POPULATION-HEALTH-ENVIRONMENT FIELD PROJECTS

Results of a review of the Packard Foundation and USAID field projects

Background –Packard Initiative and USAID program objectives

Packard: Improve the quality of life in focal areas by improving reproductive health, natural resource management and options for alternative economic livelihoods (Field Projects sub-program);

USAID: Address population-based threats to biodiversity while capitalizing on programmatic synergies achieved by combining family planning and other key health interventions with conservation and natural resource management activities.”

Purposes of this review –Packard Foundation

1. What are the likely long-term impacts of this Initiative on funding and the field of Population-Environment?

2. What results have been achieved by projects implemented under the Initiative; and

3. What lessons have been learned that may be of broader use to the Foundation, other donors, and the field as a result of implementing this Initiative?

Methodology and Team compositionfor Program review

Questionnaires for each program component

Field visits-Philippines and Madagascar Interviews in person, by phone or via

email Separate reports to Packard Foundation

and to USAID CEDPA received grant for the Packard

review; USAID funds were provided via PRB

Cynthia Green –CEDPA team partner for review of Packard Advocacy/Consumption sub-program

In-country support: Lynne Gaffikin (Madagascar) and Babes Nazareno (Philippines)

Projects included in review

Packard Field Project Grants SAVE the Children/PESCODEVPhilippines PATH Foundation/Philippines-IPOPCORMPhilippines World NeighborsPhilippines J.K. LedesmaPhilippines Jane Goodall Institute/TACARETanzania JSI Training and Research Institute/MGHCMadagascar Conservation Intl Foundation/Selva LacondonaMexico ProNatura ChiapasMexico ProNatura YucatanMexico Consejo Nacional de Cuerpos de Conservacion Mexicanos/Mexican Conservation

CorpsMexico Intl Centre of Insect Physiology and EcologyKenyaUSAID projects included in this review PhilippinesIPOPCORM PESCO-DEV/SAVE PhilippinesSierra Madre Biological Corridor/Conservation International MadagascarEnvironmental Health Project/Voahary Salama MadagascarSpiny Forest Ecoregion Project/WWF & ASOS MadagascarMGHC/JSI

Value of this review

1st generation results Focus on key

questions– Value-added– Successful project

models and training tools

– Sustainability– Scale-up

Limitations of this review

Number of field sites Dependence on reported project results Operational Research not complete in some

cases

General Findings

Most projects met their anticipated objectives Inexpensive community mobilization

techniques can provide results within 1-2 years

Value added hypotheses

“Interdisciplinary interventions can at times be more efficient and effective than non-integrated approaches”- Packard PE Initiative

The synergies produced from integration will make these (FP and ENV) interventions more effective and sustainable than if they had been pursued in a vertical, sector-specific fashion. The other underlying assumption is that, in certain contexts, providing family planning services and information is an effective means of achieving conservation outcomes, both directly by reducing demographic pressure and indirectly through improving community health and responding to community needs -USAID

Value Added – Family Planning

Greater access to men Greater access to adolescent boys Positive changes in the community perception of

women and in women’s self-perception when they have access to and control of money and credit

Entry point: When packaged with other health interventions –immunization, improved water quality; when part of highly valued CRM/NRM programs

Value added- Natural Resource Management/Coastal Resource Management

Greater female involvement in environment/conservation activities and organizations

Increased participation of adolescents of both sexes.

Entry Point: Integrated projects can quickly and visibly respond to priority community demands (often health needs) and gradually gain community trust.

Inclusion of micro-credit component may bring greater impact

Results often evident more quickly in CRM settings than in NRM settings

Value-added: Programmatic

Cost effective for NGOs (transport, training, personnel) with reduced operating expenses

Time savings for villagers. Expanded audiences

Management efficient for local leadership

But, difficult for donors and central governments who traditionally prefer sectoral approaches

Successful Program models

Health and environment-based NGOs can adapt to successfully implement 2 or 3 sector community initiatives

Several community mobilization models have been successful: Champion Community, Appreciative Community Mobilization, School to Community approach, Community Health Outreach Workers

Successful Program Models (cont.)

The organizational model used for program integration is less important than other factors (e.g. experience, leadership, acceptance of PE concept)

A variety of successful training tools have been developed and utilized and are available for dissemination: Family income budgeting, trend analysis, problem trees, 3-dimensional mapping, Family planning “action sessions”, couples communications games, Garden of Eden/Adam and Eve

Sustainability

PE/PHE projects have: -not paid sufficient attention to recurrent cost issues;-not yet demonstrated that they can be sustained by local governments without outside donor funding and-not yet demonstrated that they can be replicated without outside donor funding

Scale- Up

The Packard and USAID portfolios did not provide examples of how programs can be implemented for a much larger target audience (district-wide or corridor-wide).

The “capital stage” for PE programs has been completed in the Philippines and Madagascar and most factors needed for broader program replication are in place.

The Philippines provides the best opportunity for this to occur, in part due to the success of PRB-supported advocacy activities

Program Opportunities

The government decentralization occurring in many LDCs may provide the opportunity to “break through” donor and central government reticence to support integrated programs.

Consider PE in new contexts: “Hotspots” and buffer zones are not the only areas where PE may be appropriate.

Retain a flexible definition of PE: The concept of integrated programs, including the key elements of family planning and natural resource management, should evolve into different forms in differing settings.

PE projects will need to consider migration (both internal migration to and external migration from buffer zones) as a confounding factor in achieving project objectives.

See Executive Summary for specific program opportunities in the Philippines and Madagascar

Where and when is PE/PHE most appropriate

Setting: In or near threatened environmental or

biodiversity “hotspots” and protected areas; and

Where there is heavy pressure on the PA or the natural resource base by the local communities due, in part, to high population density per arable land available

Where demographic, health or poverty indicators are worse than the norm

Where and when is PE appropriate (continued)

Key supporting factors: Both P and E problems and pressures are evident to the

communities The communities demonstrate a reasonable degree of social

capital and leadership Availability of NGOs that have worked in the area and who have

gained the respect of the community Mayoral or other local political support is available for the

program A significant number of donor projects or government programs

are active in the area that can build on each other’s energy and programs

Where P and E program services (e.g. government) are not adequate

Where and When to do PE/PHE (continued)

Specific target areas:

Buffer zones of PAs Landscape and corridor areas Fishing villages in/near threatened marine/coastal

areas AND where the fishing waters can be locally controlled (e.g. absence of commercial fishing)

Watersheds where water scarcity is a recognized problem

Urban slums (Philippines) As part of disaster relief programs (rain-induced

landslides in the Philippines)

THANK YOU