<< Back

Next >>

CHAPTER 2. THE NCS REVIEW

The NCS Review and Final Report

2.1 The NCS Mid-Term Review (NCS MTR, see Annex 1 for TOR) is intended to “enable the stakeholders (government, civil society and supporting institutions) to take stock of the current situation and take necessary steps for mid-course correction.”^{fn 12} Taking stock of the NCS ideally should include: (1) both quantitative and qualitative assessments; (2) getting a sense of what has been achieved collectively and individually; (3) sharing experiences of what worked and what didn’t work; (4) exchange of views and impressions through interviews and focus groups; (5) revisiting goals and targets; and (6) seeking renewal of commitments. Much of this work was accomplished over a year-long process involving people within Pakistan.

2.2 An External Review Team (ERT) comprised of Pakistani and international members (Annex 2) came in at the late stages to assess the findings and to prepare the report. The review was not an easy task given the decade-long period since the start of work related to the NCS and limitations on the available information. The ERT completed its field work in March-April 2000, circulated a draft report in July-September 2000. There were a substantial number of comments received and the final report was completed in November 2000. The lapse in timing for the production of the final report was the result of scheduling problems on the part of the ERT leader.

2.3 Serious limitations on quantitative information exist, and it was not possible to draw conclusions based on statistically-based approaches, for example, on the impact of the NCS on improvements in river water quality. Furthermore, because the NCS is only one of several influences on environmental and other outcomes, it is difficult to definitively point to its role in some successes. This point is raised as a criticism of the entire process by some individuals from Pakistani institutions in comments they provided concerning the draft report. It is important to recognize that this issue is a problem in most umbrella-style guidance initiatives wherever they are done, especially when there is not good baseline data available at the start, or a control case (i.e. what would the condition of Pakistan’s environment be now if there had been no NCS).

2.4 The ERT is confident that it has been able to address key issues in a reasonable fashion, and that the conclusions and recommendations are solid. The range of interviews, focus groups, document reviews, etc., provide a surprisingly strong convergence around certain key points. This is not to say that we expect unanimous support for all aspects of our findings and suggestions. Indeed, there are a variety of strong opinions about the future development of the NCS. Ultimately it will be up to the many actors involved in NCS to determine how the observations of the report can best be implemented nationally and at more local levels. Thus we have not tried to be totally prescriptive at any point in the report—there is more than one pathway to sustainability. Furthermore, while we illustrate progress and problems with many examples, there are many more that have not been discussed. It would be impossible, even in a report of twice the length of this document to do full justice to the interviews, background reports and range of experience of a decade of planning and implementation of the NCS. We hope that by bringing together ideas based on rich and thoughtful inputs of many people and organisations; solid ground has been prepared for future plans.

2.5 The organization of this report is in seven chapters plus nine annexes. In addition we have provided an Executive Summary and Prospectus that can be used as a stand-alone document that considers implications of the recommendations. Chapter 1 makes the case for a sustainable development approach for the future—and highlights why this should not be postponed for financial or other reasons. The current Chapter outlines the evolution of the NCS, and considers why it was such an advanced approach in relation to other initiatives domestically and internationally. Chapter 2 also outlines the analytical approach of the review and various constraints. Chapter 3 assesses the impacts of the NCS between 1992-2000 in relation to key issues such as creating the space for conservation and environment, awareness-raising, institutional development and potential outcomes. In Chapter 4 the financing and management of the NCS is reviewed, including a focus on new financing approaches, and on strengthening leadership both within and outside of government. Chapter 5 reviews the dynamic context of both national and international factors likely to affect further implementation of the NCS. Chapter 6 considers important needs for moving forward with a renewed approach for the NCS. The report concludes with five key lessons learned and six major recommendations, all outlined in Chapter 7.

NCS Context 1980-2000

2.6 The Pakistan NCS is one of the best-known national conservation strategies, externally admired for its vision and potential at the time it was adopted. It was developed in response to the World Conservation Strategy (WCS) launched by IUCN in 1980. The WCS was one of the first global initiatives to highlight sustainable development.^{fn 13} The NCS emerged after almost a decade of discussion and analysis, and was adopted at the highest levels within the government of Pakistan.^{fn 14} It was highly attractive to donors, especially in the period after the Earth Summit, when sustainable development awareness percolated into the programs of development agencies. Key events during the formulation and implementation periods are noted in Box 1.

Early Implementation Perspectives

2.7 David Runnalls^{fn 15} in a 1995 review (Box 2) concluded that the NCS

“Goes much further than that of any of the much acclaimed Green Plans of the OECD countries. It goes further than the National Conservation Strategies of other developing countries. Pakistan has set itself a formidable challenge…It is not surprising that its implementation is difficult, uneven, and time consuming. For it requires not only changes in the institutions of government and in the way policy is formulated; it also requires fundamental changes in the way people think about their relationships to the natural environment and to such fundamental issues as social equity and the elimination of poverty.”

2.8 The implementation plan within the original NCS document, and a follow-up 1993 document focuses on budgets for individual programs, in order to garner donor support and to demonstrate practical results. As Runnalls noted: “In a perverse way this may also turn out to be one of the document’s weaknesses. For it shifts the focus to the familiar terrain of project preparation and approval…and away from the fundamental shifts in the structure of public institutions and macroeconomic policy implied by the main arguments of the document.”

Linkages: Environmental Sustainability, Economic Growth, and Poverty Reduction

2.9 Clearly for the NCS to be effective as a sustainable development strategy, it had to deal effectively with the linkage of poverty reduction, wealth generation that can actually benefit the poor, and environmental sustainability. How can environment contribute to ‘pro poor growth’ and ‘pro poor human development’? In two ways:

• By avoiding or mitigating the health and productivity impacts of pollution caused by an array of factors, chief among them: (1) air emissions, particularly in the large cities, from traffic, industrial sources, and homes, with a high incidence of respiratory problems; (2) water contamination causing high morbidity and mortality from water-born diseases (e.g., diarrhoea, hepatitis, and typhoid); (3) inadequate management of hazardous chemicals used in both industry and agriculture; (4) inadequate solid waste management; (5) inadequate hygiene practices and food quality standards; (6) substandard housing conditions; and (vii) inadequate safety, hygiene, and labour practices in the work place.
• By reducing the occurrence and impacts of natural resource degradation, and by improving conservation for economic development and livelihoods opportunities of the poor. The intensification of agricultural production (particularly in the Indus Basin), through irrigation, increases in both yield and area under cultivation, has led to increases in production and food supply. However, this has been accompanied by increased salinity and soil degradation, riverine deforestation and mangrove destruction, as well as decline in biodiversity, fish resources, and water quality impairment from agro-chemicals. Future economic development opportunities will be constrained if the degradation of the natural resource base continues unchecked. Meanwhile population and consumption continues to grow rapidly and poverty is not being reduced. This growth further exacerbates land degradation, deforestation, marine and coastal degradation, as well as urban and industrial pollution. It is this double-pronged set of problems that create a vicious circle of lost opportunity and degradation that can and should be addressed.

2.10 A second key question is how can environmental sustainability contribute to economic growth?

• By including environmental considerations in macro-economic and sectoral policies and the associated incentive structures, gradually it should be possible to move away from a situation where every signal is to ‘cut and run’ today, because it may not be accessible tomorrow. To avoid this race to the bottom in terms of sustainability means ‘levelling playing fields’ in a fashion that reduces corrupt forest practices, unfair water allocation, and makes cleaner energy sources more available, while making it more difficult to access low quality fuels. Policies that foster the adoption within Pakistan of internationally accepted environment and resource management practice—a ‘race to the top’—also helps economic development by attracting progressive businesses that can transfer environmentally-sound technologies and by providing a greater access to environmentally-conscious markets in the USA and Europe in particular.
• By ensuring consistency and continuity in the environment-economy policy relationship, the tendency can be avoided of people taking advantage of situations that they believe will not be enforceable, or will change over the longer-term.
• By providing safeguards for clean growth the population of Pakistan will become healthier, more productive and therefore better contributors. The existing air and water pollution problems are contributing significantly to poor health, with the greatest ill effects likely being experienced by the poor. As well, through better management of ecosystems and through improved urban planning, the risk attached to natural resource hazards such as floods, drought, and windstorms can be significantly reduced, with lower losses to productivity and less need for emergency measures.

2.11 We stress these types of linkages from the beginning, and return to them throughout the report. For they are the foundation on which the future of the NCS and of sustainable development in Pakistan depends.

• was largely focused on achieving environmental outcomes (centred around ecosystem integrity);

• policy focus was geared towards environmental institutions and very weak on macro-economic and sectoral policies;

• ‘incentives’ focus was mainly on regulation and ‘command and control’ type approaches, and very weak on economic instruments;

• lacked prioritisation, as evidenced by the absence of any form of evaluation of costs and benefits and fiscal implications, except in the most general terms; and

• clearly did not address poverty reduction—the most fundamental of the core development issues—as directly as it might have.

• Lack of political commitment and weak governance. Despite the NCS framework for sustainable natural resource management and environmental protection (which was prepared in a uniquely consultative way prior to being adopted by the Cabinet), and input through a number of donor-funded initiatives, environmental considerations are still not fully integrated into the country’s economic growth and poverty reduction plans.

• Weak institutional capacity. Despite important progress in establishing a regulatory capacity and environmental institutions both at the federal and provincial level (updated environmental legislation provides for delegation of monitoring and enforcement powers at the provincial level), this institutional apparatus will remain largely ineffective, as long as the country does not have: 
  
  

  i       the necessary human resource capacity and incentives for implementation;

  ii     a credible monitoring and enforcement system;

  iii     a sustainable funding mechanism (based on “cost recovery” and the “polluter-pays-principle”); and

iv     a process of engaging the public through information disclosure, education and mass awareness programs, and participatory mechanisms.

•  Weak policy framework. This is reflected in:

  i      inadequate valuation of resources (e.g., water, energy);

  ii     little or no influence on sectoral policies (e.g., energy, urban, transport, agriculture, irrigation, forestry, health, and education), and import/export policies;

  iii     weak understanding of linkages between environment and poverty outcomes; and

  iv     limited forums and processes for debate, learning action on sustainable development.

   

• Weak fiscal management and resource mobilization. Despite a provision in the 1997 Environmental Act for instituting a “pollution charge” for industrial effluent, and provincial “sustainable development funds”, no broad based policies are in place for promoting cost recovery, re-use and re-cycling, user charges (e.g. from nature tourism and National Parks), and environmental fees and taxes. Consequently, environmental agencies are necessarily dependent on very slim budgetary transfers and continuously seek donor funding (e.g. from CIDA, SDC, GTZ, ADB, EU, UNDP, and World Bank).

• A simple sustainable development framework against which to assess achievement of the stated objectives of the NCS.  This framework (Box 3) allows development objectives to be characterized in terms of three types of outcomes and the linkages between them: (1) economic growth; (2) poverty reduction and social development; and (3) environmental sustainability. Many of the traditional development efforts have focused on achieving poverty reduction and social well-being through economic growth. Less attention has been paid to the linkages between environmental sustainability and economic growth on the one hand, and environmental sustainability and poverty reduction, on the other. Therefore much less is known about the nature of these linkages. This ‘critical triangle’ of development outcomes is by no means a panacea. But it represents a simple way to start identifying the essential institutional and policy linkages that need to be at the core of the country’s sustainable development agenda. 

• A qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of the 60 outcome groups of NCS.  In this case, because of the paucity of reliable quantitative information, we have used anecdotal evidence, results of focus group meetings, impressions from site visits, expert opinion and the collective experience of the MTR partners, to piece together an evaluation of outcomes.

• A review of the processes/systems intended to communicate and implement the NCS. This review is based largely on institutional analysis derived from interviews inside and outside of government, with limited comparisons based on experience internationally.

 

Box 3. SD Linkages in Pakistan.

  

MTR Analysis Approach 

2.22     The analysis draws primarily from documented case studies of on-the-ground experiences of different approaches and projects over the past 10 years, and from extensive focus group consultations, and individual interviews about progress and problems.  In addition, a number of implementation sites throughout the country were carefully selected through desk studies and interviews in order to identify a representative range of the different delivery approaches (i.e. ‘institutional models’ or ‘institutional arrangements’) that had been piloted across the different regions and sectors.  The overall MTR approach (detailed in Annex 1) consisted of:

• Preparation of background studies and assessments. Nine studies were commissioned, covering a range of stakeholder consultations and crosscutting issues. These were carried out from October 1999-April 2000. In addition, PEP partners and the World Bank contributed evaluations of their programs. The studies are listed in Annex 4.

• Desk study.  During the desk study, information was collected from studies, reports, books and articles related to the sectors covered under NCS.  In addition to this initial review, discussions were held with relevant central-level stakeholders, local line agencies, and NGOs to seek additional information.

• Consultations and focus group discussions.In addition to the MTR public consultations held in various parts of the country in late 1999, discussions were held by the ERT with relevant stakeholders, national and local agencies of government, and other key informants. The final list of institutions and people consulted and cases is presented in Annex 5. The institutional arrangements observed are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

• Field visits. Field visits in March-April 2000 by members of the ERT consisted of visits to provinces and territories to investigate the state of provincial conservation strategies and to visit selected projects, with interviews to collect detailed information and evaluations. However, it is important to note that, except for a few cases, field visits were targeted to key informants, and not beneficiaries directly. The field visits are noted in Annex 6.

• Validation workshop. A national multi-sectoral meeting, attended by more than 80 participants, was convened in mid-April 2000 by the Minister of MELGRD to share initial findings and recommendations of the MTR and obtain stakeholder feedback.

Notes:

12. MELGRD. Pakistan National Conservation Strategy, the Mid Term Review: A Process Overview. March 2000.

13. The WCS was produced in revised form in 1991. Caring for the Earth: A Strategy for Sustainable Living. IUCN/UNEP/WWF, Gland.

14. IUCN and the Government of Pakistan. 1992. National Conservation Strategy. 451 pages.

15. Runnalls, D. 1995. The Story of Pakistan’s NCS. IUCN-Pakistan.