Final evaluation of the Integrated Protected Area Management and Spatial Planning project in Kalimantan and Papua, Indonesia (10/99-10/02), a natural resource management (NRM) project implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). In general, around 80% of the planned outputs have been achieved consistently. Significant progress has been made in identifying high-priority biodiversity resources, increasing awareness of some of the key endangered species present, and facilitating the inclusion of the protection of these resources within draft district spatial plans. Good relationships have been established with decisionmakers at the district level, and their capacity in land use planning policymaking has been increased through provision of data, maps, advice, and technical training. Appropriate alternative income generation activities, which would relieve pressure on biodiversity resources from local communities, have been identified and preliminary training has taken place. However, the ultimate objective of increasing the area of protected resources and the associated best practices in protected area management has yet to be fully achieved due to a number of constraints, including some that were unforeseeable. The draft spatial plans in both districts have been compiled, but neither has yet been presented to the parliament due to circumstances beyond the program’s control. Given the substantial achievements so far, and WWF’s unique advantage in terms of the relationships built with local stakeholders and its image as a credible, useful, neutral agency by both local government and community members, a no- cost extension is recommended so that the program can achieve this objective. Lessons learned are as follows: (1) The speed and effects of decentralization were underestimated, but have had major influences on the project’s structure, activities, and achievements. Papua’s Special Autonomy status poses different issues in dealing with local government, communities, and Lenibaga Adat that are different than does Nunukan. (2) Socioeconomic and cultural conditions. (a) Differing sociocultural, economic, political and biophysical conditions require different activities and thus entail varying rates and levels of progress. (b) The economic needs of the local communities need to be taken into account in conservation planning. (c) It is important to understand the structure, decisionmaking structure, and system of representation of traditional communities in order to ensure that socialization of the project’s mission is communicated clearly to all and that the aspirations of all members of the communities are represented. (3) Program management. (a) Non-reception of some data and reports from external consultants has caused delays in activities dependent on these reports. (b) At both sites, an anthropology specialist is needed, especially in Papua, to help understand the structure and culture of Lembaga Adat. Both places also need a community facilitator/trainer to help the local community empower itself through community participation. (c) Proposals for protected area status require participatory planning and continuous socialization of local communities. The concept and model of community-based protected area management must come from the communities themselves. Developing such an approach is a long process, requiring flexibility in terms of both timeframe and activities. (d) An integrated approach — combining strong scientific, spatial and economic data, expertise in spatial planning, understanding of local communities, and lobbying skills — is needed to effectively promote biodiversity conservation at a bioregional scale. (e) Biodiversity data has been underutilized at both sites in promoting biodiversity conservation rather than merely maintaining vegetation/forest cover. WWF could tap its existing databases as well as those of their local, national, and international networks to provide information in a form that local communities can understand. (f) Monitoring and evaluation systems (and related performance measures and indicators) are needed to provide more substantial evidence of progress towards objectives rather than just completion of planned activities. Finally, monitoring and evaluation should be seen as a process for reflection and learning within and between projects with the overall aim to improve methodology and increase progress through learning from experience.
