CAN CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS CATALYZE PRIVATESECTOR SUPPORT FOR COMMUNITY-LED CONSERVATION?

© THOMAS MUELLER© THOMAS MULLER

Lessons learned and recommendations for replication

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Can conservation agreements catalyze private sector support forcommunity-led conservation, benefiting both nature and people?
YES, BUT it takes time—and maybe not in the way we think.
From 2015 to 2020, Conservation International, in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme
and with support from the Global Environment Facility, implemented the Conservation Agreements Private
Partnership Platform with the aim of using conservation agreements to engage the private sector in communitybased conservation. By 2020, the CAPPP had supported 10 sub-projects in nine countries (Bolivia, Cambodia,
China, Colombia, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Peru and South Africa), conserving 1.2 million hectares throughpartnerships with 27,000 community stewards. This is what we learned.
First, supply chains, market dynamics and enterprise development can be new and tricky topics for bothconservation groups and communities. Conservation organizations need to double-down on these topics whenanalyzing feasibility and thinking about strategy. It may be necessary to build capacity within the organization or
partner with someone else who has this expertise. Markets also bring an additional level of uncertainty, so thesegroups also need to communicate transparently with their community partners. When people’s livelihoods arepart of the intervention, we have an increased responsibility to do our due diligence, assess risk and ensure thateveryone has access to the best information available.
Second, partnering with companies can present its own challenges. It is true that companies seek products andpartnerships which can tangibly demonstrate positive environmental and social co-benefits and that conservationagreements (CAs) can clearly define the methods of production, strategies for sustainable land management, howpartners will enable community capacity and how impacts will be monitored. That said, private sector actors may
have their own priorities and preferences affecting which partnerships will work for them. Not every partnershipwill be a match. In fact, we found the matchmaking process to be one of the most nuanced areas, frequently as
much dependent on trust as economics.
When we began this initiative, we thought that CAs might help bring the private sector into conservation because
their deal-like nature would resonate, provide transparency and potentially de-risk the partnership. However, it
may be that the utility of CAs is less about bringing the private sector to the table (they are already at the tablebecause they want a responsible brand and a sustainable supply of inputs) and more about enabling communities
to conserve and produce sustainably so that they can be partners for the private sector. The real power of CAs
is in overcoming the opportunity cost of choosing a sustainable development pathway—enabling sustainableproduction over unsustainable, for example.
We learned that all of this works best when the implementer and the community take the time to define
shared commitments, where supply chain and market processes were well understood, where the roles andresponsibilities of intermediaries and other key stakeholders were clear and those parties also bought into theagenda, and in the case of linking community producers to markets, where natural products could be delivered
with the necessary level of quality, consistency and quantity.

The next two pages provide a short summary of lessons learned and recommendations.
For more detail, context, and insight, we hope you will benefit from the full report.

2

3© ADRIÁN PORTUGALWhen these key elements are lacking, we find that companies will not be committed—and the co-benefits ofsuch partnerships will not be realized. When partners get it right, conservation can be unlocked. Ultimately, ouranalysis suggests that the conservation agreements model of transparent and equitable deals based on sharedcommitments, along with the presence of a trusted and skilled partner, lays a strong foundation for leveraging
private sector support for community-led conservation initiatives.

First, matchmaking is not that easy.

It can also mean designing the intervention together

It should come as no surprise that companies will seek conservation partnerships that meet their own preferencesin terms of what they want to achieve. Environmental and social outcomes may be of principal importance, or they
may be considered co-benefits which are secondary to a producer-purchaser relationship. Many companies will
wish to support interventions geographically close to their customer base to boost the reputational benefit. In fact,
for some prospective partnerships, finding geographic overlap is the first and ultimately uncrossable barrier.

In most instances, finding external private sector partners to graft on to an already-designed CA initiative proves
to be challenging. As mentioned above, many private sector actors have specific needs or philanthropic interests(types of projects, conservation goals, communities, etc.) that may not correspond completely to the context
offered by the implementer and their community partners. There is a real difference between designing apartnership together and finding a partner for your project.

Risk management is important.

Alternative livelihoods are an incredibly common strategy, but they rarely
firm up financial sustainability

Depending on their sector, some companies may have a bigger or smaller tolerance for risk, and the type ofrisk that matters most might vary. For example, companies that depend on their brand might be wary of any
reputational risk, whereas those that operate in areas where brand does not matter so much, or where they
already face negative perceptions around their business, might actually be less averse to reputational risk.
Companies that operate in risky business environments (like extractives) might also have well-developed risk
assessment methodologies which go well beyond what conservation organizations are used to. All of this issimply to say, getting to know one another—and getting comfortable—matters a lot.

Risk management extends all the way through the type of activities that canbe supported.
CAs lend themselves to contexts where the threat is internal to the community rather than external,
notwithstanding the common inclusion of community patrolling and enforcement of outsiders in many agreements.
This aligns well with the fact that many private sector partners will be less comfortable getting involved insituations that involve enforcement-based strategies that typically are important in countering external threats.

Managing supply chains, engaging in markets and building enterprise are
all challenging, even for companies. For conservation organizations, this is areal area of concern.
Implementers may need to facilitate targeted training to improve how communities interact with private sector
entities as business partners—and invest in their own capacity to implement specific types of market related
strategies. Supply chain analysis, business planning, navigating business development and growth, marketing,ensuring quality and quantity of product are all critically important areas. We found across the board that feasibility
analysis—a key element of the conservation agreements process—needed to emphasize these topics with far
more depth and rigor. For many conservation organizations, external expertise will be a necessity.
At the same time, we identified areas where a little effort can go a long way. For community enterprise, forexample, small investments in upgrading local skills with respect to market participation (e.g., training on how toaccess publicly available pricing information) have led to outsized impacts.

Fostering a real partnership means investing in trust.
Although an emphasis on private sector engagement reflects a belief that arms-length transactions mediatedby market forces offer an alternative to individualized interactions built on interpersonal relationships and trust
networks, the CAPPP experience shows that the latter remain vital to conservation, development and also market
participation. NGOs should take the time to build strong relationships with communities and private sector
partners, acting as a trusted relationship broker where these relationships seem robust.

4

How alternative livelihoods support links to conservation bears deeper analysis with respect to effective strategy.
For example, a conservation agreement strategy could be to create a new resource use dynamic that is financiallysustained by alternative livelihoods, meaning the financial return from that livelihood is high enough to cover thecost of all the behavior change (production practices, monitoring, enforcement, etc.) that makes the livelihood
activity possible. This is a win-win-win scenario.
In our experience, however, this is quite rare. Frequently, activities necessary for sustainability are difficult toabsorb via price premiums. Finding the right price for a sustainable product is the first challenge. Finding someone
to pay that price in a competitive market is the second.
A contrasting, and more common strategy, involves continued support for alternative livelihoods as an ongoing
incentive within a conservation agreement that, in itself, requires ongoing financing (e.g., the livelihood does notcover the cost of conservation, but it does incentivize it to some degree). Whether or not to invest in a project inwhich market forces cannot cover the full cost of conservation is a matter of choice. It must be recognized thatthese costs need to be covered somehow, often in the long term.

The CAPPP has been a powerful learning experience for the implementers,
communities and companies that participated. Despite the relatively short
investment phases, the partnerships continue to see progress towards realenvironmental and socio-economic impact.
What we take away from this experience is that CAs—as is the core intent—
enable communities to conserve and produce more sustainably, giving
them the ability to provide what a private sector partner wants, be that an
input for a product, tangible outcomes from a philanthropic investment,
or both. In the end, the CAPPP has shown that CAs can effectively unlock
private sector forces for community-based conservation not because theybring new private sector partners to the table, but rather because they
provide a structure for aligning stakeholders through shared commitments
to clear conservation outcomes.

5

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Numerous people participated in the production of this report. We wish to thank the following contributors:
Malinda Gardiner, Ronnie Newman, Rosie Stanway, Mike Grover, Nigel Asquith, Maria Teresa Vargas, Tito Viduarre,
Feng Jie, Nura Aman, Tewodros Gezahegn, Sumin George, Anita Varghese, Matthew John, N. Rangasamy,
Jackson Frechette, Maria Claudia Diazgranados, Laura Jaramillo, Miriam Castillo, Roan Balas McNab, América
Rodríguez, Julio Zetina, Braulio Andrade, Ersin Esen, Agustin Silvani, Bambi Semroc, Fitri Hasibuan, Alejandro
Rosselli, Amos Thiongo, Juliette Crepin and Sarah Streyle.

MAP

8

INTRODUCTION

10THE PROJECTS14EMERGING LESSONS: REOCCURRING THEMES30

SUMMARY OF LESSONS LEARNED36

RECOMMENDATIONS38

CONCLUSION

43

With support from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Earth Fund, and in collaboration with the United Nations
Environment Programme as implementing agency, the Conservation Agreements Private Partnership Platform(CAPPP) (2015-2020) sought to forge mutually beneficial links between the private sector and local communities
or landowners who commit to achieve biodiversity conservation, reduce land degradation, support climate
regulation efforts and promote sustainable natural resource management.
Throughout implementation the CAPPP was supported by a steering committee consisting of Ersin Esen, Mark
Zimsky, Bernard Giraud, John Buchanan and Agustin Silvani.
The CAPPP was executed by Conservation International’s Conservation Stewards Program (www.conservation.
org/csp) through partnerships with Fundacion Natura Bolivia, Keystone Foundation, Wildlife Conservation Society
Guatemala, Asociación Calidris, Shanshui Nature Conservation Center, Farm Africa, Conservation South Africa,
Conservation International Peru, Conservation International Cambodia and Conservation International Colombia.
The Conservation Stewards Program has been generously supported by the Mulago Foundation (www.
mulagofoundation.org).
Cassandra Kane led the editing, design and formatting of this report.
Zachary Wells, managing director of the Conservation Stewards Program, led the lessons learned exercise.
This report benefitted greatly from original analysis, writing and interviews conducted by Dr. Eddy Niesten and Dr.
Heidi Gjertsen of EcoAdvisors (www.ecoadvisors.org).

ABBREVIATIONS
AL: Alternative livelihoods
CA: Conservation agreement
CAPPP: Conservation Agreements Private Partnership Platform
CSP: Conservation Stewards Program
CSR: Corporate social responsibility
FA: Feasibility assessment
NTFP: Non-timber forest product
PS: Private sector
PSE: Private sector engagement

For more information, please contact the Conservation Stewards Program: conservation.agreements@conservation.org

6

SME: Small or medium enterprises

7

10 PROJECTS IN 9 COUNTRIES

27,000+ PEOPLE
directly benefiting

sustainably managed

C H INA

Implementer:

Wildlife Conservation
Society

Implementer:>1.2 MILLION HECTARES

Implementer:

Shanshui Nature
Conservation Center

IND IA
GUATE M ALAConservation International
Colombia

Implementer:

ET H IOP IA

CA M B OD IA

Keystone Foundation

COLOMBIA

Implementer:

Implementer:

Asociación Calidris

Implementer:

Conservation International
Peru

Implementer:

Fundación Natura

8

Conservation International
CambodiaPE RU

BOLIVIA

Implementer:
S OU T H A F R ICA

Farm Africa

Implementer:

Conservation South Africa

9INTRODUCTION

Conservation Agreements: Fair deals for community-led conservation
In many parts of the world, communities use their land,
water and other natural resources in unsustainable ways—
simply because there is no economic alternative.
When conservation offers concrete benefits torural farmers and local communities, protecting theenvironment becomes an increasingly viable andattractive choice. Since 2005 Conservation International’s
Conservation Stewards Program (CSP) has supported
communities who agree to protect their natural resources,
as well as the benefits they provide, in exchange fora steady stream of compensation from investors. Thisapproach helps to conserve biodiversity while improving
the quality of life for local communities.

benefit package in return for conservation actions bycommunities. Thus, a conservation agreement links
conservation funders—governments, bilateral agencies,
private sector companies, foundations, individuals, etc.—
to people who own and use natural resources.
Benefits typically include investments in social services
like health and education as well as investments inlivelihoods, often in the agricultural or fisheries sectors.
Benefits can also include direct payments and wages.
The size of these benefit packages depends on theopportunity cost of changes in resource use, as well as
conservation performance. Rigorous monitoring verifies
both conservation and socioeconomic results.

CSP’s conservation agreements (CA) model offers
direct incentives for conservation through a negotiated

THE CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS MODEL

Emphasizing that participation in a CA is voluntary for allparties, and that the design and negotiation processes
must be transparent and inclusive of all parties, the main
steps of the CA model itself are summarized in CSP’s Field
Guide for Implementers as follows:• Choose sites based on a rapid feasibility analysis
conducted prior to agreement design• Begin engagement by building a relationship withinterested resource users in a transparent andparticipatory manner• Build on this relationship to design and formalize
an agreement that is: a) win-win (benefits bothbiodiversity and resource users) and b) quid-proquo (provision of benefits depends on conservation
performance)• During the implementation phase, meet commitments
punctually and facilitate the resource users in meeting
theirs• Consider an initial short-term “trial” agreement to allow
both parties to evaluate and refine agreement for thelong term• If a long-term agreement is sought, work together tosecure long-term financing• Throughout the implementation of the agreement
apply biological and socio-economic monitoring
systems• Throughout the process, help improve the modelthrough participation in a global learning network of
implementers• Before implementation, build socio-economic andbiodiversity baselines and define a monitoring
system for both

Conservation Agreements Private Partnership Platform (CAPPP)Given the popularity of the conservation agreements
model with private sector partners, Conservation
International launched the Conservation Agreements
Private Partnership Platform (CAPPP) in 2015 to catalyze
private sector support for biodiversity conservation andmaintenance of ecosystem services in globally importantsites. With support from the Global Environment Facility(GEF) Earth Fund, and in collaboration with the United
Nations Environment Programme as implementing
agency, the CAPPP sought to forge mutually beneficial
links between the private sector and local communities
or landowners who commit to achieve biodiversity

conservation, reduce land degradation, support climate
regulation efforts and promote sustainable natural
resource management. The CAPPP concluded as aprogram in June 2020, and at closure, consisted of 10
conservation agreement projects in nine countries.
This report aims to disseminate key lessons learned
through the implementation of the CAPPP. By sharing
what we have learned, we hope to inform and improve
the practice of community-driven, incentive-based
conservation.

CAPPP Theory of Change
For 15 years, CSP has worked with
communities and NGO partners worldwide
to sign more than 3,000 community andindividual agreements in 20 countries—
benefiting a total of 90,000 people andleading to the protection of 3 million
hectares of key habitat.

10

The CAPPP was based on the hypothesis that the private
sector offers untapped potential for financing communitybased conservation and that increased private sector
funding for conservation could be catalyzed using the
CA model. This perspective is well aligned with the GEF’s
Earth Fund, which sought to demonstrate innovative ways
to engage the private sector by establishing strategic
partnerships for addressing specific environmental problems.
We designed the CAPPP as a 5-year full-sized GEF
project, later extended by nine months, with US$ 5 million
in GEF financing and US$ 15 million in co-financing. The
project aimed to catalyze private sector support forbiodiversity conservation and maintenance of ecosystemservices in globally important sites in at least 10 countries
using conservation agreements with local land andresource users.

The conceptual framework behind the project issummarized as follows:• Noting barriers to partnerships between the private
sector and local communities in sites of significancefor global conservation of biodiversity andecosystems, including perceived risk, high transaction
costs and uncertain returns;• If conservation agreements can serve as efficientand effective mechanisms that strengthen community
capacity in a way that reduces transaction costs, risks
and uncertainty;• Then private sector actors will have the confidence
to enter into relationships with communities, including
investment in conservation.

11

An immediate and key point relates to the broker
function alluded to above. To overcome the barriers
to partnerships between the private sector and local
communities, there is a role for a mutually trusted party;
while the CA model serves as the framework for thesepartnerships, applying the model requires a trusted
intermediary. Typically, this broker will be an NGO working
in the conservation and sustainable development space;government agencies and academic research institutions
may also play contributing roles.
The project logic reflects a set of assumptions:• The CA model is an effective means to transparently
define mutually agreed commitments with respect
to conservation actions and compensatory benefits(including investment in sustainable livelihoods andenterprises).
• Given appropriate incentives, local communities areprepared to undertake conservation activities and cease
unsustainable land- and resource-use activities.
• Local community contexts can offer commercially
viable, environmentally sustainable livelihood/enterprise prospects that can serve as links to private
sector partners; given investment, communities areable to produce the goods and services in quantities
and qualities needed to secure private sector
relationships.
• There are private sector partners motivated bycommercial interests and/or corporate values topartner with communities predicated on conservation
outcomes.

Based on these assumptions, the CAPPP project design
identified three types of private sector engagement (PSE)
that the platform could support.
1. Frame product sourcing agreements between
companies and communities.
CAs can assess opportunities to establish productsourcing agreements between communities andcompanies interested in sourcing their inputs from acommunity’s nature-based goods and services. These
CAs established sustainable management regimes forsuch goods or services in return for guaranteed payments
upon delivery. The CAPPP design envisioned investments
to (i) support feasibility assessments for the long-term
management of the community-provided good or service(e.g., analyses to identify sustainable off-take amounts);
and (ii) build the capacity of local communities to establish
the necessary community architecture to contract
directly with the private sector and manage the resulting
investments.
The role of CAs here is to provide a fair and transparent
process to reach shared commitments (expectations)around production practices—inclusive of conservation—
as well as to detail the types of support and purchasing
terms communities can expect and will accept and toselect a clear monitoring framework and a system foradaptively managing the partnership over time. One
important principle here is the CA’s intention to create
fairness, transparency, inclusion and to achieve specificconservation and human well-being outcomes.
2. Develop conservation partnerships between private
sector actors and communities that produce social andenvironmental results to meet corporate responsibility
commitments.
CAs between communities and private sector companies
seeking Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects.
The CAPPP design envisioned investments to (i) support
communities to develop the necessary architecture tonegotiate with and manage investments from the private
sector; (ii) identify conservation projects in which the private
sector could invest and through which the community
can reasonably deliver conservation outcomes that also
provide community co-benefits such as food security, otherincome opportunities and enhanced resilience against
adverse impacts of climate change.
These agreements are more like traditional donor
investments based on CSR commitments and may notinclude the purchasing of community goods or services by
the private sector. The real “service” in these agreements
is the production of specific environmental outcomes.
3. Build capacity of small and medium enterprises toThis was not an evaluation exercise. Our process
did not assess the CAPPP or the sub-projects
against the model and platform design documents
or collect quantitative metrics on project or subproject performance. A separate project evaluation
was undertaken for the GEF Earth Fund. Instead, weused the model and the design to structure a seriesof collaborative discussions in which implementers
and CSP staff helped distill lessons from actual
implementation experience. An independent party,
EcoAdvisors, conducted all interviews and drove thecompilation of lessons learned.

1. CAs are an effective means to elicit behavior
change on the part of local owners.

© BENJAMIN DRUMMOND

CAs between local small or medium enterprises (SMEs)
that operate in key biodiversity areas and capital
investors. These CAs define conservation outcomes thatthe enterprise agrees to deliver in exchange for technicalassistance for business development, and thus focus
on enhancing local level private sector engagement inbiodiversity conservation. In some sub-projects, this could
converge with the first type of PSE as the CA model canlink local SMEs to large corporate partners.
Each sub-project under the CAPPP sought to use CAs tostructure one or more of these types of PSE to achieveconservation outcomes while improving socioeconomic
conditions of communities. Several sub-projects wereexisting conservation agreement initiatives incorporated
into the CAPPP as pre-existing sites, while others began
as wholly new agreement projects.

Methods: Learning from doing

The key objective of the analysis is to learn from the
CAPPP experience to inform replication. Of course,
this presupposes that replication is desirable andthat CAs and the private sector make a good fit withpositive outcomes for communities and conservation
objectives. We implemented the CAPPP based on thefollowing assumptions:

12

ensure increased community participation in product/
service supply chains that benefit conservation andeconomic development.

2. Socioeconomic impact can be assumed positivesince beneficiaries are virtually always interested inrenewing.
3. CAs can be shown to attenuate forest clearingor other sources of pressure on ecosystems,

but wider ecosystem impacts will take longer tomanifest.
4. Whether behavior change persists in the long term,
particularly in a post-CA phase, remains to be seen.
We re-evaluated these assertions in further examining
the sub-projects to help justify a focus on whether CAs
are an effective tool for engaging the private sector
and therefore merit replication. We did this by asking
the following three questions:
Do CAs secure the involvement of private sector
actors that otherwise would not become involved inconservation?
Does the CA model keep private sector actors
engaged longer or more effectively?
Does private sector engagement using CAs increase
the amount of funding available for conservation?
While we tried to explore these questions qualitatively
through interviews, the bulk of our effort focusedon “how to” considerations relating to use of the CAmodel to involve the private sector—how to establish
partnerships, how to structure relationships, how toaddress conflicts, how to communicate effectively, how
to catalyze scale and how to buttress (financial, social,
institutional) sustainability.

13

THE PROJECTSThe CAPPP supported 10 sub-projects in nine countries(Bolivia, Cambodia, China, Colombia, Ethiopia,
Guatemala, India, Peru and South Africa). Table 1
summarizes context and design variables for the subprojects in the CAPPP portfolio. Each of these subprojects adapted the CA model and involved at least
one of the three types of private sector engagement(PSE). However, sub-projects did not formulate explicit
Theories of Change to map out in concrete terms how
the intervention (and the PSE component within theoverall intervention) was expected to lead to the desired
outcomes. Here we identify our second key lesson:
While private sector partnership was the goal of the
CAPPP, for implementers it is often a strategy for
financing projects (CSR) or delivering incentives forconservation (purchasing agreements) which can be
pursued when useful, or not. If the CAPPP were to be
replicated, the motivation and design (the Theory of
Change) would bear reflection, particularly in terms ofalignment between the platform and sub-projects.
For the platform, increased PSE is a headline objective,
with the hypothesis that this unlocks additional fundingfor conservation. For individual projects, PSE is instead ameans to an end, namely the sustainability of CAs. Thisdifference is subtle but significant; for instance, if PSE
fades for a project but a different long-term financing

TABLE 1. PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS.
solution is secured, the project is successful without
contributing to platform success.
Compiling Table 1 revealed a definitional challengewith bearing on lessons learned from the CAPPP. It was
not always obvious whether the PSE component of a
sub-project is better described as local or communitybased enterprise development, or as building a supply
chain relationship. For example, organizing producers
into a co-operative seems more like enterprisedevelopment, but functionally may be integral to theprocess of facilitating outside company purchases of
farmers’ products.
This is particularly the case in early stages, as support for
new enterprise development rarely makes for a complete
strategy without also facilitating purchasing relationships.
This raises the question of whether the distinction isnecessary or useful, when the point is new and/or
improved local livelihoods, potentially with a stronger
position in the overall value chain. The point of theseCAs is to create a relationship between conservation
outcomes and market-based activities, whatever
particular form they might take. A topic of inquiry thenmight be whether that relationship is enhanced throughformal enterprise creation or other institutional capacity
building (such as establishing a co-operative).

An agreement may encapsulate more than one biome or more than one type of PSE. Some sub-projects also relied on more than one
agreeement.
1

One would expect habitat to predominate, as the CAPPP targets were defined as number of hectares. Arguably, PSE could be easier withmore evocative targets (charismatic species, iconic places, critical ecosystem services, etc.). Nevertheless, each sub-project presents acompelling story in its own case.

2

The distinction between supply chain investment and enterprise development is not always clear, and several sub-projects featured
multiple types of PSE.

3

CHARACTERISTICS OF AGREEMENTS

NUMBER OF AGREEMENTS1

Biome

Forest11

Rangelands
11Type of conservation target2

Habitat11

Species3

Freshwater production
1

Type of private sector engagement3

CSR
6

Supply chain
12

Enterprise development
6

Individual2

Community
12

Both
1

Integration into markets(labor; goods & services; credit; land)Low
3

Medium11

High1

Degree of linkage between PS activity
and conservation objectives

Low
4

Medium6

High
5

Financial sustainability outcomes(weight of PS role in covering longterm CA costs)

Low
4

Medium8

High
3

Agreement stewards4

Marine1Mangrove
1

YES

NO

Agreement was pre-selected for
CAPPP

9

6

PS relationship (external tocommunity) established before
CAPPP

7

8

PS is a social enterprise

5

10

PS is a signatory to agreement

4

11

Government is a signatory toagreement

78

PS payments address opportunity
cost5

12

3

6

9

4

“Community” can be a co-operative or other sub-group of resource owners/users who do not necessarily comprise the entire community.

PS funds spent on conservation
activities6

5

Yes indicates that privileged access to buyers, fairer prices or sustainability premiums help offset the opportunity cost of conservation.

PSE is implementer exit strategy7

312Current agreements continuing8

15

0

CAPPP sub-project led to replication
and/or scale-up

96

PS still involved

15

0

No indicates that PS funds (from sale of nature-based products/inputs) contribute to household incomes but not to conservation
management budget.

6

7

In many instances the implementer envisions a long-term relationship with the community rather than an exit strategy as such.

8
Yes includes active and dormant agreements, the latter being those where the agreement may have lapsed but the implementer isseeking funds to continue.

14

15

The Watershared model was expanded through CAPPP toincorporate biodiversity within the water agreements. For
example, rather than being compensated for crops lost to
the macaw, farmers wanted to be paid to produce extra
corn for the birds. In this way, the critically endangered
macaws were seen as helping farmers to earn moremoney, rather than as a pest. This focus on birds as
positive then provided an entry point for biodiversity with
communities, i.e. help the birds by protecting the forest,
monitoring nests, etc.
In terms of PSE, as part of its corporate social responsibility,
Coca Cola has partnered with Fundación Natura Bolivia
to support the program. Because the focus of the16© SHOAIB TAREEN

A key feature of the model is that rather than calculating
value and paying opportunity cost (i.e. framing as an
economic transaction), the partners frame it as a reciprocalarrangement, whereby the farmers are helping society andreceiving public recognition and benefits in appreciation.

© COURTESY OF NATURA BOLIVIACONSERVING WATERSHEDS IN BOLIVIAPROTECTING CAMBODIA’S FORESTSIMPLEMENTER: Conservation International Cambodia
SCOPE: Central Cardamom Mountains National Park: 591 people; 403,130 ha
Prey Lang Wildlife Sanctuary: 490 people; 360,000 ha

INCENTIVESCOMMITMENTS• Establish an oversight committee• Commit to sustainable management of riparianzones and other important areas• End agricultural expansion into forested areas
beyond established boundaries• Avoid hunting for commercial trade andpoaching of illegal species• Avoid unregulated logging or timber trading• Technical and financial support for diversifying
income from non-timber forest products,
ecotourism and agroforestry• Improved market access including capacity
building on packaging, business planning,marketing and linkages to private sector• Agricultural training to increase production inapproved zones

to reduce deforestation which would be signed towards
the end of CAPPP and continue to be implemented.

© COURTESTY OF CI CAMBODIA

agreements is on clean water,
the private sector here is nota donor but rather an investor
and a beneficiary; Coca Cola
IMPLEMENTER: Fundación Natura Bolivia
draws water from the aquifer
underneath the project’s
SCOPE: 500+ families; 64,000+ ha
participating communities.
One enabling condition for the
INCENTIVESCOMMITMENTS
project’s successful PSE was thatwhen Coca Cola approached the• Tools and inputs for• Set aside a formal conservation
NGO seeking a supply of 1 million
agroforestry (beekeeping, fruitarea avoiding logging, forest
cubic meters of water, Natura
trees)
conversion and hunting thereinknew where/how to be able
• Tools for improved cattle
to provide it because they had• Control fire throughout
management(fencing,
etc.)
invested in hydrology research• Keep cattle out of bothand had run randomized• Water storage and distributionconservation area and water
control trials, and thus had thesystems for householdbodiesdata needed to demonstrateconsumption and irrigation
additionality. It will take time tosee meaningful change in water
Despite the rich biodiversity of Bolivia’s inter-Andean
quality and quantity, but support
valleys—including the endemic and critically endangered
from the CAPPP has enabled Natura Bolivia to set up an
red-fronted macaw—local farmers often have no other
implementation and monitoring system for the long term.
alternative than to deforest their land for agriculture
A key lesson relates to participatory negotiations andand livestock due to a lack of alternative economic
co-design to ensure that incentives match community
development options, which also diminishes the quality
needs and interests. In this case, farmers indicated aof downstream water. To break this cycle, Fundación
strong preference for something akin to a private sector
Natura Bolivia pioneered “Watershared”—known locallytransaction (e.g. an investment to help increase corn
as Acuerdos Recíprocos por Agua—a model to develop
production) rather than compensation for corn lost to
long-term (10-year) agreements which enable long-term
macaws. In this case, conservation agreements do appear
financing, emphasizing municipal institution-building for
to clarify the commitments and incentives required tosustainability. Since political terms are five years, thisproduce an environmental service (water production andperiod covers at least two mayors and helps to create a
indirectly habitat preservation) for a private sector partner
water conservation culture within the municipality. The(Coca Cola).
agreements are designed as a joint venture; farmers
contribute 30% of the resources and the municipality
contributes 30% and provides development projects tofarmers. The municipalities (and/or local water providers) ina sense are thus additional “private sector” representatives,as they channel demand for watershed maintenance.

Cambodia’s forest cover decreased from 72 percent in1973 to 48 percent in 2014, the world’s fifth-fastest rate of
deforestation. The Central Cardamom Mountains National
Park (CCMNP) and Prey Lang Wildlife Sanctuary (PLWS)
are two hotspots facing widespread land conversion
and poaching driven significantly by poverty, population
growth and poor law enforcement.
With support from CAPPP, CI Cambodia worked with
CCMNP’s Tatai Leu community, providing a framework
for collaboration with park authorities to help protect theforest and diversify the community’s income-generating
opportunities through market development of agarwood,turmeric, lemongrass, cardamom and ecotourism. In
Prey Lang, the project also supported the design andnegotiation of agreements with nine additional communities

Leveraging the financial power of corporate social
responsibility and market pressures, Japanese corporategroup Mitsui invested US$ 1.1 million for three years
to help set up the PLWS program with the aim ofpurchasing future REDD+ forest carbon credits for 10
years. Additionally, late in the CAPPP investment in PLWS,
CI Cambodia partnered with IBIS Rice, an establishedethically minded conservation enterprise. IBIS Ricefacilitates sustainable rice production in the PLWS
landscape, working towards an income generator forcommunities who comply with the sustainable vision for
the area. Organic and wildlife-friendly certification for riceproduction lends itself to a clear agreement with a pricepremium for compliance. This venture capitalizes on an
activity that people were already doing, and the activity
yields near-term rewards.
Meanwhile in the Cardamom Mountains, several private
sector partners with varying roles support the community
conservation agreement holders in the sustainableproduction and marketing of goods aligned with thegoals of the protected area landscape. Krassna Kambodi
focuses on an agarwood oil production component
by providing technical training to local communities,
treating the agarwood trees with inoculant, and helping
to market the products. Two companies, Bodia and Green
Garden Shop, buy other community products, including
lemongrass oil and vegetables. These companies
also conduct product testing and provide technicalrecommendations for improved quality.
A lesson here is that implementers, particularly
conservation NGOs, frequently do not have all thenecessary expertise in house to deliver a product17

Particularly in the Cardamom Mountains, significant
piloting of activities, testing of quality and brokeringof PS-buyer relationships was required. In addition,in the case of planned agarwood development, labor
was put into production in the absence of clear pricing
commitments, which can constitute a risk if community
expectations are not met at market. Implementers must
make sure that community expectations are alignedwith the range of possible development trajectories. An
initial agreement with communities that specified realistic
potential prices could help to ensure expectations arealigned with market dynamics.

SUPPORTING PEOPLE, PANDAS AND FORESTS IN CHINA
IMPLEMENTER: Shanshui Nature Conservation Center
SCOPE: 3 villages: (1) Guanba: 387 people; 4,000 ha (2) Xiong’er: 500 people; 2,510
ha (3) Liziba: 728 people; 6,500 ha

INCENTIVESCOMMITMENTS• Support for alternative livelihood activities andmarketing local products• Capacity building/training for local leaders• Financial support for patrols© COURTESTY OF SHANSHUI NATURE CONSERVATION CENTER• Conduct daily patrols to control hunting andfishing within the conservation area
• Community patrolling to protect forests andwater sources• Controlling fires, logging, pests and otherspecific environmental threats

Around the southwestern Chinese villages of Guanba,
Xiong’er and Liziba, forests which are home to the giant
panda and other wildlife are threatened by illegal hunting
and logging, primarily for firewood for tea production andtimber. These communities need avenues to generate
income while protecting, rather than encroaching on, habitats
deemed essential for nature by local authorities. Since2009 the Shanshui Nature Conservation Center has usedconservation agreements to stop deforestation while also
improving the capacity and income of local communities.
To reduce pressures on the forest, Shanshui used the
CAPPP to support the communities in establishing18

conservation-based livelihoods, such as honey production,
improved tea quality and to form paid patrol teams tocombat illegal poaching and logging. The communities
in return formulate and comply with local land-use plans
which align with official protected area management
plans such as refraining from illegal fishing and wild
herb harvesting, reducing the use of chemicals for tea
cultivation, and carrying out community patrols andmonitoring. The agreements also contained provisions fortechnical training, improving market access and branding
for products such as honey and tea, and building capacityof local leaders.
In Guanba and Xiong’er, Shanshui focused on sustainable
honey production. Shanshui’s social enterprise, ShanshuiPartner Company, and Xiong’er Dongdong Co-operative
provided technical assistance, purchasing and expansionof markets, such as connections with L’Oreal China. In
this case, Shanshui already had relationships with theprivate sector, the specific products were ones that thecommunities already knew, and buyers were alreadyidentified. Therefore, these projects were not subject tothe degree of trial and error seen in some of the other
CAPPP projects. In Liziba, Kiehl’s LLC (owned by L’Oreal)
provided funding and trainings on pesticide hazards,
standardized use of chemical fertilizers, solar insecticidal
lamps and watershed management to reduce the use ofchemicals on tea farms and support farmers.

SAVING MANGROVES TO SAVE LIVEILHOODS IN COLOMBIAIMPLEMENTER: Asociación Calidris
SCOPE: 2,300 people; 12,500 ha
COMMITMENTS• Regulation of piangua collection (size, area
restrictions)• Establish zoning plans including non-use
areas and rotational harvesting• Participate in monitoring of piangua andmangroves
The Colombia project addresses the unsustainable
harvesting of natural resources by two very different
communities. In Bahia Hondita, on the Caribbean coast,
the population of five endangered species of sea turtles
was drastically diminished after centuries of uncontrolled
exploitation for food, as well as for use in folk medicine
and religious rituals important to the native Wayuu
community. Meanwhile, in Iscuandé, on the Pacific coast,mangrove forests and important species living in thesemangroves—particularly
a mollusk known locallyas piangua, an importantfood source—havebeen threatened byunsustainable logging byoutsiders and harvestingfor fuelwood and otherresources (including
overharvesting of piangua)
from both within thecommunity and fromneighboring villages.
Through the design ofconservation agreements,
the community in Bahia
Hondita agreed to stophunting sea turtles anddisturbing nests and todevelop and implement a community-driven monitoring
system on nesting beaches. To support the community intheir conservation efforts, Conservation International (CI)
Colombia agreed to provide capacity-building for a womenled local handicraft enterprise; trainings to create a local
tourism association; and new equipment such as legal
fishing nets, wood and tar for boat repairs and buoys forsustainable fishing activities.
In Iscuandé, Asociación Calidiris supported the community
in developing and implementing improved piangua
harvesting controls (such as size restrictions) and rotational
harvesting plans. The community committed to adherence
to these plans as well as to monitor illegal activities inside

INCENTIVES• Training on monitoring, leadership and local
legislation• Annual supplies for sustainable piangua
extraction (boots, gloves, etc.)

the ethnic territory and mangrove areas. Key activities
were trainings on monitoring ecosystem and species
identification, strengthening community leadership, andlegislation, securing annual supplies for piangua extraction(boots, gloves, t-shirts, balaclavas, etc.) and support forenterprise development and market access.
In terms of PSE, Cerrejón Coal funded the initiative in
Bahia Hondita between 2012 and 2019 through formal
agreements with
Conservation
International.
Cerrejón’s
CSR strategyemphasizedbuilding local
community
capacity to drive
sustainability efforts
in the region.
The women’s
handicrafts
business provides
a critical sourceof householdincome in anotherwise remoteand economicallydepressed area.
Given the Iscuandé community’s reliance on fishing fordaily survival, the project emphasized alternative income
generators and is currently exploring the creation of an
endowment. Alternative economic opportunities for local
associations provide additional income and reduce direct
threats to mangrove ecosystems.
© COURTESTY OF ASOCIACIÓN CALIDRIS

ready for market at a competitive price (quality, quantity,
viable transportation). The initiative in CCMNP relies on
private sector partners and intermediaries to help meetthese requirements. Yet, the initiative is not without its
challenges, particularly those around establishing new
products and linking them to markets where questions ofquality and quantify dictate price and partnership.

The Bahia Hondita agreement is ongoing postCAPPP funding. CI Colombia’s exit strategy includes
the strengthening of two local enterprises with clear
responsibilities to keep supporting conservation actions
around sea turtles in the community and engaging
other private sector partners following the cessation ofCerrejon’s participation. This includes creating a
19© CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL/PHOTO BY
ALEJANDRO ROSSELLI

circular economy that maintains conservation action
over time. CI Colombia expects that at least 30% of
the cost of conservation activities can be covered by
local small-scale enterprises such as tourism, supply of
drinking water, handicrafts, and PET plastic recycling.
Meanwhile in Iscuandé, the piangua trade doesn’t easily
lend itself to financial sustainability for the project, asfunding is necessary for monitoring and harvesting inputs
and a good portion of the harvesting is for household
consumption. CI and partners are working on a national
blue carbon program with the Government of Colombia
which could one day support the project at scale. The
CAPPP investment helped strengthen a key demonstrationsite in Iscuandé, while CI and Calidris continue to raisephilanthropic funds to bridge towards an eventual
sustainable financing framework via blue carbon andthe potential inclusion of the project in an endowment
fund and a sinking fund designed to guarantee thefinancial sustainability of acommunity-driven networkof protected areas acrossColombia.

In these initiatives,
developing large
enterprises and supply
chain relationships
is infeasible, largely
because of remotenessand high transportation
costs for potential
products, highlighting
the importance of site
context when thinking
through enterprise andmarkets as a mechanism
for driving conservation.
Another challenge whenworking with local private
sector partners is thatthey may also bring complexities to the project. In Bahia
Hondita, litigation between Cerrejón and other local Wayuu
communities created tension in the project community
which had to be addressed. Finally, CSR commitmentschange over time. Cerrejón’s eventual withdrawal drove CI
to develop a sustainability plan that involves the possibilityof government funding and the ongoing community-based
economic activities (tourism, handicrafts, recycling). A
percentage of the proceeds from these economic activities
currently supports 30% of the agreement’s activities.
While this agreement is small in geographic scope (7 ha ofnesting beach) it is critical to the people’s livelihoods, to thesurvival of endangered species, and as a framework for the
relationship between a major extractive industry player the
Indigenous communities who steward the territory.

SEA TURTLE HUNTERS TURNED GUARDIANS IN COLOMBIAIMPLEMENTER: Conservation International Colombia
SCOPE: 567 people; 7 ha
COMMITMENTS• No hunting, consumption or mistreatment of
sea turtles• No marketing of turtles or products derived
from them• Return of sea turtles caught during fishing• Community monitoring of nesting beaches

20

INCENTIVES• Wages for monitoring• Training to improve local products (handcraftedbags) and to improve local associations• Improved sustainable fishing gear
• Support for basic ecotourism activities

PROMOTING WILD COFFEE TO SAVE ETHIOPIA’S FORESTSIMPLEMENTER: Farm Africa
SCOPE: 8,871 people; 112,000 ha
COMMITMENTS• Forgo forest conversion• Avoid cutting shade trees in forest buffer
zones• Participate in seedling production and tree
planting• Set up local monitoring and patrolling andenforce violation of forest managementagreements• Manage for forest fires

Ethiopia’s Bale Eco-region gave the world Arabica coffee,
the most consumed species of coffee. Coffee continues togrow wild in forests that harbor important biodiversity andultimately deliver water to millions of people in Ethiopia,
Kenya and Somalia. Intense poverty, however, has forced
local people to convert forest into croplands and fell tressfor timber—and while annual deforestation is expected toaccelerate due to more people moving into the Bale region
from drought-stricken areas, the primary threat at hand isforest degradation due to slashing of the undergrowth forwild coffee to thrive.
To incentivize conservationof Bale’s forests, Farm Africa
through CAPPP worked withlocal wild coffee farmers to
improve the quality of theirharvest and link them topremium buyers, helping to
improve their livelihoods.
This support was contingent
upon compliance withsustainable harvesting andprocessing techniques.
In Bale, Farm Africa has
facilitated sales between
wild coffee producers andBeharu PLC, a company thatpurchased the coffee at a premium.
Increased income from the wild coffee enterprise, coupledwith conditional market access, is expected to drive thesustainability of the conservation agreements beyond
CAPPP funding. Committed in the long term to the Baleregion, Farm Africa continues its fundraising efforts to
support initiatives that boost coffee production in thearea—such as increasing the shaded coffee plantations
along the forest buffer zone—and to build more formal

INCENTIVES• Training and equipment for coffee harvest/
handling/processing• Construction of a central coffee warehouse• Organizational capacity building for forest
management cooperatives• Training in biodiversity monitoring

links to national and international markets.
A strong theme to emerge from the Bale project relates
to benefits and strategy with a focus on improving quality
versus increasing output. In this case, higher coffee
quality leads to higher prices and provides a very clear
differentiation between CA participants and others, thereby
reinforcing the incentive impact. As in other projects in the
CAPPP portfolio, Farm Africa initially emphasized upgrading
the capacity of community-based institutions in the formof Forest Management
Cooperatives; this echoes© COURTESTY OF FARM AFRICA
lessons about the needto invest in strengthening
institutions as CA
counterparts, with wider
benefits in the form of ability
to participate in market
relationships.
Parts of the Bale project
design proved to be too
ambitious for the CAPPP
timeframe. In particular,
creating direct links to
the international coffee
market was not possible,
though a purchasing
relationship (including a price premium) was establishedwith a domestic aggregator/buyer. This suggests a
lesson about phasing and sequencing, within realistic
timelines, especially when starting from significantly
under-developed initial conditions with respect to market
participation. Effective strategy might start with a focus
on local companies, and only seek links to larger andinternational companies after more stringent feasibility
considerations are met.
21

An external project evaluation reported behavior of
non-CA participants that undermined the CA objectives,
namely by expanding production to increase volumes
using destructive methods. The presence of a new buyer
under the project effectively increased competitionand drove prices up across the board. Thus, other,non-signatory community members were able to takeadvantage of the project, though it is unclear how theirproductive practices may affect the forest over time. This
points to the importance of thoroughly analyzing the value
chain, to understand the different incentives at work anddesign the intervention in such a way that it does notlead to greater benefits from “cheating” or “free riding.”
This also includes analysis of transaction and facilitation
costs, to assess the degree to which premiums cover the
additional costs of conservation-friendly behavior.

Perhaps the strongest message to emerge from the Bale
project is that the CA model was successfully applied
to achieve behavior change and community-based
conservation in Ethiopia, a new frontier for this type ofconservation approach. Farm Africa is now incorporating
this approach into other work and is also working withother organizations and the government to promote
incentive-based conservation models. One lesson hereis that simply granting rights to communities throughForest Management Cooperatives (mainly the right tocollect and sell non-timber forest products) is not sufficientfor sustainable resource management or livelihood
improvements; for these rights to result in positive impacts
requires investment in institutional and technical capacity
strengthening, and that people see concrete benefits fromconservation management.

HELPING VILLAGES KEEP GUATEMALA’S FORESTS INTACT
IMPLEMENTER: Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)SCOPE: 2 sites: (1) Paso Caballos: 1,167 people; 15,000 ha (2) Uaxactún: 1,060
people; 83,558 ha

COMMITMENTS

INCENTIVES• Prevention of fires, monthly surveillance
activities• Zoning of cattle and management of new
housing• No rental or sale of land to people fromoutside the community• No deforestation in a 3km buffer around thevillage boundary• No encroachment in protected areas orneighboring forest concessions• Support for education including infrastructure
improvements• Provision of a visiting nurse for reproductive
health care
• Support to development council to makedirect requests of government• Fruit tree seedlings for improved food security

The Guatemala project led by Wildlife Conservation
Society took place in two distinct communities in theMaya Biosphere Reserve, the villages of Paso Caballos
and Uaxactún. The village of Paso Caballos is a Q’eqchí
community located in the south east of Laguna delTigre National Park and surrounding forest. In 1997 thecommunity signed an accord with the Guatemalan National
Protected Areas Council (CONAP) which prescribed certain
rules to continue living inside the park’s boundaries. Overthe years, deforestation, fire and renting/selling lands topeople outside the community for agriculture threatened
the accord’s status.

organization of Uaxactún, the Organization, Management
and Conservation Civil Society (OMYC). Despite proper
management and Forest Stewardship Council certification,
OMYC had accrued a substantial debt by 2009 (with support
via two first phases of conservation agreements with WCS,
the debt was completely payed four years later in 2013);
and deforestation, fires and overexploitation of xate palmthreatened the concession’s status.

The village of Uaxactún lies in the Petén Basin region of the
Maya lowlands. In 2000 the Guatemalan government issued
a 25-year, 83,558-hectare forest concession to the community
22

help strengthen OMYC’s administrative and financial
capacities to manage the concession and again improve
local livelihoods. Support from the CAPPP helped toconsolidate results of these agreements in readiness forrenewal of both long-term concessions.
In terms of PSE, in 2017 WCS began engaging with two
Guatemalan palm oil companies that are members of
the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil and wanted to
implement a compensation project in an area of Lagunadel Tigre National Park that includes Paso Caballos.
The companies and WCS proposed the project to thegovernment’s National Council for Protected Areas(CONAP) and received approval. This was in large part
because they had already accepted the CA model as amanagement tool within the national park, due to successful
proof of concept. The project supports the protected area
over 25 years, and the compensation provides long-term
financing for the conservation agreement in Paso Caballos.
With PS support, the initiative enables the protection ofa 28,715-hectare area of Laguna del Tigre National Park
that includes the Paso Caballos Q’eqchí Maya community,
as well as an important Mayan archaeological site and El
Peñon de Buena Vista, a vital nesting area for turtles andthe scarlet macaw. Community components include control
and surveillance, fire prevention measures, and capacity
building and benefits such as health support are distributed
equally among women and men.
In Uaxactún, WCS used CAPPP activities to focus on
natural products with emphasis on the improvement ofxate palm harvesting practices which improved the qualityof the product. This improvement directly benefited thevalue chain and the experience strengthened OMYC as
an enterprise. The support of conservation agreementsin Uaxactún helped to strengthen administrative skills
and ensure transparency in informing key stakeholders(government, NGOs, community members, etc). PostCAPPP, WCS continues to support OMYC and Uaxactún

and the positive experience has resulted in a new
project to expand conservation agreements in the Maya
Biosphere reserve as an efficient management andbenefit sharing tool.
In terms of lessons, one challenge in this project was inpresenting the corporate partnership to community leaders.
The reputation of palm oil companies was an issue for thecommunities and the environmental sector (despite thefact that both companies are part of the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil), requiring WCS to invest in dialogue
with these stakeholders, as well as communicatingclearly with the National Protected Areas Council and thecompanies to explain the nature of working in communities.
Transparency with communities about the source of funds
and dialogue around the palm oil sector and reasons forcompensation payments were essential for building trust
and laying the groundwork for the long-term relationship.
The companies relied on WCS to work with the community
and adapt the compensation model as needed, preferringto stay out of the design process, while WCS’s historyof effective implementation gave the companies theconfidence to invest.
This experience shows the potential for effective CAs
to secure long-term (in this case 25-year) CSR support;
this represents a significant return on investment forthe continuous fundraising efforts of the preceding 10
years. Second, it suggests continued discomfort with theprivate sector and PSE on the part of key stakeholders,emphasizing the need for careful dialogue.

© COURTESTY OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

Prior to CAPPP, in 2010, WCS engaged Paso Caballos
in a conservation agreement to help the community
meet its commitments to CONAP, as well as to maintainthe forest buffering their boundary, all the while
improving their livelihoods. In 2009 WCS, Conservation
International (CI) and the national protected areas council
implemented a conservation agreement to23

BOOSTING INDIAN FARMERS’ INCOMES AND SAVING TIGERS

REDUCING DEFORESTATION IN PERU

IMPLEMENTER: Keystone Foundation
SCOPE: 4,848 people; 54,313 ha

IMPLEMENTER: Conservation International Peru
SCOPE: 185 people; 3,000 ha

COMMITMENTS

INCENTIVES• Premium prices for sustainably harvested
NTFPs• Subsidized organic agriculture inputs• Tools and technical support for agriculture and
NTFP collection• Monitoring of water quality• Training and equipment for local environmental
monitors

The Sathyamangalam Tiger Reserve (STR), home to forest
habitat, Bengal tigers, Indian elephants, leopards andmany other flora and fauna, spans 140,000 hectares acrosssouthern India. The STR harbors biodiversity facing many
threats including unsustainable harvesting of non-timber
forest products (NTFPs), soil and water pollution due tochemical-intensive agriculture, and habitat loss due tounregulated livestock grazing and fuelwood collection.
Under CAPPP, this project engages the reserve’s
indigenous communities in sustainable harvesting of NTFPs(namely wild honey and gooseberries), organic agricultural
practices, improved fuelwood collection plans, and fodder
cultivation to reduce grazing pressures,
all to protect the forest and its wildlife.
While the communities commit toimproving their practices, in exchange,
the project provides premium market
access for their products.

via the agreements; and 3) the timebound nature ofnegotiation meant that the partnership would take place
as it had in the past, with individual families as opposed
to a community writ-large. The plan therefore evolved todevelop agreements with individual households. During
implementation, the Forest Department restricted theharvest of NTFPs, requiring a shift in focus to agriculture,
while Keystone pursued advocacy and negotiations withthe government. A third arising issue related to the useof household level agreements was that the Producer
Company found itself in a position of providing extra
incentives to some of its members (agreement signatories)
and not others, despite the factthat they were producing the same
goods. Although Keystone increased
the planned number of agreements,
excess demand for participating
remained.

On PSE, the Aadhimalai
Pazhangudiyinar Producer Company(APPC) supports local marketing andbranding of the sustainably harvested
and organic produce. Aadhimalai isfully owned by the farmers throughshareholding. A second PS partner,
Last Forest Enterprises, supports national marketingand branding of the produce and is the primary buyer
of Aadhimalai products. The CAPPP investment has
driven the formalization of an incentive-based community
conservation program for the STR.

Several lessons emerged from the STR
experience. First, some communities
have very little opportunity for income
generating activities. In this case, NTFP
collection and sale was a common
activity but changes in policy related
to harvesting NTFPs within a protectedarea meant that support of this livelihood had to be halted,
leaving agriculture as the primary activity which could
be leveraged for both nature and people. Aadhimalaiand Last Forest, as two PS partners, also had to adapt tochanges in their sourcing and strategy for supporting thecommunities. Second, despite the commonality of NTFP
harvesting, not all community members engage in thisactivity. Because it is the key incentive at hand but notnecessarily the primary threat, the project strategy had
to be revisited to try to find ways to engage more people
to ensure compliance with the principles and laws of theprotected area.

Early lessons and learning emerged during CA design
and negotiation phase when the Keystone Foundationteam confirmed that community-level agreements would
not work because 1) there is no body or organization that
legitimately could represent the whole community; 2) not
all households were engaged in the income-generating
activities that appeared most appropriate to support
24© COURTESTY OF KEYSTONE FOUNDATION• Observe protocols for sustainable NTFP
harvesting• Conversion to organic farming practices• Following a planned grazing system andsustainable fuelwood collection protocols

COMMITMENTS• Forgo renting primary forest land to others• Avoid deforestation, agrochemicals andcontamination of water sources• Provide surveillance and issue corresponding
sanctions for non-compliance• Promote the conservation, recovery andreforestation of degraded areas throughagroforestry and restoration using native
species

INCENTIVES• Technical assistance, supplies and fertilizer forcoffee and cacao plots• Support for medical campaigns• Support to create a new association to assist in
product marketing

In the Alto Mayo basin—one of Peru’s most deforested
together the Awajun and migrant farmers, improving theirareas—nearly 30 percent of original tropical forest haspractices and crops and linking them for the first time
disappeared. Here, scarce economic opportunities
to COOPBAM, the broader conservation-minded coffee
have led the indigenous Awajun people to rent theircooperative for communities in the Alto Mayo landscape.
community lands to migrant farmers who, after extracting
The project also benefits from funding by BHP Foundation,
most fine timber and usable trees, cultivate cacao
linked to the Australian mining company BHP that, in lateand coffee, supplanting important natural and cultural
2018, committed US$ 12 million in implementation funds
resources. Unsustainable agriculture and the use offor carrying on the CAPPP agreements and another $5
agrochemicals, herbicides
million for a non-sinking© CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL/PHOTO BY FREDDY GUILLEN
and pesticides have also led
endowment.
to soil degradation and water
Overall, the projectcontamination.
created a model which
Since 2013 Conservation
can be replicatedInternational (CI) Peru has
with other Awajun
worked with two Awajun
communities—and in otherindigenous communities incommunities across Peru.
an approach to communityIn addition, the signing
based territorial planningof these conservationand development. Thisagreements generated theapproach was intensified
conditions necessary forin 2016 under the CAPPP.
the Programa Nacional deThrough the implementation
Conservación de Bosquesof conservation agreements,y Mitigación del Cambio
this initiative strengthened
Climático (National Plan for
the Awajun communities’
Forest Conservation andgovernance and capacity to sustainably manage their
Climate Change Mitigation) to identify the Alto Mayo native
territories and, importantly, reduce deforestation andcommunity as a beneficiary, providing US$ 10,000 a year.
restore key areas. To improve livelihoods and help families
In terms of learning, from the development of the CAPPP
avoid economic dependency on land rentals, the project
proposal to ultimate implementation of the project,emphasized building indigenous capacity for sustainablethinking on the approach changed a fair amount, driven
management of cacao, coffee and banana crops. Rental
mainly by a realization that far greater initial effort would
agreements were also enhanced to prohibit deforestation
be required with respect to community governanceand the use of agrochemicals. The creation of Life Plans
and capacity building. This may reflect some omissions(Planes de Vida) provided a vision for a sustainable futurein the conservation agreement feasibility assessment.
driven by the Awajun.
Nevertheless, more emphasis was needed on enabling
In terms of PSE, a newly formed co-operative brings
conditions before proceeding to actual private sector
25

engagement and cultivation of enterprise activities andlinks. The project came to believe that strengthening of thelocal co-operative, and the ability of people to participate
as members of the co-operative, was essential to effective
and efficient links between local farmers and private sector
counterparts. Institution building was an essential precursor
to developing livelihoods, enterprises and market links.
While CI Peru found that the CA approach has proveneffective for community engagement and catalyzing
behavior change, attracting private sector relationships
required substantial thinking and design work. The
presence of the co-operative facilitated private sector
engagement, but some private agents along the value
chains questioned why they should take on additional
complexities (and costs) of the CA. This highlights theimportance of values alignment and careful partner
selection, as well as clear communication surrounding
expectations with respect to costs. Challenges
notwithstanding, private sector dynamics are demonstrablyincreasing in the project area, as community-levelproduction has expanded from basic agricultural crops toa range of niche products (e.g., dragonfruit, sustainable
coffee), and more companies are visiting the area toexplore opportunities.
Perhaps the most surprising lesson from this sub-project
relates to the role of migrants who rent land from Awajun
communities and are typically viewed as a challenge to beaddressed or an agent of nature’s loss. However, in Alto
Mayo these migrants also have private sector relationships(as well as relationships with the Awajun), they haveagricultural experience and skills, and they also benefit
from enabling investments. Some migrants benefited from
CAs through their Awajun landlords, and many are now
co-operative members. This motivates a change in thinking
from migrants as threat to migrants as potential allies andavenues to opportunities.

IMPROVING LANDSCAPES AND LIVEILHOODS IN SOUTH AFRICA

means of securing conservation commitments; e.g.
showing beneficiaries the difference in pasture conditions
between their managed lands versus nearby non-CA
communities dramatically showed positive conservation
impacts, with clear implications for animal health andconsequent income potential. Nevertheless, these arestill people whose incomes depend on narrow margins,such that they are reluctant to incur any avoidable
expenses, including marketing fees to a co-operative.
They prefer direct individual transactions with speculators,
the potential boost in negotiating power through thecooperative notwithstanding or wages for Ecorangers
to verify proper herd management (despite the clear
evidence that this is beneficial; as a result, compliancemonitoring remains a cost for CSA).
The project’s participation in the CAPPP provided
a strong impetus to sharpen thinking about market
participation and private sector links; among otherthings, this helped lead to the creation of Meat Naturally
Pty which ultimately became a successful independentsocial enterprise and now is a private sector partner forother projects including the CAPPP initiative in Kruger
to Canyon. Another lesson learned in the Namaqualandexperience is the importance of establishing acomprehensive monitoring framework and baseline fromthe outset. Impact-level data can be extremely important
for raising the funds to secure investments in socialenterprise or PS participation. Conversely the absence ofdata can be a significant detriment.
Perhaps the biggest lesson learned from this sub-project
derived from the fact that efforts to create new purchasing
relationships for livestock farmers (e.g. by lining up the
NAMMEAT abattoir or linking to specialty meat suppliers)
were consistently challenging; the quantity demandedby the former was too large, while the quantity desiredby the latter was too small. A more effective strategy
proved to be to strengthen farmers in their pre-existing
relationships with speculators to whom they already wereselling (e.g. by providing price information directly andthrough regional radio, and by showing how farmers canfind price information using smartphones). This points tothe importance of fully understanding the value chain,including volume considerations for different market
segments, to design a project that responds to realistic
conditions and opportunities.

IMPLEMENTER: Conservation South Africa
SCOPE: 2,724 people; 88,289 ha
INCENTIVES• Adhere to a planned grazing system• Avoid plowing virgin land and wetlands• Participate in ecological monitoring• Provide data on livestock predation• Improved livestock including special breedingrams, medicine and livestock dosing tools/
equipment• Support for farmers’ organizations• Training for improved farming practices• Improved market access for livestock

In South Africa’s Namaqualand region, an important
ecosystem known as the succulent karoo faces threatssuch as unsustainable livestock production which drives
the local economy. Decades of overstocking communal
rangelands with small livestock and ploughing for fodder
have led to extensive degradation, negatively affecting
both agricultural productivity and ecosystem health.

receive enforcement support from the local municipality
as necessary. Post-CAPPP, CSA continues to offer
technical advisory to the co-operatives for both market
and policy engagements.

Conservation South Africa’s (CSA) CAPPP project inNamaqualand provided benefits such as improved stock
quality, market access, training and capacity building
to farmers who committed to sustainable rangeland
management, including conserving critical wetlands. The
project also linked farmers to new and better markets
and embedded conservation agreements into the
Namaqualand Municipality’s by-laws for communal grazing
areas. Under these bylaws, community co-operatives
have a formal role in overseeing the compliance and will
26

Regarding PSE, this project connected farmers to Meat
Naturally Pty, a social enterprise that provides market
access facilitation. Their organized livestock sales,
inviting both buyers and sellers to participate, has
led to increased prices for the farmers by eliminating
middlemen. NAMMEAT, a local abattoir, meat trader andmajor buyer of lamb in the region, bought livestock fromthe farmers, ensuring direct market access and thus better
returns at the household level.

© CHARLIE SHOEMAKER

COMMITMENTS

In terms of lessons from implementation, CSA’s
Namaqualand team found that learning exchanges andvisual demonstration of conservation benefits are effective
27

HELPING SOUTH AFRICAN FARMERS TURN GRASS INTO GOLD
IMPLEMENTER: Conservation South Africa
SCOPE: 322 people; 7,600 ha• Adhere to a planned grazing system, resting ofovergrazed areas• Erosion control to reduce flooding and runoff• Bush clearing to decrease encroachment andalien species• Resting important riparian areas to improve
infiltration and reduce flooding

Years of unplanned grazing by the cattle dependent Mnisi
community adjacent to the iconic Kruger National Park
has led to severely eroded rangelands. Moreover, thearea’s designation as a foot-and-mouth (FMD) diseasezone due to livestock-wildlife proximity limits farmers’
access to livestock markets, further exacerbating poverty.
Conversely, when livestock lands are well-managed, therangelands perform crucial water catchment and soil
retention services that are essential for the broader South
African population and economy as well as for the healthof the park and its wildlife.
Following on the experience in Namaqualand, this project
incentivized farmers to change their approach to grazing
management in exchange for assistance with subsidized
fodder, vaccinations and market access for meat. The
conservation agreement idea behind this project was thefollowing: by demonstrating that conservation agreement
commitments are effectively and consistently carriedout, stewards will have access to the services of a social
enterprise, Meat Naturally Pty (MNP), both in the termsof market access as well as through shareholding. This
would enable Conservation South Africa (CSA) to exit
while still ensuring conservation priorities are met. The
CAPPP/PSE strategy was deemed applicable based onearlier experience in Namaqualand and South Africa’s
Eastern Cape (outside of CAPPP). Thus, this projectreflects replication and adaptation of the model, internallyby an organization to a new site (this was a completely
new landscape for CSA).
Early in the project, a unique mobile abattoir was piloted
in an effort to make year-round hygienic and safe meatproduction and trade possible despite FMD, and the
project facilitated livestock auctions, enabling the farmers
to sell their product in the formal market for the first time.
The key private sector partner was MNP, which held
evolving roles over the course of the project reflecting
28

INCENTIVES

Finally, one of the most prominent lessons from theK2C initiative is that, like Cambodia and other projects,

including commitments in CAs based on unprovenmarket participation requires very clear and careful
communication about the trialing/experimental natureof the investment in new market-based activities.
In addition, agreements may need to include otherincentives in case of failure of the enterprise or the needto adapt more generally.

• Improved market access for livestock• Training and design of planned grazing
systems• Employment of eco-rangers to oversee planned
grazing and invasive species removal• Traceability services for commodity-based
trade in Food and Mouth Disease areas• Provision of fodder during dry season

adaptation to learnings and changing conditions. Initialefforts involving MNP as purchaser and processor ofanimals using a mobile abattoir did not work as volume/
capacity constraints undermined financial viability. Further
MNP’s mobile abattoir was so new that South Africa’s meat
regulatory system didn’t have the policies and processes
in place to sustain certification, a hurdle that MNP
continues to work on. Ultimately, MNP’s key role proved
to be as a conduit for affordable inputs (fodder at below
market prices).
Despite MNP proving unsuitable as a purchaser due tothe economics of the overall context, the attempt had
positive impacts as it led to farmers being better informed
about market prices and exerting competitive pressurethat increased the prices they received for their animals
in other transactions. Local enterprise/supply chain
development thus need not focus on market access, but
can be centered on strengthening market participation,better information, access to inputs to improve quality,
and meeting phytosanitary and other management
requirements. This does not need to rely on pricepremiums as an incentive, as the incentive is a stronger
ability to participate in the market. Moreover, the core
livelihood support strategy can generate ancillary market
opportunities; for example, fodder provision to support
livestock keeping can become a potential opportunity
itself (for example, CSA is examining work with private
landowners to allow fodder collection as an alternative toburning to create firebreaks; the spin-off of MNP itself from
CSA is a compelling example of successful private sector
engagement/incubation).

© TROND LARSEN

COMMITMENTS

potentially better interaction with buyers, people startingto think and operate like a business, and access to more
opportunities (like MNP). Generally, a cooperative (orother institutions) may economize on transaction costs
and can help mitigate an outsized NGO coordinating/intermediary role.

Additionally, in this project investment in institutional
development (i.e. cooperative) proves valuable. Evenif a cooperative (initially) is weak, it provides the basis
for a common voice for the producers, recognition fromgovernment (municipality, Department of Agriculture),29

EMERGING LESSONS: REOCCURRING THEMES
The discussion below focuses on key themes that continuously emerged in project
reporting and interviews. This should not be taken to mean that other characteristics are
not important; rather, these themes seem to warrant emphasis.

Theme 1. Context
A host of contextual factors shapes each conservationagreement (CA) sub-project. Of the many aspects ofcontext, the most prominent appear to be the principal
threats to which the CA responds: the legal, tenure andsocial conditions prevailing in the partner community. With
respect to threats to biodiversity or ecosystem integrity,
the CAs predominantly focus on sources of pressureinternal to the community, such as community members’
own decisions about how to use grazing land or forest
resources. Less prevalent are CAs designed to respond toexternal threats, such as outsiders coming into community
territory to extract resources. This is consistent with the
CA model’s focus on incentives for behavior change topromote sustainable resource use. CAs lend themselvesto contexts where the threat is internal to thecommunity than external, notwithstanding the common
inclusion of community patrolling and enforcement ofoutsiders in many agreements. For CAPPP sub-projects,
this is also consistent with a hypothesis that some private
sector partners might be less comfortable getting
involved in situations that involve enforcement-based
strategies that typically are important in counteringexternal threats. On the other hand, the Bolivia project
found that (in the case of municipalities and water users
as investors) the people investing their own scarce
resources wanted to know that the beneficiaries werein compliance with their commitments, and if not, that
support would be withdrawn.
Legal and tenure conditions represent a recurring theme
as this part of the context is critical to the viability ofresource management regimes and shapes options formarket participation. For example, securing investment
in an agroforestry enterprise typically requires clear
property rights; however, property rights need not be held
individually, as collectively held rights can be sufficiently
well-defined and legally protected. Several sub-projects
address issues of managing common-pool resources (e.g.,communal grazing land in Namaqualand, South Africa,
or community forests in Ethiopia), such that legal context
and tenure arrangements are instrumental in defining
options for collective action and management. Althoughconservation practitioners are well-attuned to theimportance of these factors for resource management,
they may be less accustomed to considering how theyaffect prospects for private sector relationships andenterprise development. Fundación Natura Bolivia, forexample, was quite clear that neither the municipalities
nor Coca Cola would invest in watershed protection in the30

absence of clear tenure.
Finally, a clear (and unsurprising) theme is that social
conditions within communities have an enormous
impact on CA design and implementation. Specificconditions range from the degree of economic andpolitical marginalization and social cohesion to thelevel of technical and institutional capacity to customary
governance mechanisms and relationships between
sub-groups within the community (gender, age, resource
users, etc.). These shape the form of CA benefit packages(communal or individual/household engagement) and ofplans for capacity strengthening—and dictate the fact thateach CA needs to be tailored to local needs and priorities.
For the CAPPP, to the conventionally understood aspectsof social conditions we may add familiarity and comfort
with norms and business culture in the private sector;
in this regard, implementers may need to facilitatetargeted training to help communities become better
able to interact with private sector entities as business
partners. That said, the emphasis on livelihoods in the CA
sub-projects is effective in demonstrating to communities
that the implementer appreciates their priorities and helps
persuade communities that participation in the project isrelevant to their social context.

Theme 2. Design
The first key lesson from the CAPPP is that the
program’s timeframe of roughly two- to three-year
investments per project might not be ideal in terms of
how long it takes to assess feasibility, negotiate anddesign agreements, launch them and achieve results
under the three PSE pillars. The CAPPP was able toconsolidate strategies and partnerships, but sustaining
them is a more long-term endeavor.
With respect to CA design features, the most prominent
theme was that most sub-projects represented an implicit
Theory of Change that emphasizes sustainable livelihoods
as a path to conservation outcomes and socioeconomic
outcomes. However, the question of whether thesustainable livelihood on its own provides a sufficientincentive for sustainable choices, or whether a sustainable
livelihood or enterprise strategy can cover conservation
management costs, warrants explicit attention inintervention design. How alternative livelihoods support
links to conservation bears deeper analysis with respect
to effective strategy. For example, a conservationagreement strategy could be to create a new resource-

use dynamic that is financially sustained by alternative
livelihoods, meaning the financial return from thatlivelihood is high enough to cover the cost of all the
behavior change (production practices, monitoring,
enforcement, etc) that makes the livelihood activity
possible. In contrast, continued support for alternative
livelihoods could be an ongoing incentive within a longterm conservation agreement that, in itself, requires
ongoing financing (e.g. the livelihood doesn’t cover thecost of conservation, but it does incentivize it to somedegree). Whether or not to invest in a project in whichmarket forces cannot cover the full cost of conservation
is a matter of choice. But it must be recognized thatthese costs need to be covered somehow, often in
the long term. Implementers appear to turn to PSE asa sustainability strategy for alternative livelihoods (AL)(e.g., by facilitating a supply chain relationship), which
can contribute to human well-being but is not necessarilyequivalent to sustainability for the CA and conservationcommitments. Consequently, the degree to which PSE
can support an exit strategy for the implementer in a given
project must be intentionally assessed.
A theme throughout theportfolio was the limited
role of the private sector in
the process of designingCAs, regardless of which
PSE type a sub-projectpursued. An exception
was the Cerrejón mining
company in Colombia,
which thanks to an internal
champion was closely
involved in design andexecution. More typically,
implementers worked
with communities inparticipatory processes to design the CAs, and thensought to add links to the private sector later. In subprojects focused on community enterprise development
or improved community participation in supply chains, theenterprise or community itself is the private sector partnersuch that there is a form of private sector involvement
in design. In most instances, finding external private
sector partners to graft on to an already-designed CA
initiative proves to be challenging, with the exceptionof sub-projects that benefited from a relationship witha social enterprise. Creating a bespoke initiative witha private sector partner certainly has its benefits but
similarly requires an element of time and flexibility which
may not align with existing community and NGO priorities.
Still, NGOs should emphasize building relationships
with private sector partners in the same way theyprioritize building relationships with communities, prior
to launching into market-based projects.

alignment of social enterprise values with CA implementer
intentions helped maintain an emphasis on the links
between private sector/market-oriented activity andconservation objectives; this may be more difficult
to do in a meaningful way with other private sector
partners. In such cases it is the CA itself which creates
an interdependent relationship between markets (theincentive) and conservation action (the prerequisite).
Social enterprises also more often take a wider viewof socioeconomic progress, beyond a strict focus on
income; however, it is noteworthy that while the values ofthe social enterprise may be compelling for customers,
ultimately quality is of primary importance if they are toretain customers for more than a one-time purchase.
Social enterprises also were generally less prone toshying away from challenges of working with marginalized
communities, compared to the reluctance of private
sector companies to commit to wholly new partnershipefforts in Cambodia, for instance.
Finally, regardless of any other particular design
considerations, a strong theme throughout the CAPPP
portfolio was that the presence of a trusted intermediary
was vital for CAs andbuilding private sector
relationships. Beyond
the expected importanceof technical capacity,
the critical aspect of theimplementer’s role wastrust; this included trust on
the part of the community,that the implementer
had their best interests
at heart, and trust on
the part of companies,that they were getting
involved in a situation
with a committed party who would work through issues.
Although an emphasis on PSE reflects a belief thatarms-length transactions mediated by market forces
offer an alternative to individualized interactions built
on interpersonal relationships and trust networks, infact the CAPPP experience shows that the latter remainvital to conservation, development and also market
participation. NGOs should take the time to build strong
relationships with communities AND private sector
partners, acting as a trusted relationship broker wherethese relationships seem robust.

Market forces do not always offer analternative to individualized interactions.
Our experience shows that trust
networks and personal relationships
remain vital to conservation.

Working with social enterprise partners (e.g., in South
Africa and India) also helped in other ways. Natural31

As private sector partners generally were not very
involved in the initial phases of CA sub-projects, PSE
efforts were concentrated in the implementation phase.
The related theme to emerge most strongly was that
implementers found this challenging and thus emphasized
the importance of “matchmaking” support from dedicatedexpertise. For some sub-projects this also meant thatas PSE challenges asserted themselves, implementersand communities needed to adapt by considering
alternative private sector partners, adjusting expectations
and/or changing approaches. A challenge here is thatmany private sector actors have specific needs orphilanthropic interests (types of projects, conservation
goals, communities, etc.) that may not correspondcompletely to the context offered by the implementerand their community partners. Organizations with strong
links to a variety of communities and implementing
partners in various
locations and contexts canthen effectively play thematchmaking role, merely
to offer a diversity ofstarting points.

Theme 4. Outcomes
In terms of outcomes (environmental and socioeconomic,
as well as financial sustainability), perhaps the mostprevalent theme was that the two- to three-year subproject timelines are generally too short to demonstrate
clear outcomes. There are reasons to believe thatthe initiatives are contributing to conservation anddevelopment progress; the expansion of area undersome form of improved conservation management isencouraging, and the fact that communities voluntarilychoose to continue their participation in CAs signalsthat they perceive positive socioeconomic benefits.
Some sub-projects offer specific indicators that confirm
positive trends such as in Colombia where socioeconomic
monitoring is detecting clear positive change. It may
be best to view such sub-projects more as phases
within longer-term interventions which requireevolution, adaptation, appropriate growth and financial
sustenance. In longer-term interventions with robust
PSE and alternative livelihoods aspects, such as thosein Peru and Colombia, theevidence base does point
to robust outcomes fornature and human wellbeing.

While the timeline may be too shortto demonstrate clear outcomes—andthese projects are really phases inlonger-term interventions—the evidencebase does point to positive benefits fornature and human well-being.

The second theme
around implementation
was a strong emphasison capacity-building.
This related to training
and awareness-raising
investments in a wide
range of areas including
sustainable resource
management, governance,
leadership, core business skills, conflict resolution,negotiation and gender mainstreaming. However, withrespect to enhanced participation in value chains, multiple
sub-projects indicate the significant value of a focus
on improved market information to help communities
negotiate fair prices. Small investments in upgrading local
skills with respect to market participation (e.g., training
on how to access publicly available pricing information)
appear to have outsized impacts; however, how to
structure such investments in market participation to
support long-term conservation outcomes is not always
obvious. Interventions in which the productive activity itself
benefits from conservation (e.g., harvesting of wild coffee
in Ethiopia, with a resulting premium price for quality) or
market access is conditioned on conservation performance(e.g., nature-friendly meat sales in South Africa) may lendthemselves better to such links than others. It is clear thatCAs can provide opportunities for producers to link tomarkets (trade fairs, etc.), but NGOs should be very waryof promising sales, as these are simply not in the control ofanyone but the private sector partner.
32

In multiple projects,
after the CAPPP grantclosed, implementers
continued the initiativewith funds secured fromother sources; theseother sources did notnecessarily emphasize
PSE, and so in some cases
we see a fading of effort
on this front and a pivot tolocal government or conventional philanthropy as longterm institutional and/or financial sustainability solutions.
Most of the sub-projects include continuing efforts withrespect to livelihood and enterprise development that
the CAPPP supported, but do not appear to emphasize
PSE as the core means of sustaining the intervention
in the long term. This again points to the question ofwhether or not PSE is an integral strategy in and of
itself, or an option within a broader integrated financing
approach. The Bolivia project provides a clear casewhere private sector engagement is fundamental tolong-term sustainability. In this case, Fundación Natura
Bolivia’s partnership with Coca Cola involves using initialinvestments to build local capacity across municipal water
users to make future payments, such that the partnership
can then move to new areas, engaging new water
stewards and replicating the process.

livelihood investments with attention to market linkages.
Growing numbers of practitioners see the value of linking
livelihood support to explicit conservation commitments
in a CA, as a basis for setting and communicating
expectations for the project by and between stakeholders
and potential partners. In the end, the analysis comes
down to the size of the opportunity cost associated withbehavior change by the community, the relative amountof that cost that can be covered through community
enterprise activity, and the relative ease of covering theremainder of the cost with other means (like philanthropy).
The theme here is that although maintaining clear links
between livelihood strengthening and conservation
can be a challenge, conservation practitioners see clear
strategic benefits to positioning livelihood support
within a CA framework.

Theme 5. Facilitators andbarriers
Identifying themes relating to facilitating factors andbarriers for constructive PSE was the primary motivation ofthis study. As already indicated above, the CAPPP subprojects experienced challenges in securing partnerships
with outside commercial entities. The CA model appears
to resonate with social enterprises in particular. The mostconsistently expressed perspective around this is simply
that PSE is very difficult: markets are highly competitive,
private sector actors are risk averse, and unless thebenefits of trying something new are significant and clear,
getting a company involved is an uphill battle. Of course,
this is not news; the question now is whether the CA model
makes this process any easier. It does appear that the CAmodel and process can help to clarify those benefits. But
this also requires NGOs to analyze markets and supply
chains, something many groups will not be used to. In theabsence of such clarity, NGOs will continue to find it difficult
to truly leverage the power of the private sector.

© CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL/PHOTO BY SOPHAK SETTTheme 3. Implementation,
adaptation and process

Nevertheless, several sub-projects appear to havegenerated momentum for replication and scale-up of
the CA approach including PSE, particularly sustainable
33

TABLE 2. SYNTHESISOF LESSONSLEARNED FROM THE
CAPPP PORTFOLIO
For each row, an X
in the column for a
sub-project indicatesthat the sub-projectillustrates that row’s
lesson/theme.

LESSON/THEMESUB-PROJECT
Bolivia Cambodia China

Colombia Ethiopia Guatemala India

Peru

South Africa
South Africa(Namaqualand) (K2C)

Applying the Conservation Agreement (CA) model
CAs are an effective tool for securing community commitments to conservation and achieving behavior change.
Conservation NGOs gravitate towards alternative livelihoods interventions as their private sector strategy(relates to both local enterprise development and building supply chain links). There is a need to be very clear
about where behavior change comes from and how it is maintained, and the place of AL within that Theory of
Change.
Successful CAs benefit from the presence of strong community leadership/local champions; this can overlap
with successful/entrepreneurial community membership, which then aligns with PSE ambitions.
Building trust with communities and assisting with conflict resolution is time consuming yet necessary; a great
deal of investment may need to occur before embarking on other project activities. (Closely related to therecurring theme of needing to devote considerable attention to institutional capacity-building and governancestrengthening as enabling conditions).
Government perception of the CA model can affect implementation; in areas where government plays a role inconservation, government engagement and facilitating public-private relations may be necessary for projectsuccess.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Engaging the private sector
Most NGOs need specific expertise to properly understand value chains, supply chains, market dynamics,
and the real scope for interventions based on local enterprise development or purchasing agreements.
When searching for/screening potential private sector partners, a key factor to include is values alignment (withrespect to conservation, community development, gender issues, etc.).
Engagement with a private sector partner that is purchasing fair trade, organic or otherwise certified products at
a premium readily aligns with the CA model (also see Table 1).
Building community business/enterprise capacity first depends on building institutional/governance capacity; cooperatives are one example. This also can yield other benefits, as a co-op (for instance) can end up serving
more functions than just the initial roles (e.g. initial focus on buying agricultural/livestock inputs, then expanding
to youth programs, micro-credit initiatives, etc.).
To support local enterprise development and/or market participation, among the most powerful measures is theprovision of market information (e.g. on prices) that enables CA beneficiaries to better negotiate with buyers.
Training people to do their own market research to enter into transactions with better information is even more
powerful. (Though not mentioned in interviews, training in negotiation skills would seem closely related). In
addition, a clear understanding of costs and how to produce for competitive markets is important for
implementers and community enterprises.

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Financing and replication
Using PSE as the sole LTF strategy is unlikely to succeed in most cases; at a minimum, an ongoing need for
NGO or government roles is pervasive (for technical support, monitoring, fundraising, etc., and/or to ensure thatthe actors do not lose sight of conservation objectives as a result of emphasis on market activities). This could
be taken as a lesson that the conditions under which PSE can be a sufficient stand-alone financial sustainability
strategy are not sufficiently understood. PSE is probably best seen as one component of a larger financial
sustainability plan.
A PSE strategy that is built on CSR support needs to provide adequate opportunities for publicity in the form ofcompelling stories, photos and branding.
When expanding to additional communities, note that every community is different so NGOs need to apply
the CA model from the first steps and different communities will progress at different speeds (noting that someprojects were further along in terms of expanding a replicable model (Bolivia’s Watershared agreements forexample) while others were taking an idea that had been tested and exploring how to adapt it to a new context(as in the case of Conservation South Africa addressing rangelands degradation first in Namaqualand and thenin Kruger to Canyon). Still others (CI Cambodia in Cardamom Mountains and Prey Lang) were attempting todefine brand new strategies for complex and quite dissimilar landscapes.
It is easy to underestimate the time required for projects to bear fruit (in terms of showing impact, achieving
sustained business capacity and beneficiary behavior change persisting with less emphasis on incentives.) For
this reason, no-regrets scenarios where investments get communities to certain points of development where,
even if they went no further, the benefits would be worth it, are a good way to structure thinking about project
phasing.
Several implementers noted the value of learning from other projects in the portfolio, particularly throughthe CAPPP’s built-in Learning Network, and expressed a desire for additional tools to facilitate learning.

34

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

35

SUMMARY OF MAIN LESSONS LEARNED BY CA MODEL PHASE
Feasibility assessment
The principal lesson learned at the portfolio level withrespect to feasibility assessment is that conservation
implementers are not always well-positioned to or may
lack a clear and concise framework by which to conductrobust analysis of prospects for sustainable livelihoods
and enterprise development. Many implementers lacktechnical expertise for a rigorous feasibility assessmentof the PSE strategy, and most of the sub-project feasibility
assessments seem to have devoted less attention to thefeasibility of the PSE component of the project strategy
than on feasibility of the conservation intervention; PSE
featured more as a potential contribution to financing. Thismay be legitimate from the perspective of a conservation
mission in an individual initiative, but a program like
CAPPP and a team like CSP may need to double-down on
this specific capacity and analysis. Implementers need to
go deep on supply chains, costs and benefits of various
production methods, economic viability of an enterprise,and community capacity to deliver to market.

Negotiation and design
With respect to negotiating and designing the incentives
or benefit package in a CA, the CAPPP portfolio included(a) projects that seek to enhance local livelihoods byimproving on what people already are doing, and (b)projects that seek to help people do new things (andprojects that evolved from one to the other). A lesson
learned in this regard is that the former may be easierin several respects; training more readily builds on what
people already know, and market participation canbuild on pre-existing relationships with purchasers. Thatsaid, the latter type offers important contributions inmarginalized contexts with limited opportunities, though it
may require a degree of entrepreneurship that is outsidecommunity comfort zones, particularly in some indigenous
contexts. The difference between these two types ofintervention has significant implications with respect tofeasibility assessment needs, expectations management
and the implementer’s role in facilitating market linkages.
Anticipating the social impacts of community enterprises
is complex and typically beyond the expertise ofconservation implementers.
An intervention strategy based on PSE/AL/enterprisedevelopment is subject to impacts from forces outside of
implementer control, such as drought or wider economic
stress, and embarking on enterprise development is
an uncertain endeavor in any case. This presents theimplementer with a particular challenge in managing

36

expectations and in communicating how the CA
incentives work (i.e., Is the incentive the AL investment,
or is the incentive the potential income from the AL
investment?). It also speaks to the value of formulating
an explicit theory of change. This ambiguity was foundin almost every sub-project; one exception was the K2C
initiative in South Africa which explicitly wrestled withthe difficulty of incorporating livelihood investments withuncertain outcomes in a CA benefit package.
Several sub-projects illustrated how specific types of
support for livelihood strengthening lend themselvesto clear incentive and penalty mechanisms. Providing
key inputs at subsidized prices or stipulating premium
purchase prices for outputs in the benefit package allows
the CA to include a formula for those prices as a functionof compliance. In the South Africa K2C sub-project, thistook the form of subsidized prices for livestock fodder,with the subsidy shrinking or disappearing in the event of
infractions. In China, honey producers receive a premiumon the sales price of honey that is reduced in the eventof breaches. Such arrangements make a CA a powerfulframework for direct incentives for conservation.
However, it is critical to know that premiums can’t always
withstand fluctuations in markets. As noted above, CAs
must also build capacity (organizational, productive), thatis beneficial despite market volatility. This will be thecase until the cost of conservation is in fact captured in
the price charged at market for “sustainable production,”as truly sustainable production can’t include unchecked
environmental damage.
Most of the agreements in the portfolio were made with
communities, except in Bolivia, some in South Africa andIndia, where agreements were negotiated with individuals.
A private sector partner in India suggested that theagreement would have been more effective if it were at
the community level, rather than with individuals, as thelink between conservation and benefits becomes clearer
when the whole community discusses the agreement andhow to work together to conserve their forest. Individual
agreements may be more appropriate for incentives
intended to shape an individual’s activities on their own
property, but to ensure a minimum level of participationto achieve meaningful conservation impact, community
agreements may be preferable. The choice of individual
versus community agreements will depend on multiple
factors to be explored during the feasibility assessment:
property rights, traditional resource management
practices, community governance arrangements,characteristics of particular enterprises and livelihood
activities, and more.

Implementation

Monitoring

viable scale run into issues of absorptive capacity andstruggle in terms of business development, effective CA
implementation and conservation objectives. At the sametime, as noted by multiple projects, it is difficult to engage
the private sector without something concrete to show
as a potential business/market/supply link. In theory, thischicken-egg situation justifies donor-funded subsidizationof pilots to achieve proof of concept, but the leap fromsmall demonstration project to commercial scale remains
an enormous challenge; the CAPPP experience suggeststhat this requires substantially more time and funding
than is frequently anticipated. However, few sub-projects
explicitly addressed commercial scale as an aim or in theiractivities, likely reflecting gaps in expertise and comfort
with PSE strategies.

The main lesson learned from the CAPPP portfolio withrespect to monitoring is that aggregating disparate subprojects to monitor meaningful portfolio level impacts or
outcomes is likely not possible. This should come as no
surprise when examining a global set of sub-projects thatuse a common model that is highly tailored to local specifics.
However, there is some tension between this realityand donor expectations for monitoring. We can clearlyaggregate indicators such as hectares conserved, jobs
provided, beneficiaries participating, etc.; but beyond this,more specific indicators will be unique to project contexts.

Finding the right market partner for the context is critical.
In very few cases would a large multinational be theright partner for these types of purchasing projects (CSR
projects may be fine). Rather, local/national partners
who value a sustainability brand appear more likely to
get close and partner with these types of projects. We
wouldn’t expect to find a multinational coffee company to
buy small quantities of Ethiopian wild coffee, for example.
But a robust local market for coffee would be a goodplace to look.

A principal implementation lesson learned at the portfolio
level is that making alternative or sustainable livelihood
investments succeed requires concerted effort, does notalways work and can come at the expense of disconnect
from, or at least under-emphasis on, conservation
objectives. However, several implementers notedthat the clarity provided through explicit conservationcommitments in CAs is an aid in maintaining focus onenvironmental objectives.

It is taken as a truism that best practice includes
community-based monitoring. However, communities do
not necessarily want to absorb the costs of monitoring,so a lesson learned is that implementer exit requires along-term financing solution to cover these costs. The
portfolio does not include clear examples of successon this front, as monitoring (both managing/overseeing
monitoring systems and covering costs such as wages
and equipment) is largely an implementer-driven activity.
The CAPPP portfolio does not show clear instances of theprivate sector absorbing monitoring costs, such that PSE
does not appear to offer a solution. In theory, certified
sustainable production should cover monitoring costs(including those related to traceability) through premiums,
but even here many examples around the world continue
to depend on additional philanthropic grant funding;
generally, when the PS does cover monitoring costs, thisreflects corporate philanthropy rather than acceptance ofmonitoring as a core cost of sustainable enterprise.

Replication/Scaling up
For PSE endeavors (whether through supply chain
relationships or enterprise development) throughout the
CAPPP portfolio, a lesson learned regarding the stylized
conservation intervention trajectory of “pilot- adaptconsolidate-expand” is that effective market participation
typically requires reliable minimum volumes, but apilot may not be able to satisfy such minimum volume
requirements. Attempts to quickly reach commercially

Replication by others can bring challenges, raising
the question of responsibility for quality/appropriate
implementation after others adopt the model. In South
Africa, for example, Conservation South Africa and Meat
Naturally continue to engage others working with CA
approaches to ensure that key model elements aremaintained. Even if not always an explicit or formal CA,
effective PSE benefits from the incorporation of CA
thinking. Similarly, CSP plays a standard bearing role
convening a global network of implementers. CSP’semphasis must include facilitating the definition of bestpractice and the tools by which to assess success.

Financing strategy
A key lesson learned from the overall CAPPP experienceis that expectations for PSE to result in meaningful funding
to cover conservation costs need to be tempered. For
example, incorporating premiums as a financing strategy
can face considerable challenges. Even for high value
niche products, competitive pressures can limit PS
partner appetite for extending premiums based on social
or environmental considerations (as in the example ofdragonfruit in Alto Mayo, Peru). To support sustainable
livelihoods, more promising avenues might focus onachieving better prices through quality improvements(e.g., coffee in the Bale, Ethiopia, project) or increasing
income through productivity improvements (e.g., livestockin the South Africa projects). However, the project designneeds to be clear about how this serves as a conservation

37

incentive, as it does not clearly result in funding
earmarked for conservation activities. Where it clearlyworks is when quality and productivity gains are obviously
nature dependent.
A second significant lesson learned regarding financing
under the CAPPP is that major successes (such as
significant support secured from Disney and BHP for
CI’s Alto Mayo work) are unique and appear to be more
usefully understood as philanthropic fundraising success,rather than as replicable market-based PSE. Thus, theCSR component of the platform was important, and CSR
featured prominently in some projects, but significant
success in securing such support appears to havedepended less on project implementers and CAPPP as onhighly effective centralized fundraising capacity.
CSR-based partnerships appear to warrant more codesign with the private sector than partnerships basedon purchasing. In the latter, if the risks are minimal, theproduct meets quality, quantity and consistency metrics,
the the co-benefits are clear, the project design process
might not be so important to the buyer.
CSR as a financing strategy can allow the implementerto focus on what it does best (e.g. conservation andproviding benefits to communities) without getting
sidetracked by the many issues, risks and costs of SME
development. However, CSR support entails risks of its
own, as corporate partner priorities can easily changesuch that they direct their support elsewhere. In addition,
CSR relationships can be vulnerable to perceptions ofgreenwashing and can be fraught with conflict related tothe private sector partner’s own corporate activities (suchas the extractive industry) and how those are perceived
by community and other stakeholders. Additionally, inremote geographies it may be difficult to find local private
sector partners.

Recommendations by CA model phase

In summary, with respect to financing, the main lessons
are:Feasibility assessments (FAs) need to include more
rigorous analysis of the PSE strategy, applying appropriate
expertise with respect to market prospects, capacity
requirements for market participation, etc. FAs should
include concrete analysis of demand for the goods/
services community-level farmers or enterprises intend tosell and should also apply specific technical expertise to
analyze and scope for interventions in value chains. FAs
should also be updated frequently as many such dynamics
will change. FAs also need to be very realistic about thetrue opportunity cost of conservation and sustainableproduction. If the cost can’t be covered, the project willin all likelihood fail. A platform like CAPPP could invest in
centralized capacity to provide this support or compile a listof resources (consultants and partners) for implementers.

• Investment in sustainable livelihoods throughsourcing links to private sector partners can be an
important component of overall intervention strategy
and can reward improved production practices andnatural resource use choices, but rarely covers otherconservation costs.
• Likewise, investment in sustainable enterprise offers
important contributions to human well-being and canengender a dynamic of green economic development
but may leave a need for other financing to coverconservation costs.
• Corporate philanthropy can cover a wide range ofcosts, including investment in sustainable livelihoods
and enterprise as well as conservation activities,
monitoring and the like but can leave project finances
vulnerable to the risk that a donor decides to end
their support.
• Finally, compensation programs such as those related
to infrastructure development driven by corporate
entities and extractive industry can also be harnessedfor potentially longer-term financing.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The overarching lesson to emerge from the CAPPP is thattrue PSE is very difficult, though not impossible. Moreover,
the three forms of PSE under the CAPPP appear to
be relevant across the portfolio for different contexts.
Several implementers felt that CSP could have acted
more assertively as a matchmaker, bringing potential
private sector partners to the table for individual projects.
However, over its history CSP has made considerable
efforts to do just that and has had some real success;limited results therefore are not for lack of trying.
So why is PSE so challenging? One recurring theme isthat private sector actors do not want to participate in“any old” project. Many companies want specific, almost
bespoke, projects. Common desires are to align withspecific commitments in CSR strategies, to locate projects
geographically near the consumer base and to minimize
risk to the utmost degree, particularly reputational risk.
This all requires a collaborative design process—and that
requires time and funding.
All of this might lead one to query whether this simply
needs more time, or if there is a better way to forge links
38

with the private sector (including more deliberate steps
by implementers), or if implementers’ time and energy are
better focused on other strategies. However, based on
this analysis, we feel confident in asserting that:
1. In many settings, community-based conservation
cannot be divorced from work on sustainable
livelihoods and strengthened market participation; theCA model provides a way to enhance the probability
that such work will help achieve conservation
outcomes.
2. Structuring relationships between communities andsocial enterprises using CAs seems to offer a viable
path to unlocking private sector dynamics to support
conservation.
3. Although the CAPPP experience to date does notsupport a focus on PSE as a long-term financing
solution, despite the relatively uncommon successes,
it does indicate that PSE can be an important
ingredient in a diversified sustainable financing
strategy.

Feasibility assessment

Negotiation
Implementers may need guidance on the needto negotiate and design enterprise development
components of CAs in ways that (a) accommodate
the possibility that the enterprise will not succeed(expectations management), and (b) ensure that theinvestment nevertheless yields a concrete benefit forcommunities (identify no-regrets investments like training
in basic business skills).
Moreover, given that sustainable livelihood or enterprisedevelopment investments may not pan out, any benefit
package should include other elements that addresscommunity needs and priorities to ensure that they see
positive results from participating in the CA.

Implementation

implementers should dedicate attention to information
management protocols. In some settings there may
be concerns/issues surrounding the use of informationthat is generated through a project. For some private
sector actors, there are information concerns connected
to competitive advantage and market strategy; forothers, there are issues related to managing branding
and reputational risk. For some communities, there aresensitivities surrounding traditional knowledge or cultural
factors; in some settings information relates to risk of
speculation or illegal activity. Therefore, incorporate open
discussions and clear agreements on how information(including information generated by monitoring efforts)
into the overall CA process.

Replication/Scaling up
Design PSE activities early in the process to ensure
ability to scale. Earlier private sector participation canhelp structure a path toward solutions that act overlarger geographies, e.g., the combination of the Meat
Naturally model, rangelands restoration and market
access across Southern Africa, or large-scale wateragreements in Bolivia. Doing so will identify economies
of scale and help overcome challenges associated withthe small pilot issue.

Financing strategy
The importance of diversification as best practice for astrong financing strategy is common knowledge; thisalso should be reflected in a diversity of PSE approaches
within a financing strategy, for instance including local
enterprise development as well as pursuit of CSR support
from larger corporate actors. Any project should explore
potential for each type of PSE.

Given the factors that influence PSE/AL/enterprise
success, many of which cannot be anticipated orcontrolled, project design should include explicit attention
to risk identification and risk management strategy, forexample provisions for renegotiation of benefits in caseALs do not succeed.

The importance of cost control in a financing strategy
cannot be underestimated, including to ensure credibility
in the eyes of potential PS partners operating undersignificant competitive pressures and slim margins. While
it seems basic, there can be significant “business culture”
differences between NGOs and companies, beginningwith the tension between mission and bottom line.

Monitoring

Platform execution

Planning for monitoring and communications should becoordinated to pursue synergies; some private sector
partners need to see concrete measurement of impacts;some emphasize effective storytelling (i.e., to back up CSR
or cause-related marketing programs). Investment in suitable
methods can simultaneously achieve progress on both thesefronts (e.g. through use of drones and camera trapping).

Multiple interviewees noted that the CAPPP has driven
internal institutional change, making the conservation
organizations more attuned to needs and potentials withrespect to the PS as a component of their intervention
strategies, and leading them to upgrade their own
capacity with respect to PSE and understanding market
context and functioning.

Early on in project design and PSE processes,
39

Platform execution could benefit from housing greater
centralized expertise with respect to PSE, value chain
analysis, and other technical capacity relevant to marketbased strategies, to provide more direct support toprojects particularly in the early feasibility assessment andproject design phases.
Another suggestion is for the CAPPP platform to operate
as a centralized marketing and matchmaking operation
to cultivate and connect private sector partners with fieldprojects that have demonstrated success and only lackfinancial support.
A modus operandi for most conservation organizations
is to package ongoing projects for different funding
opportunities, while changing implementation
approaches as little as possible; this is not conducive toeffective PSE. Adapting to PSE requires that a project
apply actual business standards and principles, operating
in a competitive environment, streamlining costs withprivate sector (rather than NGO) discipline, being carefulof gaps between marketing and delivery, and being
realistic about ‘hidden subsidies’ that are crucial to thepotential for long-term sustainability.
Some interviewees noted that the goals of the CAPPP
platform were not clearly communicated and somewere unaware that they were part of a larger program
until much later in the funding period. This suggeststhat platform execution could benefit from increased
communication around goals and theory of change
at the platform and project/subproject level, as wellas ongoing discussion and review amongst CSP and
CAPPP implementers. In particular, exchange between
implementers operating in similar contexts (e.g. in thesame region) could be an efficient learning model.

Communications/framing

The portfolio does not exhibit many examples ofsignificant private sector partner input into project design.
Thus, private sector actors typically are treated less as
partners than as business counterparts. This may beentirely appropriate in a particular project, but in others,
earlier PSE involvement in project development might
be beneficial. Project selection (e.g. through pointed
questions in proposal templates, or even explicit
requirements) could steer projects to seek such PS
collaboration earlier on. Deeper engagement could also
result in greater impact within private sector practices andgreater investment in conservation agreements.

Sub-project selection

Finally, several conversations suggested that a program
like CAPPP might benefit from more explicit framing in
relation to impact investment.

Here we arrange the main findings discussed above by relevance to four audiences: 1) the
CAPPP/CSP, 2) implementers, 3) donors such as the GEF and 4) the private sector.

PSE and financing CAs• Expectations for PSE to result in meaningful funding
to cover the full conservation costs need to betempered. To support sustainable livelihoods, more
promising avenues might focus on increasing income
through quality or productivity improvements forexisting economic activities rather than new products.
However, the project design needs to be clear about
how this serves as a conservation incentive, as it
does not necessarily result in funding earmarked forconservation activities.
• Making alternative or sustainable livelihood
investments succeed requires concerted effort and cancome at the expense of disconnect from, or at least
under-emphasis on, conservation objectives. Several
implementers noted, though, that the clarity provided
through explicit conservation commitments in CAs
helps maintain focus on environmental objectives.
• Most major financing successes are unique and reflect
effective philanthropic CSR fundraising, rather than40

• Several conversations suggested that a program like
CAPPP might benefit from more explicit framing in
relation to impact investment.

• Selection (e.g. through pointed questions in proposal
templates or even explicit requirements) could steer
projects to seek PS collaboration earlier on and include
significant PS partner input into project design. Private
sector actors typically were treated less as partners
than as business counterparts.
• Feasibility assessments (FAs) need to include more
rigorous analysis of the PSE strategy, applying
appropriate expertise with respect to market prospects,
value chains, capacity requirements for market
participation, etc. FAs should include concrete analysis
of demand for community-produced goods/services, aswell as more rigorous attention to risk identification andmanagement.

Replication/Scaling up

Recommendations by audience
CAPPP/CSP itself, for further replication• Platform execution would have benefited fromincreased communication with implementers aroundgoals and theory of change at the platform and project/sub-project level.

replicable market-based PSE. Significant success insecuring CSR support appears to depend less on
implementers or CAPPP than on strong centralized
institutional fundraising capacity.

Centralized roles• Platform execution could benefit from housing greater
centralized expertise with respect to PSE, value
chain analysis, and other technical capacity relevant
to market-based strategies, to provide more direct
support to projects.
• A valuable role for the CAPPP is as a centralized
marketing & matchmaking operation to cultivate andconnect private sector partners with field projects.
• A key area of technical support is guidance for
implementers on negotiation and design of enterprisedevelopment components of CAs in ways that (a)accommodate the possibility that the enterprise will not
succeed (expectations management), and (b) ensurethat the investment nevertheless yields concrete
community benefits (identify no-regrets investments
like training in basic business skills).

• PS partnerships typically require reliable minimum
volumes, but a pilot project may struggle to satisfy suchrequirements. Attempts to quickly reach commercially
viable scale run into issues of absorptive capacitythat can compromise business development andconservation objectives. However, PSE without
evidence of viable potential business/market/supply
links is difficult. This justifies donor support for pilots
to achieve proof of concept, but the leap from small
demonstration project to commercial scale remains anenormous challenge; the CAPPP experience suggeststhat this requires substantially more time and funding
than anticipated.
• Earlier PS participation can help structure a path toward
solutions that act over larger geographies, e.g., thecombination of the Meat Naturally model, rangelands
restoration and market access across Southern Africa,
or large-scale water agreements in Bolivia. Doing so
will identify economies of scale and help overcome
challenges associated with the small pilot issue.
• CSP needs to address the challenge of ensuring
quality of implementation by others who adopt the CA
approach. Impact at scale depends on replication byothers, but this may jeopardize consistency across themodel’s core aspects.

Implementers who wish to incorporate
PSE in their interventions• Most conservation organizations are adept at
packaging projects for different funding opportunities
while changing implementation approaches as little
as possible; this is not conducive to effective PSE.
Meaningful PSE requires a project to embrace actual
business standards and principles, operate in acompetitive environment, streamline costs with private
sector (rather than NGO) discipline, prevent gaps
between marketing and delivery, and be realistic about
hidden costs that affect long-term sustainability. This
begins with a more rigorous FA that is firmly groundedin market and business expertise.
• CAPPP sub-projects included (a) efforts to enhance
local livelihoods by improving on what people alreadyare doing and (b) efforts to help people do new things.
The former may be easier in several respects; training
more readily builds on what people already know,
and market participation can build on pre-existing
relationships with purchasers. That said, the latter
type offers important contributions in marginalized
contexts with limited opportunities, though it may
require an unrealistic degree of entrepreneurship. The
difference between these two types of intervention
has significant implications with respect to Theory of
Change, feasibility assessment needs, expectations
management, and the role of the implementer infacilitating market linkages.
• Given the factors that influence PSE/AL/enterprise
success, many of which cannot be anticipated orcontrolled, project design must include explicit
attention to risk identification and risk management
strategy, e.g., provisions for renegotiation of benefits
in case ALs do not succeed. Moreover, given thatsustainable livelihood or enterprise development
investments may not pan out, any benefit package
should include other elements that address community
needs and priorities to ensure that they see positive
results from participating in the CA.
• Planning for monitoring and communications should
be coordinated to pursue synergies; some PS partners
need to see concrete measurement of impact, whileothers emphasize effective storytelling. Investment insuitable methods can achieve simultaneous progress
on both these fronts, while also generating information
relevant for the community.
• Early in project design and PSE processes,
implementers should dedicate attention to information
management protocols, as there may be concerns/
issues surrounding the use of information that is
generated through a project. Open discussions andclear agreements on how information (including
information generated by monitoring efforts) should beincorporated into the overall CA process.
41• Diversification as best practice for a strong financing
strategy is common knowledge; this also should
be reflected in a diversity of PSE approaches within
a financing strategy, such as including both local
enterprise development and pursuit of CSR support
from larger corporate actors. More generally, undermost circumstances expectations for PSE to result inmeaningful funding to cover conservation costs need to
be tempered. Also, financing strategies must address cost
control to ensure credibility in the eyes of PS partners.

Donors to programs like CAPPP• Multiple interviewees noted that the CAPPP has
driven internal institutional change. As they grow more
attuned to needs and potentials with respect to the PS
as a component of their intervention strategies, they
have upgraded their own capacity and understandingof market context and functioning. This is a clear,
positive outcome of the CAPPP, even if prospects for
PSE as a conservation financing solution remain mixed.
• That said, a modus operandi for many conservation
organizations is to package ongoing projects fordifferent donors while changing the actual project as
little as possible. This precludes reshaping a projectwith PS input and is not conducive to effective PSE.
PS actors typically are treated less as partners than asbusiness counterparts. A platform like CAPPP needs toincorporate specific measures that compel implementers
to meaningfully embrace PSE (i.e., in criteria for subproject selection and feasibility assessment).
• In many settings, community-based conservation
cannot be divorced from work on sustainable
livelihoods and strengthened market participation, as
communities in marginalized contexts understandably
prioritize income generation and socioeconomic
concerns. The CAPPP experience clearly showsthat the CA model provides a way to enhance
the probability that such work will help achieveconservation outcomes.
• Few conservation implementers are well-equipped to
conduct robust analysis of prospects for sustainable
livelihoods and enterprise development, and thus
rigorous feasibility assessment of the PSE strategy canlack. Future design of initiatives like CAPPP require
dedicated attention to which needed capacities shouldbe part of centralized execution (as technical support
for sub-projects), which should be required of subproject implementers and which can be contracted out(and budgeted for accordingly).
• Although the CAPPP experience to date does notsupport an exclusive focus on PSE as a long-term
financing solution, it does indicate that PSE can be auseful ingredient in a diversified sustainable financing
strategy. Specifically, structuring relationships between
communities and social enterprises using CAs seems
to offer a viable path to unlocking private sector
42

dynamics to support conservation.
• Aggregating disparate sub-projects to monitor
meaningful portfolio-level conservation impacts or
outcomes is likely not possible. This should come as no
surprise when examining a global set of sub-projects
that use a common model that is highly tailored to
local specifics. Moreover, PSE does not appear to offer
a solution for covering monitoring costs; generally,
when the PS does cover monitoring costs, this reflects
corporate philanthropy rather than acceptance ofmonitoring as a core cost of sustainable enterprise.
• The stylized conservation intervention trajectoryof “pilot-adapt-consolidate-expand” can present achallenge for effective PSE, due to the mismatch
between community-level capacity and commercial
volume and quality requirements. This highlights
the importance of risk- and failure-tolerant capital tosubsidize pilots until they mature for impact investment
and/or true commercial relationships. The CAPPP
experience suggests that this requires substantiallymore time and funding than anticipated.

Private sector actors interested in an
initiative like CAPPP• Implementers are eager for a deeper partnershipwith the private sector, including early involvementin project design. This could create greater sharedunderstanding of constraints and opportunities andlead to more efficient project execution.
• Several CAPPP sub-projects suggest that for valuesaligned private sector actors, especially social
enterprises, the CA model offers a constructive way
to work with communities to reach a transparent,
mutually agreed understanding of commitments
and expectations. This is particularly important withrespect to conservation outcomes beyond immediate
sustainability measures surrounding a specificlivelihood or resource use.
• Monitoring plays an essential role in CAs, as well as ineffective natural resource management in general—but
is costly. Therefore, true PS commitment to sustainability
requires that the costs of monitoring become
incorporated into the cost of doing business; otherwise
these relationships continue to rely on outside financial
support which is inherently unsustainable.
• Noting that private sector actors operate underpressures and constraints imposed by markets andcompetition, they need to work with communities andimplementers to create the space needed to achieve
quality standards and volumes for viable relationships.
One way to do so is to signal long-term commitments
while working with implementers to secure donor and/or impact investments.

CONCLUSION

To begin this analysis, we posed three key questions withrespect to lessons learned about PSE and CAs:
1. Do CAs secure the involvement of private sector
actors that otherwise would not become involved inconservation?
2. Does the CA model keep private sector actors
engaged longer or more effectively?
3. Does private sector engagement using CAs increase
the amount of funding available for conservation?
To the first question, frankly, we do not know. Many
private sector actors are seeking ways to do businessand create environmental and social co-benefits. The
CAPPP experience clearly demonstrates that the clarity,transparency and accountability inherent in the CAmodel frequently resonates with private sector actors
and provides a framework for engaging communities inconservation or sustainable production. Would they stillfind community partners in the absence of CAs? Clearly, allacross the globe, they do. We also know that the private
sector is already motivated to provide technical assistanceand partnership for these types of programs in the absenceof CAs because they need a sustainable supply.
What we can take away from this experience is thatCAs—as is the core intent—enable communities toconserve and produce more sustainably, giving them
the ability to provide what the private sector wants.
In the end, the CAPPP has shown that CAs caneffectively unlock private sector forces for communitybased conservation not because they bring new private
sector partners to the table, but rather because they
provide a structure for aligning stakeholders throughshared commitments to clear conservation outcomes.
Following this alignment, the CA method enables there-alignment of the incentives, costs and benefits acrossstakeholders to promote conservation and/or sustainableproduction. This process is particularly powerful in theabsence of traditional incentivization schemes such as
product certification (e.g. organic, fair-trade) or as a way ofstructuring more scalable incentivization schemes such as
payment for ecosystem services.
Through sustainable livelihood investments, CAs secured
conservation commitments from livestock keepers,
farmers and non-timber forest product collectors. With
respect to enterprise development, CAs were theframework for organizing producers into co-operatives withconservation commitments. In both these applications, it
is easy to envision that most producers would otherwise
have pursued conventional economic activities without
sustainability considerations. Likewise, several sub-projects
involved purchasers that now are rewarding sustainablechoices but otherwise would not be in a relationship withthe community or would have been happy to pay forconventional products. Even where a significant private
sector actor was already investing in sustainable resource
management (e.g. Coca Cola supporting watershedmanagement in Bolivia), CAs were effective in expanding
this investment to include biodiversity conservation.
The second question is more difficult to answer given thelimited time horizon of the CAPPP. Rather, the question
points to another question of closer involvement of PS
partners in project design and as CA signatories; co-design
could foster stronger engagement and including PS partners
as a party in agreements could signal a deeper and longer
commitment. The portfolio includes examples of private
sector actors who see a clear benefit in working with
communities or producers who have adopted sustainable
practices; it is reasonable to expect that sustained orstrengthened mutual benefit will promote longevity andeffectiveness of private sector partner engagement.
Finally, with respect to whether PSE through CAs
increase the funding available for conservation, the
CAPPP sub-projects suggest a mixed set of lessons.
Investment in sustainable livelihoods and local
enterprises may be essential to align with community
prioritization of income generation but do notnecessarily generate funding for conservation activities.
While the adoption of sustainable practices does contributeto conservation outcomes, budgets for conservation
activities such as monitoring and enforcement typicallyrequire ongoing financial contributions secured by the
implementer. While the diversity of co-financing sources
seen in the sub-projects suggests that CAs are effective inattracting other donor support, it cannot be asserted that
this support would not have been forthcoming otherwise.
Thus, the CAPPP experience cannot yet be used toformulate a definitive lesson about PSE as a means to
expand conservation funding.
In summary, recognizing that PSE of some kind featuresin most community-based conservation interventions dueto the need to address economic development concerns,
the CAPPP experience strongly suggests that CAs are
effective in ensuring that PSE is accompanied by anemphasis on conservation outcomes. Realistic businessmodels for the PS component of an intervention may
not be able to internalize all the costs of conservation
activities, and thus PSE alone may not suffice for an
implementer exit strategy. Most of the CAPPP projects
envision a continuing role for the implementer for theforeseeable future, reflecting an implicit conviction thatconservation values warrant continued subsidization oftransaction costs by the implementer. This signals thecontinued importance of contributions provided under the
CAPPP—not only financial support but technical guidance,
relationship brokering and inter-project exchanges ofexperiences and lessons learned.

43

44

© AARON JOEL SANTOS/AURORA PHOTOS

MORE INFORMATION: www.conservation.org/csp
CONTACT: conservation.agreements@conservation.org