilities for sustainable living. Indigenous-led conservation contributes significant benefits to communities, to their countries and to the planet.

The management techniques developed by Indigenous Peoples over the eons, such as the use of “hunting chiefs” who designate hunting areas and times, are powerful conservation management tools that could be put in use today to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of bioconservation programs. Yet, Indigenous Peoples and their potential contribution to conservation are frequently ignored by governments and conservation groups. Reforming the conservation paradigm and involving Indigenous Peoples in conservation initiatives is a priority for First Peoples Worldwide (FPW).

FPW has developed the Indigenous Stewardship Initiative (ISI) to help build the capacity of Indigenous Peoples to establish and manage protected areas on their own homelands by providing technical assistance, networking, and financial support. Indigenous Peoples have claims for up to 24 percent of the earth’s total land surface. Governments, corporations, and NGOs alike are increasingly forced to recognize the validity of Indigenous Peoples’ land claims, and that it is not acceptable or legal to evict people from their homelands. Involving and working with the traditional inhabitants of biodiversity rich territories is the only humane way to access these lands for conservation purposes. There is much to be gained if this goal is pursued. If only half of Indigenous Peoples’ territories were protected, these areas,

2 combined with the 7.6 percent of the earth’s land mass in developing countries already under protected status, would double the amount of the entire world’s surface that is under conservation protection.

The lands of Indigenous Peoples are rich in resources that make these areas not only a target for conservation initiatives, but for extractive industries. In addition, much of these territories are feeling encroachment pressures from expansion of outside areas due to population increases and development. In order to preserve Indigenous territories, it is important that Indigenous Peoples have the option of engaging in conservation activities on their own lands.

Under modern science-based conservation programs, US funders alone spend more than $800 million annually to hire outside administration to manage protected areas in developing countries. Because Indigenous cultures have shown they can manage the same areas for a fraction of those costs, funders could save millions by working with Indigenous groups seeking to protect biodiversity on their own homelands. However, very few foundations fund Indigenous communities directly. They often work through conservation intermediaries, and only a small percent of the funding actually reaches Indigenous hands. A key strategy for ISI is to help Indigenous Practitioners receive funding on parity with modern conservation programs through advocacy and fundraising. ISI will also help preserve Indigenous management practices by providing a contemporary setting in which to employ these practices, and by assisting and encouraging Indigenous communities to record and codify their positive environmental practices.

OBJECTIVES

The ultimate goal of this project is to improve the enabling conditions to: (i) increase access to conservation funding by Indigenous Peoples and (ii) to conserve biodiversity through the increased participation of Indigenous Peoples in conservation programs worldwide. The project will promote Indigenous Peoples’ practices of land management which involve sustainable use of natural resources resulting in the preservation of biodiversity and reduction in land degradation. This will allow Indigenous Peoples to remain on their lands and retain the social, economic, spiritual and cultural assets that are intertwined with these homelands. This goal will be reached by helping Indigenous Peoples gain access to conservation funding.

Project Outcomes

 A set of practical guidelines to assist multilateral, bilateral, foundations and NGOs, particularly from developing countries, to use criteria that better meet their targets for funding Indigenous Peoples and to ensure true Indigenous participation in the design of conservation programs.  An expanded knowledge base on funding availability and capacity building of IPs in biodiversity conservation projects and programs.

B) KEY INDICATORS, RISKS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The key indicators for this project are:  A list of concrete recommendations for improving Indigenous access to international conservation funding.  A list of equivalent requirement for conservation funding application process, reporting, and key indicators of program progress.  At least 25 Indigenous communities represented at each of 4 regional consultations to discuss access to conservation funding.

3  An active network of Indigenous Practitioners who participate in First Peoples discussion group on Indigenous Stewardship.  List of on-the-ground Indigenous resources that can be mobilized to deliver conservation funding-related training to other Indigenous communities.

The primary risks are as follows:  Lack of global applicability of recommendations: Given the wide range of groups solicited, it is possible that some recommendations would be more relevant and effective in one community or region as compared to another. In order to guard against this, the final report will make recommendations by specific region and specific program in addition to global recommendations.  Reluctance of Indigenous Peoples to discuss the issues openly: Some Indigenous Peoples might feel reluctant to speak openly about the issues they have faced with conservation funding, particularly if those issues have persisted over time, if they are related to local or regional politics, or if the funder is blamed for asset stripping in the Indigenous community. Because First peoples Worldwide is working directly with Indigenous Peoples who already trust FPW and are a part of its network, FPW will have already obtained the promise of Practitioners Network members for assistance in asking the communities to cooperate with the project. These Practitioners are leaders at the local or regional levels in their countries. In addition, FPW will invite individuals to speak to the researchers on an individual basis. Participants will also be advised of the confidentiality of the discussions, and the final document containing direct quotes will be redacted.  Organizational Risk: FPW is aware that it is a new organization and not well known in the international conservation field. However, FPW has operated for more than nine years as a program of First Nations Development Institute (FNDI). FNDI has a strong success record of working with Indigenous Peoples, and in assisting them in designing economic development programs. For example, FNDI has developed the Strengthening Native American Philanthropy (SNAP) initiative to increase Native American and tribal participation in philanthropy both as funders and grant recipients. FNDI also created International Funders for Indigenous Peoples, a non-profit professional organization that was created as a resource for grantmakers to more effectively manage their grantmaking to Indigenous Peoples. FNDI also established Nativegiving.org which is a resource site for Native Americans seeking grants. A clickable map on the site provides an extensive database of grantmakers and grantseekers, with information on the range of ways they are supporting social justice.  Lack of incentive for funding bodies to focus on IP management strategies. Many conservation funders are becoming increasingly aware of the effectiveness of conservation programs managed by Indigenous peoples using Indigenous management techniques. First Peoples is currently conducting an awareness campaign to increase awareness of the success of the small number of Indigenous-lead conservation programs managed using Indigenous practices, and studies are being undertaken of their equivalency with science-based management practices. There is also an interest in preserving Indigenous conservation practices before they completely die out. Finally, conservation funders realize that legal decisions, such as the December 2006 court decision in Botswana related to the San’s return of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, signal the necessity of working closely with Indigenous Peoples in the future.

2 - COUNTRY OWNERSHIP

A) COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY

4 This project is targeted to Indigenous Peoples that live in critical habitats in countries that have ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Since this is a global program that will support a consultation process and study, and no investments will be made on the ground, no country focal point endorsement letter is required.

B) COUNTRY DRIVENNESS

The World Bank approved a revised Indigenous Peoples Policy (OP. 4.10) in July 2006. This policy is in effect in every country where the Bank makes investments. FPW project will target Indigenous Peoples by including them in a consultation process to increase their capacity to access funding for biodiversity conservation. While this project is indirectly aligned with national priorities and programs, the project addresses a need that will improve national priorities and programs and decrease the past-conflicts that came from a bottom-up imposed development approach, reducing the social costs and inefficiencies that such processes brought. The project will raise awareness and capacity of IPs to participate in conservation planning and access funding. Because IPs live closest to nature than other groups in society, their input to development planning will be critical for governments. Countries that have signed the CBD have also agreed to support indigenous peoples participation in biodiversity conservation through Article 8-J of the Convention. Therefore the project by agreeing to work with participants from countries that have endorsed the CBD is encouraging participants that are driven and committed to indigenous peoples participation to biodiversity conservation.

3 – PROGRAM AND POLICY CONFORMITY

A) PROGRAM DESIGNATION AND CONFORMITY

The proposed project is consistent with GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Operational Programs related to forest and mountain ecosystems as well as marine and grasslands ecosystems. The project is supportive of GEF 4 Biodiversity Strategic Objective 1: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems”. GEF-4 support to catalyzing sustainable protected area systems will be channeled through three strategic programs: 1) Sustainable Financing of Protected Area Systems; 2) Increasing Representation of Effectively Managed Marine Protected Area Networks in National Protected Area Systems; and 3) Strengthening Terrestrial Protected Area Networks. The project will address certain interventions within each of these three strategic programs. Financial Sustainability and protected areas management in Terrestrial and Marine ecosystem will be provided by increasing the capacity of indigenous peoples to have access to funding in order to manage their own protected areas which will reduce the management cost compared to outsiders managing the same areas. This project will ultimately increase the number of local, community and indigenous-owned protected areas and capacity building of local government, communities and indigenous groups as a part of the support required to strengthen national systems. The project will support as an long-term possible impact of its activities the following GEF-4 indicators: • Extent of habitat cover (hectares) by biome type maintained as measured by cover and fragmentation in protected area systems; • Extent and percentage increase of new habitat protected (hectares) by biome type in protected area systems that enhances ecosystem representation; • Protected area management effectiveness as measured by protected area scorecards that assess site management, financial sustainability and capacity.

B) PROJECT DESIGN

5 The project has designed a logframe that is included in Annex I. The logframe includes the outcomes and output indicators as well as the monitoring and evaluation tools to measure the indicators. Critical assumptions are discussed that may affect the performance of the project.

Incremental Reasoning: Peoples of Indigenous cultures are among the most marginalized and threatened people. According to the United Nations (UN), there are approximately 300 million Indigenous Peoples worldwide. By all standards of international law, Indigenous Peoples technically own many assets, including land, natural resources, cultural and intellectual property, legal, political, human capital, and in some cases financial assets. However, they do not receive the benefits, nor do they derive the revenues, as wealth generated from Indigenous assets is usually controlled and directed by outside interests, whether they are the government, multinational corporations or non-governmental organizations.

There is an urgent need to build national-local level Indigenous capacity so that they can access international funding to manage biodiversity and other resources that they have protected for thousands of years. Currently, Indigenous communities have no linkage to the world system because in most countries there is no national-level Indigenous peoples agency or development NGO’s.

There are no reliable global statistics about the funding of Indigenous and non-indigenous NGO’s in this field, but non-Indigenous NGO’s certainly control most of the development investment targeted at Indigenous groups by governmental and international bodies. Indigenous Peoples are understandably concerned that these NGOs, staffed by non-Indigenous officers, determine policies and investment priorities for Indigenous Peoples, often with limited input from the beneficiaries themselves.

Problem Statement and Project Rationale: Many or most of the world’s major centers of biodiversity coincide with areas occupied or controlled by Indigenous peoples. It is perhaps no coincidence that areas inhabited by Indigenous peoples coincide with some of the world’s remaining major concentrations of biodiversity. This convergence of biodiversity-significant areas and Indigenous territories presents an enormous opportunity to expand efforts to conserve biodiversity beyond parks. Any comprehensive biodiversity conservation strategy must necessarily include Indigenous territories to achieve results at required scales.

Threats: Over centuries Indigenous peoples have faced the extermination of entire populations and the wholesale destruction of their territories and resources. These trends continue today as roads and other infrastructure, extractive industries, and streams of settlers penetrate even the most remote Indigenous areas on the globe. Although the territorial rights of Indigenous Peoples in many countries have been strengthened in recent decades, legal, economic, and political systems continue to be orchestrated to exploit and extract the resources of Indigenous Peoples, leaving asset-rich communities deeply impoverished.

Despite their well-documented roles as responsible environmental stewards on all continents, Indigenous Peoples are frequently marginalized in efforts to conserve biodiversity, especially in accessing international and national sources of funding. Conflicts have long simmered between conservationists and Indigenous Peoples. Although the agendas of conservationists and Indigenous Peoples are potentially complementary, in practice they frequently diverge. Conservationists often focus on the need to establish pristine (no people) protected areas and develop management plans, and the decision to include Indigenous Peoples in these schemes is considered as more of a means to an end than as a critical component of conservation strategies. By contrast, Indigenous agendas almost invariably begin with the need to increase their self-determination as a requirement for assuring the long-term protection of their lands and natural resources.

6 Baseline Scenario: At the global level, an opportunity to radically increase the participation of Indigenous Peoples in international funding programs such as GEF and other donors would be lost. By limiting the access to funding, many areas under Indigenous control would be stripped for other uses, such as timber extraction, oil exploration, cattle ranching, etc. In addition, the consequences listed below may also occur.

Despite recent advances in land titling programs, with few exceptions, Indigenous Peoples may continue to loose control over assets. In many places they are methodically stripped of their assets, and in extreme situations Indigenous Peoples are forcibly removed from their traditional lands. In the vast majority of these cases, the result is loss of biodiversity as people with little local experience and short-term goals take control of the resources. This “asset-stripping” also threatens to undermine Indigenous institutions and knowledge base. Asset stripping reduces the options for creating stable economic conditions for Indigenous communities, increasing pressure on natural resources as people resort to unsustainable exploitation in order to meet immediate needs for the basics of food and shelter.

Research has revealed that traditional ways of using and managing biodiversity are grounded in progressive principles of sustainability. Indigenous knowledge and management systems represent critical yet frequently untapped resources in global conservation efforts. While Indigenous peoples are increasingly invited to participate in management of biodiversity on their lands (e.g., assignments as park guards), they are seldom if ever found in a leadership position or provided funding for this. Under the baseline scenario, this traditional knowledge of how to manage biodiversity from the point of view of the earlier inhabitants of vast biodiversity areas would become extinct.

The relationship between Indigenous peoples and other stakeholders promoting biodiversity conservation continues to be strained in many places. Funding for biodiversity conservation is likely to continue flowing disproportionately to conventional protected areas, including those that exclude or marginalize Indigenous populations from their traditional lands and traditional resources management roles. The limited funding directed to biodiversity on Indigenous lands will continue to be controlled by non- Indigenous people and organizations. The opportunity for collaboration between indigenous peoples and other conservation actors would be lost.

GEF Alternative: The development and global objectives of this project are to improve the enabling conditions to: (i) increase access to conservation funding by Indigenous Peoples and (ii) to conserve biodiversity through the increased participation of Indigenous Peoples in conservation programs worldwide. The main objectives will be reached by supported three related secondary objectives.

Objective One: With GEF funding FWP will expand and strengthen the relationship between bio conservation funders and Indigenous Peoples. In cases where previous relations existed but are now strained, FPW hopes to be able to understand the root causes of such strain, and to make recommendations to address and resolve them. In cases where no relationship has ever existed, FPW hopes to document and address barriers to engagement, and make recommendations that can help build relationships between Indigenous Peoples and conservation funding sources. Representatives of at least five large conservation funding organizations, including the David and Lucille Packard Foundation, the Christensen Fund, the Ford Foundation, and Wallace Global, and bilateral and multilateral donors (GEF, World Bank, UNDP, and others) will be invited to attend each meeting, and the agenda will include a discussion session among these funders and Indigenous attendees on how to increase the availability of bioconservation funding to Indigenous communities.

Objective Two: With GEF funding FWP will strengthen an expanded knowledge base of IPs best practices in stewardship programs. This objective will help build a network of Indigenous-based

7 programs and practitioners, facilitated by the FPW Indigenous Stewardship Initiative, that can assist Indigenous communities in getting access to knowledge and in locating and benefiting from funding for conservation programs. The FPW Indigenous Stewardship Initiative provides technical assistance to Indigenous communities to prepare them for managing conservation projects on their own territories, then directs them to sources of conservation funding, and assists them in efforts to obtain this funding.

Objective Three: With GEF funding, FWP will build better capacity to promote Indigenous Peoples conservation-based programs. Through this objective FWP will promote IP initiatives that conserve biodiversity in lands owned by them and support them in seeking financially viable alternative to development initiatives and natural resource extraction that is currently denigrating great areas of biodiversity on lands owned by Indigenous Peoples. These lands are at risk either because 1) the governments do not recognize claims by Indigenous Peoples to them (leaving them open to extractive industries), 2) these lands are being slowly encroached upon and destroyed by outside population increases and development, or 3) the lands and/or their resources are being sold by Indigenous individuals for income. Increasing the availability of another alternative, ie, providing the funding to establish and manage protected areas, would enable Indigenous Peoples to place up to 24 percent of the earth’s land surface in conservation programs, as this reflects the total amount of land owned by Indigenous Peoples, much of which is located on high-priority areas for conservation initiatives.

PROJECT COMPONENTS AND ACTIVITIES

The project is structured in two separate components. The first component will support the consultation and development of guidelines and requirements for conservation funders. The incremental cost of this component is US $ 346,600, of which GEF will fund US $155, 300; and the second component will support capacity building activities and building a network of information exchange and dissemination of best practices among Indigenous Peoples. The incremental cost of this component is US$118,200, of which GEF will fund US$ 93,000.

Component 1: Consultation and Guideline Development for Conservation Funders

A literature review will be conducted in order to locate information on conservation funding and its accessibility to Indigenous Peoples, including reports published by funders and other sources to determine each program’s reach and the participation of Indigenous Peoples. Research will be conducted into whether the program has any Indigenous grantees, and if so, the number and proportion of Indigenous grantees versus non-Indigenous funding.

An assessment of the process used under these funding mechanisms will also be conducted, which will include looking at such factors as whether the program conducts outreach to Indigenous Peoples, the availability of translated application materials, the complexity of the application process, availability of application assistance, promotional campaigns for each funding program, and the routes of dissemination of information on the funding opportunities. Any state or intermediary involvement will be noted, along with the intermediary’s application process, promotional campaign and dissemination of application materials. Researchers will also review internal FPW field reports and other sources of information that documents issues of the relationship between Indigenous Peoples and conservation funders, and the historical record of Indigenous-led conservation funding.

FPW will send two field canvassers to each of four world regions in advance of regional Indigenous Practitioner consultations (see below). The purpose of the canvassing is to assess the amount of Indigenous Conservation management being practiced in each region, to determine the funding source of

8 the conservation projects, to meet with as many local Indigenous community groups as possible and to invite these groups to participate in the regional consultations that will follow. As each of these groups are approached, they will be asked to discuss their experience with international conservation funding, and to discuss any difficulties they have in assessing such funding, as well as any successful efforts to obtain such funding, along with their thoughts on how these programs succeeded in reaching them.

FPW will conduct a series of four regional consultations to bring together Indigenous practitioners for open discussions on indigenous conservation management and issues facing these practitioners. The attendees will be asked to describe barriers they see to obtaining international conservation funding, and to provide suggestions on how these funding mechanisms could be changed to better accommodate Indigenous needs.

FPW and the World Bank organized a meeting of indigenous leaders in Belize in 2006, to discuss international funding issues. The Belize attendees, who were drawn from around the globe, had very similar experiences and questions with respect to obtaining international funding. One important consideration is that Indigenous communities have varying abilities to respond to international funding opportunities. One component to the consultations and area canvassing will be to get a sense of the capacities of Indigenous communities to apply for, receive and comply with the administrative requirements of international funding. These capacity issues will be addressed by FPW in a separate program, apart from this project, but the results of this capacity assessment will directly influence the practical guidelines.

And important function of the consultations will be to bring together international conservation funders to the table to discuss directly with Indigenous attendees some of their concerns and suggestions for improving the conservation funding application process. During each consultation, a session will be devoted to this discussion.

The expanded knowledge base will allow each of the conservation programs to examine their ability to engage Indigenous Peoples and their success rates in awarding funding to Indigenous conservation management programs. The input from the consultations from Indigenous Practitioners, community representatives, and funders, will provide a set of practical guidelines to assist multilateral, bilateral, foundations and NGOs to ensure increased Indigenous participation in the design of conservation programs. Suggestions on equivalent requirements that can be met by Indigenous communities will also be presented in the report.

First Peoples Worldwide is led by Indigenous Peoples, therefore, it has a wide network of Indigenous practitioners and community leaders who are willing and able to assist FPW in the development and implementation of its programs. While Indigenous Peoples will be extensively consulted on the findings and outcomes of the project and their recommendations compiled, to ensure that the project recommendations are endorsed by the Indigenous community, FPW will circulate all practical guidelines and the set of agreed actions for review by a panel of Indigenous Practitioners and community leaders. This panel will have the opportunity to provide comments and suggestions to the proposed recommendations.

Using the information gathered during regional canvassing, regional meetings, and the indigenous Practitioner’s network, along with information gathered through literature searches and environmental scans, First Peoples Worldwide will draft and submit a final report on increasing access to conservation funding. The report will include recommendations on the application process, the RFP notification, reporting requirements and compliance indicators. The report will also include a measurement equivalency table, to help Indigenous Peoples substitute acceptable equivalent management practices or

9 measurements to meet grant requirements. Other recommendations will include guidelines on disseminating announcements of RFPs to Indigenous communities and technical assistance suggestions to help Indigenous Peoples apply for the grants. These recommendations will be shared with an Indigenous Practitioners Review Panel for assessment and revision before being made final

Indicators:  A list of concrete recommendations for improving Indigenous access to international conservation funding.

 A list of equivalent requirement for conservation funding application process, reporting, and key indicators of program progress.

Component 2. Information Sharing, Dissemination and Capacity Building

First Peoples Worldwide will develop and maintain a network of Indigenous Practitioners and community leaders who are engaged in conservation on their homelands or who have an interest in establishing such a program. The members of the network will be able to share best practices with each other, to discuss issues of common concern, to identify resources in their community that could be used to deliver technical assistance in other regions, and to strategize on increasing land area under conservation protected status. In addition, this network will be available to First Peoples to provide guidance and feedback on the Indigenous Stewardship Initative, which can serve as an intermediary through which these Indigenous Practitioners can be reached. The Indigenous Practitioners’s Network will be maintained through a discussion group on the Internet via the First Peoples Worldwide website; a listserv; and the sharing of contact information of network members via paper and electronic copies of an address book. The address book will be continuously updated and new members will be encouraged to join the network.

The consultations discussed in component 1 will also provide an opportunity for Indigenous Peoples who are engaged in or considering bioconservation projects on their homelands the opportunity to discuss common issues with each other, to share best practices, and to form a Practitioners Network for future collaboration.

The following is a list of consultation locations and dates.

June 2007 Asia Pacific October 2007 Africa February 2008 Latin America June 2008 South Asia Indicators:  An active network of Indigenous Practitioners who participate in an Indigenous stewardship Network.

 Number of indigenous practitioner that participate in the information exchange programs

10  Number of Indigenous Peoples trained

 Improved knowledge of customary land conservation practices

 Knowledge disseminated to a wider range of IPs.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Final Report Regional Networking Regional Assessments System Consultations Indigenous Asia Pacific – May 07 Issue Practical Regional Africa – Aug 07 Practitioner’s Latin America – Jan 08 Guidelines and Canvassing Asia – Jun 08 Network Agreed-Upon activities Actions

April Sept 2007 2008

11 BOX 1: ACTIVITIES AND TIMELINE

DURATION OF PROJECT (IN MONTHS):

ACTIVITIES PROJECT-MONTHS (APRIL 2007 - SEPTEMBER 2008) 7 8 7 7 8 0 0 7 0 0 8 7 8

0 8 0 7 r 0 8 r 7 r r 0 0 7 8 8

e e e 0 y 0 0 r e 0 t 0 0 t 0 0 y

e b h l s b l s r a i i e e y c b y y y u u a r r m m l m l u r m n a n o a g u g r p p e e e a t u e u u u t t u n u b J J c v c J M J M A A p p a e M e o A A J e e O F D N S S

Completion of project activities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Component 1: Consultation and Guideline Development for Conservation Funders

1. Literature review & assessment x x x x x x

2. Regional Canvassing activities X X X x

3. Four regional consultations x x x x

Component 2. Information Sharing, Dissemination and Capacity Building

4. Information summary and synthesizing x x x x

5. Development of recommendations x

6. Review by Indigenous Panel x

7. Final Recommendations and set of x Agreed Actions

Implementation to date: In August of 2006, First Peoples Worldwide (FPW) convened a meeting of Indigenous Practitioners in Belize to develop and launch the Indigenous Stewardship Initiative (ISI). ISI was created by FPW to assist Indigenous Peoples in establishing protected areas through the provision of technical assistance and financial support to Indigenous communities who wished to implement conservation programs on their homelands. The meeting in Belize provided an invaluable opportunity for FPW to draw upon the insight of Indigenous leaders -many of whom are already involved in Indigenous-

12 led conservation programs -to incorporate their ideas and best practices into FPWs developing ISI program and re-granting fund. See Annex II for details on the outcomes of discussion with Indigenous Leaders during the meeting.

C - SUSTAINABILITY

The focus of this project is to facilitate the access of Indigenous Peoples to funding for the management of conservation on their own homelands. Sustainability is inherent in the Indigenous management programs. Indigenous peoples have been the steward of many areas rich in biodiversity and by supporting their work, long-term sustainability of many of their homelands can result from a cost- effective program started by FWP. The resources are managed in a way to preserve them for generations to come.

Improving Indigenous People’s access to funding for conservation programs will help Indigenous Peoples gain access to sources of conservation funding, many for the first time. Improvements in the funding mechanisms will encourage more Indigenous Communities to apply. As communities share their experiences with others, the number of indigenous communities seeing conservation management of their homelands as a viable option will increase. Because Indigenous lands intersect with the most biodiverse areas on the planet, environmental grantmakers and bioconservation funders will make more funding available for Indigenous conservation programs.

The funding of Indigenous conservation programs also has the benefit of conserving more areas of high biodiversity. Indigenous stewardship is associated with the protection of more lands for less funding. In addition, there is great competition for Indigenous homelands from a number of outside interests that are likely to extract or destroy the natural resources found there. Indigenous Peoples are often under a great deal of economic pressure to accept the offers of these interests. They often do not have other options for economic development. Therefore, it is imperative that Indigenous communities have the funding necessary to engage in conservation of their own homelands in order to preserve these valuable areas of rich biodiversity.

FWP is committed to continue the First Nations Stewardship program beyond this MSP. Through the support of other donors and other long-term creative financing solutions, this MSP will likely lead to additional IPs being funded in the future. As more funding organizations understand and value the work that IPs are doing for biodiversity conservation, and as corporations and multilateral banks follow international standards such as Social Corporate Responsibility and Human-right based development, this program will likely continue to be relevant to increase capacity building for IPs.

D - REPLICABILITY

This project is not intended to be replicated due to its very small and short-term focus, however, Component 2 will support the strengthening of knowledge-sharing and dissemination. As Indigenous Peoples increase their capacity to conserve and manage their homelands and as the experiences are disseminated, it is more likely that other groups will want to participate and replicate the positive expriences. Also, there are numerous international conservation funding programs that will benefit from the recommendations of this project and they could increase their funding level to support conservation initiatives by indigenous groups.

E - STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT

13 This project will ultimately benefit all Indigenous Peoples, and from that perspective, Indigenous Peoples are the ultimate stakeholders. Their involvement in this project is instrumental in obtaining relevant recommendations that will achieve the goal of increasing their participation in conservation funding programs.

Indigenous Peoples will be involved in this project in a number of ways: 1) Leadership of FPW: Because FPW is an international, Indigenous-led organization, the involvement of Indigenous Peoples in the development of its programs is essential to its unique success. The FPW policy board is composed entirely of Indigenous People.

2) Involvement of Indigenous Practitioner Network: Indigenous Practitioners from all over the world have shown an interest in FPW and its programs, and have guided FPW to take a leading role in advocating for more conservation funding to be made available to Indigenous Peoples. By bringing together Indigenous community leaders in Belize, FPW was able to lay the groundwork for a program which has the possibility to revolutionize the conservation movement to benefit both the earth and its Indigenous inhabitants. These Indigenous leaders now are helping FPW gather together practitioners from across their own regions and providing FPW with entrée into their communities to facilitate the gathering of information for this project. Members of the Practitioner Network are also providing their own feedback and views, as their involvement in the community has given them invaluable experience with funding mechanisms. Since IIFB and International Alliance represent indigenous peoples already participating actively with GEF, these groups will be invited to the workshops.

3) Interviews: The project will be based in part on interviews conducted directly with Indigenous Peoples in at least two venues: they will be consulted as part of a regional canvassing that will take place before each Indigenous Practitioner meeting, and they will have the opportunity to present their views at the regional Indigenous Stewardship Practitioner Consultations that will be held in four international regions over the life of the project.

4) A number of Indigenous Peoples will also have an opportunity to comment on the outcomes of the project including the practical guidelines and the set of agreed actions.Reviewers will include a panel selected from the Indigenous Practitioners Network and the FPW Board of Directors.

F - MONITORING AND EVALUATION

The project's Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (M&E Plan) is based on the establishment and monitoring of key input, output and outcome indicators. The attached Results Framework Matrix (Annex 1) presents a summary of the objectives, the expected outcome, and indicators to measure the outcome. The information will be easily collected as part of the activities and standard questionnaires will be used to interview the indigenous peoples about conservation funding. Given that the project will be implemented in 18 months, reporting has been simplified. FWP will prepare a mid-point report and a final report. FPW will monitor regularly the results of this project and will include a section in the report describing the results achieved against each indicator. A final output will be a compilation of all the results achieved using the full range of indicators shown in the Matrix. At project mid-point, the Bank will carry a mid- term review of project, assessing progress in all project activities.

14 FPW has experience in successfully implementing similar projects to the one proposed, including: a) examination of best practices in Indigenous development programs, “Okiciyab,” and; a study of the relationship between conservation funders, intermediaries, and Indigenous communities in South America

D – FINANCING

FINANCING PLAN, COST EFFECTIVENESS, CO-FINANCING, CO-FINANCIERS The Indigenous Funding Accessibility project incurs three categories of costs. The first will be costs for consultants who will be involved in the research and development of the assessment report. These costs will include their travel to Indigenous communities to conduct interviews about their experience with accessing international conservation funding. Their work will take place during the Indigenous Practitioner consultations and prior to the consultations, during the canvassing and outreach that they will conduct for the meetings. These consultants will expand the existing knowledge base on funding availability by IPs and draft practical guidelines and a set of agreed actions. They will be involved as well in the initial literature searches, and that work will be supplemented by additional research conducted by others, including FPW staff.

The second large group of costs will cover transportation. International travel for consultants and staff makes up a portion of the costs. Indigenous travel to the Indigenous Practitioner Consultations will be included in these costs as well. However, much of the travel costs for Indigenous Practitioners will be covered by the Ford Foundation. Because the consultations are local, the cost of travel to the consultations will be relatively low for each participant; however, approximately 40 participants are anticipated at each consultation, and the collective travel costs will be significant.

The final costs will be associated with a series of four Indigenous Practitioner consultations that will be held in four regions throughout the developing world. The costs for these consultations will include meeting space, hotel rooms, food, incidentals and local transportation, as well as the costs associated with planning and conducting the consultations. Meeting specialists, project managers, staff expenses, and local activities will also be included in the costs. Funders attending these consultations will cover their own expenses.

A) PROJECT COSTS Project Components/Outcomes Co-financing ($) GEF ($) Total ($) 1. Component 1: Consultation & Guideline 194,000 137,800 331,800 Development for Conservation Funders 2. Component 2: Information Sharing, 55,000 93,900 148,900 Dissemination and Capacity Building. 3. Project management budget/cost* 111,000 18,300 129,300 Total project costs 360,000 250,000 610,000 * This item is an aggregate cost of project management; breakdown of this aggregate amount should be presented in the table b) below.

15 B) PROJECT MANAGEMENT BUDGET/COST1 Estimated GEF($) Other sources Project total Component staffweeks ($) ($) Personnel* 105 104,000 104,000 Local consultants* International consultants* Office facilities, equipment, vehicles and 18,300 7,000 25,300 communications Travel Miscellaneous Total 105 18,300 111,000 129,300 * Local and international consultants in this table are those who are hired for functions related to the management of project. For those consultants who are hired to do a special task, they would be referred to as consultants providing technical assistance. For these consultants, please provide details of their services in c) below:

C) CONSULTANTS WORKING FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COMPONENTS: Estimated Other sources Project total Component staffwee GEF($) ($) ($) ks Personnel Local consultants International consultants 60 136,000 25,000 161,000 Total 60 136,000 25,000 161,000

D) CO-FINANCING SOURCES2 (expand the table line items as necessary) CO-FINANCING SOURCES Name of co-financier Status Classification Type Amount ($) (source) Confirmed unconfirmed Tides Foundation Foundation in cash 100,000 yes Kendeda Foundation Foundation in cash 100,000 yes FPW Funding NGO in kind 120,000 yes Rockefeller Foundation in-cash 40,000 yes Philanthropy Advisors (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) (select) Sub-total co-financing 360,000

5 - INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

A) CORE COMMITMENTS AND LINKAGES

From a technical and policy standpoint, the program has unique development impact potential that has been recognized at different levels of management within the World Bank:

1 For all consultants hired to manage project or provide technical assistance, please attach a description in terms of their staff weeks, roles and functions in the project, and their position titles in the organization, such as project officer, supervisor, assistants or secretaries. 2 Refer to the paper on Cofinancing, GEF/C.206/Rev. 1

16  It could bring substantial global benefits. Many or most of the world’s major centers of biodiversity coincide with areas occupied or controlled by indigenous peoples. For example, the greatest diversity of indigenous groups coincides with the world’s largest tropical forest wilderness areas in the Americas (including Amazon), Africa and Asia.

 This convergence of biodiversity-significant areas and indigenous territories presents an enormous opportunity to expand efforts to conserve biodiversity beyond parks, which tend to benefit from most of the funding for biodiveristy conservation.

 The project’s focus on Indigenous Peoples leadership is consistent with the Bank’s implementation of the recently approved Operational Policy on Indigenous Peoples. The IP policy is a key instrument to ensure that the voices of IP are heard, and that projects address their interests.

The project will be implemented by First Peoples Worldwide. Since 1996, First Peoples Worldwide (FPW) is the international arm of First Nations Development Institute (FNDI) and has advocated for Indigenous control of assets on a global scale, provided direct technical assistance to Indigenous communities in the United States, Russia, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Namibia and Botswana, and conducted training programs in Ecuador, Peru, Thailand and Nicaragua. Some of FPW accomplishments are the first micro-enterprise peer lending fund, the Saginaw Chippewa Trust Fund Investment Management Project, established The Lumbu Indigenous Community Foundation to secure benefits of Aboriginal intellectual property, provided technical assistance for the Umatilla Land Project, established the Eagle Staff Fund making 350 grant awards totaling $12 million over 10 years, worked with the International Indian Treaty Council to produce “An Analysis of United States International Policy on Indigenous Peoples, the Human Right to Food and Food Security,” designed and taught a basic land- rights legal curriculum, “Land and Law” to help San communities in Namibia and Botswana fight forced relocation, facilitated a successful Siberian-Alaskan Indigenous Exchange between four Indigenous leaders from Siberia and First Nations’ grantees in Alaska, collaborated with HORIZONT 3000, Ecuador, ATINCHIK SAC, Peru, and the World Bank Institute, USA and launched a new initiative to improve the capacity of Indigenous communities to address the threats they face from the extractive resource industry.

B) CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN IAS, AND IAS AND ExAs, IF APPROPRIATE.

Several projects to support Indigenous Peoples have been approved by the World Bank, UNDP and IDB. The current project is addressing a global need to support increased participation of Indigenous Peoples in biodiversity conservation worldwide. FWP will invite executors of similar on-going efforts by the other implementing agencies, particularly GEF projects supporting indigenous peoples such as SGP, and the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), International Alliance of Indigenous and Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests who have been implementing an MSP under UNEP programs.

C) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENT

The project will be implemented by First Peoples Worldwide (FPW). FPW has a permanent full-time staff of 10 persons and utilizes a number of consultants for international program implementation. For this project, FPW will utilize at least two international consultants who will perform the initial regional canvassing and interviewing. These consultants will also attend all four Indigenous Practitioner consultations and participate in the discussions on international funding. A facilitator will also be hired

17 for the consultations, as well as local interpreters as needed. Other consultants and staff will be utilized to make meeting, hotel and travel arrangements. A consultant will do literature searches and collect information on the funding process, such as intermediary activities. The project manager will coordinate the entire effort and produce the final recommendations and agreed actions.

PART II - RESPONSE TO PROJECT REVIEWS

GEF REVIEW SHEET MAY 22, 2007

Summary Comment: The proposed proposal has a slightly different focus from the above agreement, with a purpose to increase access of conservation funding to indigenous peoples. Linkage with the SGP, CEPF, TerraAfrica, and other GEF programs is missing.

Response: The linkage with SGP, CEPF, TerraAfrica and other GEF Programs discussed in earlier design stages of the project is still included. But further preparatory work has identified that the main outcome of the project can not be a performance assessment of on-going projects carried out by an NGO like FWP. This is not the role that the NGO should play. Instead, the project focuses on carrying out a review of different funding mechanism and consultations with a variety of conservation funders, including the GEF. This broader perspective is more likely to result in a positive change in funding access for Indigenous Peoples.

Country Eligibility: Comment: The project should only involve participants from countries that have ratified the CBD and are recipient of World Bank funding. Please clarify this in the document.

Response: The project will only work with participants from countries that have ratified the CBD and that are recipients of Bank funding. This is made clear in the document.

Country Drivenness: Comment: The project should involve countries and indigenous peoples that are motivated to work on protected areas management with participation of indigenous communities. Please clarify that the project will particularly encourage participation from the countries that are committed on the issue through their national policy and strategy, thus further ensure country drivenness.

Response: As mentioned before, the project will work with participants from countries that have ratified CBD. Article 8 – j is an integral part of CBD and ensures that Indigenous Peoples traditional knowledge is protected. Traditional knowledge is linked to lands, natural resources and biodiversity conservation and by signing the CDB, governments, IPs and other members of the society from these countries have agreed to work and support indigenous peoples in the task to conservation biodiversity. The document has been revised.

Program Designation and Conformity

18 Comment: A linkage with the indicators under the draft GEF-4 biodiversity strategy has been included in the project brief.

Response: The linkage has been introduced in the revised project brief.

Project Design 1) Comment: Linkage with the SGP, CEPF, TerraAfrica, and other GEF programs is missing.

Response: This comment was already responded in the summary section.

2) Comment: The results framework matrix under annex 1 and the text within the project brief are not consistent.

Response: We have revised these sections to eliminate the inconsistencies.

3) Comments: How can this outcome be achieved: "Increased participation by indigenous peoples in GEF funded conservation projects and other conservation programs." Is it possible to achieve such an outcome simply by issuing practical guidelines without additional activities, including effective dissemination and dialogue/discussion. How best can CEPF, SGP, and TerrAfrica increase participation of IPs?

Response: The only amount of GEF funding available for this project is US$250,000. With this limited amount of funding, only limited activities can be carried out. The most relevant activities are to assess the bottlenecks in indigenous funding and to increase capacity of IP to participation in conservation funding programs. We strongly recommend that the GEF Familyorganizes a workshop or a presentation report where FWP would present the results to the GEF Agencies and the GEF Secretariat. Other funders could also be invited. Alternatively we might ask the Bank to organize such an event.

Sustainability (including financial sustainability) Comment: Sustainability of the initiative started under the MSP and its linkage with the proposed Indigenous Stewardship Initiative are not clear. Please kindly clarify and provide further information.

Response: This issue has been addressed in the revised project brief.

Replicability: Comment: Please clarify how the project will ensure that the recommendations and guidelines from the project will be taken up by relevant funding organizations to ensure replication.

Response: This issue has been addressed in the revised project brief.

Stakeholder Involvement: Comment: Please ensure and clarify how the other relevant indigenous forums, such as the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), International Alliance of Indigenous and

19 Tribal Peoples of the Tropical Forests, and other major indigenous networks and forums related to biodiversity are involved in this initiative with the FPW.

Response: This issue has bee addressed in the revised brief.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Comment: Please clarify and provide further information on M&E plan, including GEF and WB requirements for MSP projects such as annual reporting, mid-term and final evaluation etc.

Response: This issue has been addressed in the MSP Brief.

3. FINANCING 1) Comment: Incremental cost analysis is not included. Please provide necessary information as required.

Response: This issue has been addressed in the MSP Brief.

2) Comment: Detail financing/procurement plan and workplan are not included. Please provide necessary information as required.

Response: The table on implementation plan has been included and the detailed cost tables are available upon request.

2) Comment: Co-financing letters are not attached. Please provide copy of all letters as required.

Response: The letters are attached.

INSTITUTIONAL COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

Core Commitments and Linkages Comment: There is no information provided on the project linkage to WB operation. Please clarify. Response: This issue has been addressed in the revised brief.

Consultation, Coordination, Collaboration between IAs, and IAs and EAs, if appropriate Comment: There is no information regarding coordination and consultation with relevant IAs and EAs, and relevant GEF projects. Particularly, please clarify linkage with SGP, CEPF, TerrAfrica, and other GEF projects. There are also indigenous involved MSP managed by UNEP that may have some linkage, i.e. Indigenous Peoples Network for Change Project. Response: This issue has been addressed in the revised brief.

GEF REVIEW SHEET JULY 16, 2007

Program Designation and Conformity

20 Comment: The project goal, objectives, and activities are still focused on general “conservation funding and initiatives” which is broad in scope. In order to ensure fit with GEF SO1, please further clarify that the GEF funds for the project would focus on PA system management issues, including indigenous PAs and reserves.

Response: We believe that we have already addressed this issue in the project brief on page 5 (Last three sentences).

Stakeholder Involvement:

Comment: As IIFB and International Alliance represents indigenous peoples, we suggest that they are not only consulted under the GEF coordination mechanism, but also participate as part of the stakeholders in the initiative. Response: We have incorporated the comment to the project brief.

3. FINANCING

Financing Plan

Comment: Based on the provided text, the budget includes substantial costs associated to organizing the workshops and consultation meetings in four regioins. To clarify these costs, we request a detail cost table for each component, and also for the project management cost and international consultants. As noted in the footnote, we require details on each consultant’s work. If GEF SEC participation is expected at the regional workshops as noted in the proposal, this needs to be budgeted under the project. The project management cost is identified as $1,300 for GEF, which is the 0.5% of the GEF finance.

Response: The detailed cost tables for the project have been submitted to the project manager. The $1,300 for GEF, under the management costs will be used for phone related expenses. The technical consultants used for the project are listed in the cost table as well.

21 Annex I MEDIUM SIZE PROJECT Assessment and Recommendations on Improving Access of Indigenous Peoples to Conservation Funding

Results Framework Matrix Narrative Summary Key Performance Indicators Monitoring and Evaluation Critical assumptions 1. Overall Development Objective: When achieved, the following A list of potential initiatives by Indigenous Peoples that if fully At the end of the project, a list of initiatives will be provided in the The deliverable of this project are practical guidelines on objectives are intended to increase access to conservation funding funded would lead to management of Indigenous areas. final evaluation report how to increase Indigenous Participation in conservation available to Indigenous Peoples for effectively manage their funding and on increased capacity delivered to IPs. First Indigenous conservation areas. Peoples will be working to increase the capacity of Indigenous peoples to apply for these funds. Because of our work, some increased participation may occur; however, targets for this project are contingent on the suggestions being adopted by funders. It is also hoped that funder-grantee relationships may develop during the funder interaction with the Indigenous participants at the regional consultations. Objective One: To expand and strengthen the relationship between Same as above bio conservation funders and Indigenous Peoples. A list of concrete recommendations for improving Indigenous access Data provided by Indigenous Practitioners Network to international conservation funding.

A list of equivalent requirement for conservation funding application process, reporting, and key indicators of program progress.

Objective Two: To strengthen an expanded knowledge base of IPs An active network of Indigenous Practitioners who participate in Facilitation through FPW of regional training requests and capacity Most of the non-Indigenous measurements for this best practices in Stewardship programs. First Peoples Discussion groups on Indigenous Stewardship. building initiatives. Continued linkage of donors with Indigenous objective will occur after the report is delivered and its communities through ISI. Conservation funders or NGOs utilizing ISI recommendations adopted. However, the increased for or recommendations on where capacity is strong enough to participation by Indigenous practitioners in this initiative receive targeted funding or where capacity needs are (and using ISI will be monitored throughout the study period. to faciliatate funding of these activities).

Objective Three: To build better capacity to promote Indigenous List of on-the ground Indigenous resources that can be mobilized to Indigenous communities will report case data. To perform accurate outcome measurements, the key peoples conservation-based programs. deliver conservation funding-related training to other indigenous Funders will report case data. results and the monitoring and evaluation need to take communities First Peoples will collect data through Corporate Engagement place in areas where data has been collected prior to the program and Indigenous Stewardship Program. implementation of the report recommendations, where baseline data has been established. Results data collection might be limited to the four regions identified for regional meetings and other areas identified in published reports

2. 2A 2B 2C Global Environmental Goal: Outcome/Impact Indicators Project reports/Process involved (From Objective to Goal) The outcome of this project will be preserving biodiversity and Report from Indigenous Practitioners Network Indigenous Peoples must have the capacity to meet reducing land degradation by increasing the capacity of Indigenous A framework through which Indigenous Peoples can increase their conservation funding accounting and reporting Peoples to conserve their homelands, which are rich in biodiversity capacity to access conservation funding. Reports from conservation funders. requirements. First Peoples will conduct and facilitate and are among the conservation priorities of this century. simultaneous capacity building training and workshops in Indigenous communities.

3. 3A 3B 3C Project components and specific outcomes Outcome indicators Means of verification (From Outcomes to Objective)

Component 1. Consultation and Guideline Development for Early reports indicate that many communities are engaged Conservation Funders List of on-the-ground Indigenous resources that can be mobilized to Sign up sheets at meetings. in conservation on their homelands or are interested in deliver conservation-related training to other Indigenous Direct observation during canvassing. managing conservation on their homelands. However, Outcome 1: A set of practical guidelines to assist multilateral, communities. Resumes, experience and community or regional leadership mistrust of governments and their role in conservation- bilateral, foundations and NGOs, particularly from developing experience. related evictions and resource extraction is high and must countries, to use criteria that better meet their targets for funding At least 25 Indigenous communities represented at each of 4 be overcome. Indigenous Peoples and to ensure true Indigenous participation in the regional consultations to discuss access to conservation funding. Consultations reports will be issued. design of conservation programs Up to five funder groups will participate in the regional Travel receipts (First Peoples to pay for Indigenous travel). The “agreed” terms will reflect the best scientific consultations with Indigenous Practitioners Meeting minutes. equivalency data available. In some cases, the alternative practice may be suggested when equivalency data is not Documentation of key guidelines and agreed actions Training module components identified. available. When this occurs, the lack of data will be noted.

Activities to achieve Outcome 1 Targets for activities: Fiji: Indigenous Peoples living in the area around Fiji, particularly the Pacific region, and Australia. Because there are many Indigenous-managed protected areas in the region, with funding ranging from local governments to US foundations, there should be 1) Data Gathering: Compile information obtained through literature search and environmental scan. Solicit input of Indigenous community tremendous interest in sharing information on how to obtain increased access to conservation funding.

22 leaders and practitioners during canvassing (Component A), Indigenous Practitioner Consultations (Component B) and Indigenous Practitioner Africa: Africa’s experience with conservation projects is mainly through limited access to parklands and conservation-associated Network (Component B). During a session on Obtaining Conservation Funding (held during the regional consultations, see below), attendees evictions. Africans living in areas of great biodiversity are very interested in preserving natural resources themselves, and are will be asked of their experience and knowledge (or lack thereof) of conservation funding availability. Those who have obtained such funding limited by capacity and information. Our experience with the San, the Mursi and other tribes is that they want very much to be able will share their experiences and those who have not received funding will share the barriers they have experienced. Funders will provide to stay on their homelands and practice conservation as they have done for centuries. input and participate in discussions on how to improve conservation funding access. Southern Asia: These are among the most unexplored lands remaining, teeming with wildlife and plant species. However, many Indigenous Peoples in Southern Asia are being evicted by governments to make way for projects by extractive industries. These areas 2) Staff members and/or consultants will travel to the selected region to connect with Indigenous communities. These field representatives are ripe for protecting their own lands, which will preserve them rather than allow them to be destroyed. will make inventories of technical assistance resources, develop lists of practitioners who can provide training, identify community capacities, South America: South America is rich in resources and is fast being depleted of these resources. Many Indigenous communities are and note training needs. First Peoples will pay travel costs for Indigenous Peoples to attend the consultations. Regional and local leaders organized and would be interested in participating in programs to conserve biodiversity on their own homelands to avoid land will be asked to assist in identifying and bringing community members to the consultaions degradation and asset stripping.

2) FWP will host four regional consultations of Indigenous community representatives and leaders, including practitioners who manage Targets for Activities: Members of the indigenous Community, practitioners and non-practitioners, who are currently engaged in protected areas and those who are interested in managing protected areas on their homelands but need improved capacity or access to conservation or who are interested in learning more about conserving and managing protected areas on their own lands. Each funding. Funders will also be invited to discuss recommendations for improving Indigenous access to conservation funding. Regional resources meeting will be regional, so Indigenous Peoples from the surrounding areas will be invited. For example, for the Fiji meeting, will be identified, training priorities will be established, input will be obtained from funders and Indigenous Peoples on conservation funding. Indigenous Peoples from the South Pacific/Australia will be asked to attend. The Africa meeting, which will most likely be held in Botswana, will be Africa-wide.

3) Make recommendations on application process, notice of RFP, reporting requirements, and compliance by indigenous Peoples, including measurement equivalency tables, technical recommendations and advertising/notification guidance. Obtain review from Indigenous leaders. Issue practical guidelines and a set of agreed actions to assist multilateral, bilateral, foundations and NGOs on ways to increase Indigenous participation in conservation funding process.

Component 2. Information Sharing, Dissemination and Capacity Building. This component will develop a system of networking An active network of Indigenous Practitioners who participate in an Contact information for members of the Indigenous Practitioners The Indigenous communities must have some way of Indigenous communities so that they can share best practices, assist Indigenous stewardship Network. Network (maintained by First Peoples Worldwide) communicating with other communities in order to take in delivering technical assistance regionally, seek assistance on topics advantage of the indigenous Practitioner’s Network, in of mutual interest and provide feedback and information to First Number of indigenous practitioner that participate in the Email lists. which they can receive and share information and best Peoples Worldwide. information exchange programs practices. Internet or email assistance is ideal. Often, Discussion group postings. this is not possible and in these cases, First Peoples will Outcome 2: Number of Indigenous Peoples trained disseminate information via regional leaders in the An expanded knowledge base on funding availability and capacity Responses to First Peoples queries for feedback and information. Network. building of IPs in biodiversity conservation projects and programs. Improved knowledge of customary land conservation practices

Knowledge disseminated to a wider range of IPs.

Activities to achieve outcome 2 Targets for activities:

Staff and/or consultants identify resources on the ground that could be mobilized regionally to deliver technical assistance. At the Regional There are a number of marine protected areas being managed in Fiji, Austrailia and the South Pacific, many of whom receive Practitioner consultations, a regional network will be formed as local resources will be cataloged for future mobilization to help other government and/or private conservation funding, which should provide a rich source of experiences among Indigenous Practitioners Indigenous communities build capacity for establishing protected areas. Information will be gathered during the consultations on the who are currently engaged in conservation and those with an interest. Indigenous Practitioners’ experience in obtaining conservation funding. Those who have obtained funding will share tips and techniques and In Africa, there are probably fewer organized groups and these groups have less access to sources of funding. Because of the legal provide feedback on the process. Those who have not received funding will be asked to share their information—whether they were aware of situation in Botswana, however, many Indigenous communities in Africa now see the potential for participating in management or co- conservation funding, whether they had the capacity to apply and to meet the requirements, why, if they applied, their applications were not management of Indigenous areas. accepted and how they believe the process could be improved. In India, communities are somewhat better organized and many are actively seeking alternatives to asset stripping. Co-management of protected areas is a hot topic among Indigenous Practitioners. South America has a number of highly organized communities in areas of high biodiversity. Many of these groups would ask representatives to join the practitioners Network to increase their capacity to conserve biodiversity on their homelands.

23 Annex II Summary of Indigenous Leader Discussions at Belize Roundtable

The issues raised by the indigenous representatives at the August 2006 Belize round-table include:

Preservation of Traditional Knowledge and Indigenous-Control of Assets: First Peoples believes that Indigenous Peoples’ traditional knowledge of the environment is based on progressive principles of conservation and that the practice of these principles is implicit in their daily lives. However without a contemporary operating context, traditional knowledge is in danger of dying out. Working at the grassroots level with individual, Indigenous groups to design ISI, FPW is working to hardwire traditional knowledge into bioconservation programs by helping Indigenous communities codify cultural and traditional stewardship practices and incorporate them into natural resources management programs. In this way Indigenous Peoples are empowered to protect their land and resources from extractive industries as well as other conservation efforts which would seek to remove Indigenous communities from the land. Participants at the Belize conference agreed to participate in an Indigenous Practitioners Network which would facilitate the sharing of traditional conservation knowledge among Indigenous Practitioners worldwide

Increased Conservation Protection: Indigenous Peoples attending the Belize meeting represented Indigenous protected areas from 30 different countries around the world. Based on their shared experience, it was the unanimous sentiment that they were conducting conservation programs with much more economy than were science-based conservation initiatives.

The energy and excitement generated among the Indigenous Practitioners at the Belize meeting set the scene for a constructive dialogue concerning the design of the ISI fund, research and advocacy strategies with a focus on Indigenous evictions, the technical assistance development, and an increase in conservation funding. The meeting also offered a valuable opportunity for Indigenous practitioners to connect with other Indigenous leaders who are able to share their individual experience and expertise.

Focus on Evictions: All Indigenous Practitioners attending the meeting strongly voiced their deep concern over evictions of Indigenous peoples to make room for other uses such as mining, timber extraction and rotected areas establishment. It was the unanimous consensus of the Indigenous participants that the eviction of Indigenous communities is a pressing and immediate problem which should be addressed before all others. For this reason, in addition to its planned technical assistance, capacity building, and regranting fund, ISI will also provide emergency assistance to Indigenous communities who are in immediate danger of being evicted, or are suffering the ill effects of all extraneous activities that are harmful to their livelihood.

Grantsmaking: A discussion at the Belize meeting focused on sources of funding for Indigenous conservation programs. Many at the meeting stated that such funding is difficult to obtain, and others noted that they had had negative experiences, such as finding out about conservation initiatives only when outside groups entered their territories to begin conservation programs without their consent or knowledge. Others expressed doubts about the fairness of many distribution programs already in place. All agreed, however, that the acceptance of outside funding is necessary in order to increase the number and size of Indigenous protected areas, as most communities do not have resources to do so independently. They pledged to work with FPW in its efforts to increase the availability of conservation funding to Indigenous communities.