United nations environment programme



Yüklə 1.68 Mb.
səhifə12/39
tarix14.08.2018
ölçüsü1.68 Mb.
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   39

Risk analysis and risk management measures


  1. The three main perceived risks to the success of CAMPAS include challenges of inter-agency collaboration on biodiversity and protected area management, lack of mainstreamed financing to sustain project outcomes, and climate change impacts and insufficient adaptation investment. Table 16 below provides a summary and mitigation measures proposed by the project.


Inter-agency collaboration

  1. Governmental responsibility for biodiversity conservation and protected areas management in Cambodia is shared mainly between GDANCP (MoE), the FA and the FiA (MAFF), on the basis of standing legislation including the Law on Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management, Protected Area Law, and the Forestry Law. Existing inter-agency committees have experienced constraints in functionality due to perceptions of inequity in the relationships and lack of ownership, and in some cases lack of functional coordination mechanisms. Accordingly, there is the risk that attempts to improve collaboration could fail.



  1. In line with the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan strategic objective for the protected areas system, which is to “promote and strengthen cross-sectoral communication and coordination based on the existing mechanisms to solve any conflicts of interest”, the project aims to address this issue through a transparent and systematic approach that aims to build trust and reduce competition and conflict, and by building working relationships through collaborative action towards specific objectives under a shared vision. Detailed stakeholder analysis will inform social marketing and conflict resolution programs, together with the development of inter-agency platforms for dialogue and collaboration, acknowledging that such processes take time to achieve sustainable and productive relationships.




  1. Lack of mainstreamed financing to sustain successful project outcomes: Several past project investments in Cambodia have achieved good results during implementation, only to have activities come to a stop at project completion due to lack of sustainable financing and human capacity. The Fourth National Report to the Convention of Biodiversity (2010) states that “there are issues with the limited human and financial capacity that leaves large sections of planned activities unimplemented. With limited skills and professionals to perform tasks, and poor and ad-hoc coordination, there are few incentives to seek long lasting solutions. This is compounded by increasing priority given to commercial interests, which is a difficult issue to deal with in the Cambodian context, where the government is heavily dependent on income from overseas aid as it still recovers from the civil war, budgets are low, and staff is poorly paid.




  1. There is little prospect of the central government agreeing to increase budgets or to provide additional human resources to for example MoE. Therefore financing needs to be found through other mechanisms, which will be reviewed through the sustainable financing outputs of this project. In particular, mechanisms will be investigated for increasing revenue flows from economic development in and around protected areas to support sustainable environmental management, such as for example through REDD+, and from appropriate environmental services that do not impact poverty reduction efforts. Investment in sustainable livelihoods through cottage industries and small and medium enterprises in conservation landscapes, with the assistance of external donors (e.g. co-financed activities by the ADB CEP –BCC program), will demonstrate financial support to community-based natural resource management with the aim of reducing external pressures on protected areas and biodiversity.




  1. Climate change impacts and insufficient adaptation investment: Climate change adaptation is presently addressed through significant investments by various projects and programs in Cambodia. It is not a major component of this GEF-funded project, although land use, land use change, and forestry is being addressed, and collaboration with the UNEP Adaptation Fund project is described in specially for the Eastern Plains Landscape. Adaptive management will be factored into the strategic plan for the protected area system, integrated landscape management planning, and management planning for individual protected areas. Biodiversity monitoring and information systems will take account of the potential impacts of climate change on key species and ecosystems.




  1. Competing land use activities and commitment of local communities: Land use activities in proposed connecting sites could cause conflict of interests and hinder connectivity within the landscape. This would also link to the risk of lack of commitment by local communities on the projects landscape connectivity objective. To reduce risk, the project will work closely with local communities, particularly for landscape planning, to avoid land use conflict.

Table . Risk log for the project with proposed mitigation measures

#

Description of risk

Potential consequence

Countermeasures/
management response


Risk category

(P)robability and (I)mpact (1-5)

1

Inter-agency collaboration













1.1

Challenged functionality of inter-agency committees

Breakdown of inter-agency communication

Build of inter-agency platform for dialogue and collaboration

Institutional

I = 4

P = 5

1.2

Perception of inequity of relations or lack of ownership

Agencies unable to prompt collaboration

Build working relationships through collaborative action towards specific aims

Institutional

I = 3

P = 4

1.3

Breakdown of collaborative resource management

Agencies unwilling to share resources

Promote and strengthen cross-sectoral dialogue and coordination

Institutional

I = 4

P = 5

2

Sustainability of project outcomes













2.1

Lack of mainstreamed financing to sustain project outcomes

Project outcomes remain project based/ un-sustained

Financial needs sought through means other than government

Financial

I = 4

P = 4

2.2

Lack of sustainable financing and human capacity

Project outcomes are not replicated/ expanded

Increase of revenue flows from economic development

Financial

I = 3

P = 4

2.3

Insufficient alternative financing mechanisms

Financial resources remain government-dependent

Increase of revenues from environmental services

Financial

I = 2

P = 3

3

Climate change impacts and adaptation investment













3.1

Climate change impacts themselves

Impact to ecosystems and species due to change in precipitation, temperature, weather conditions

Integrated landscape management planning and management planning for target protected areas

Biological
Socioeconomic

I = 4

P = 5

3.2

Insufficient investment for climate change adaptation

Lack of funds to adapt to effects of climate change

Adaptive management factored into specific protected area system

Financial
Socioeconomic

I = 4

P = 4

4

Competing land use activities and commitment of local communities










4.1

Competing special interests for rightful use of lands/ resources

Inequitable/ unsustainable use of land and resources

Transparency on governance and use of land and resources

Financial
Socioeconomic

I = 4

P = 5

4.2

Competing community land use in landscape connectivity sites

Unsustainable landscape connectivity outside protected areas

Work closely with local community stakeholders for landscape planning

Socioeconomic

I = 5

P = 5

4.3

Commitment of local people in reference to landscape planning

Poor local stakeholder support for landscape connect field measures

Involve local communities in planning for connective measures outside protected areas

Socioeconomic

I = 5

P = 5




  1. Dostları ilə paylaş:
1   ...   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   ...   39


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©muhaz.org 2017
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə