September 2015 This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).The contents of this evaluation are the sole responsibility of its authors Mark Renzi, Simon Vieira, Christina Porras, Ignacio Gomez and Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Final Performance Evaluation of the BIOREDD+ (Biodiversity – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) Climate Change Component i FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: BIOREDD+ (BIODIVERSITY – REDUCED EMISSIONS FROM DEFORESTATION AND FOREST DEGRADATION) CLIMATE CHANGE COMPONENT Management Systems International 200 12th Street South, Suite 1200 Arlington, VA 22202 www.msiworldwide.com September, 2015 Contracted under AID-514-C-13-00003 USAID/Colombia EVAL (Evaluation and Analysis for Learning) Cover Photograph Fisherman going to fish at beginning of the day – Territory of the Community Council of Rio Cajambre (Cristina Porras) DISCLAIMER This evaluation was made possible by the support of the American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).The contents of this evaluation are the sole responsibility of its authors Mark Renzi, Simon Vieira, Christina Porras, Ignacio Gomez and Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. ii Final Performance Evaluation of BIOREDD+ Climate Change Component CONTENTS Project Identification Summary Sheet ............................................................................................ v Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... vi I. Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................ 1 A. Reader’s Guide to this Report .......................................................................................... 1 B. Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 2 C. Evaluation Purpose ........................................................................................................... 2 D. Evaluation Questions........................................................................................................ 2 E. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 4 F. Limitations of Evaluation .................................................................................................... 4 II. Discussion of Evaluation Questions .................................................................................... 5 A. Theory of Change ............................................................................................................. 5 B. Specific Development Hypotheses................................................................................... 5 Organizational capacity development models ......................................................................... 7 Community awareness of, and support for REDD+ model ..................................................... 8 Adequacy of community participation, by age and gender ..................................................... 8 Community capacity to manage REDD+ funds .................................................................... 10 Utility to Communities of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions .......................... 10 Progress in preparing communities to gain from alternative sources of income (ASI) ........ 11 C. Broader Programming Context for the Future ............................................................... 14 Threats and Opportunities ..................................................................................................... 14 Scaling the Model .................................................................................................................. 16 III. Strategic Suggestions ......................................................................................................... 19 Fondo Acción’s Role ................................................................................................................. 20 Technical Office Issues ............................................................................................................. 20 Program and Front Office Issues ............................................................................................... 22 iii Annexes A: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Table B: Scope of Work of the Evaluation C: Design, Methods and Limitations D: Information Sources E: Instruments F: Getting to Answers Table G: BIOREDD+ Theories of Change H: Woman and Man in the Street Survey I: Conflict of Interest Forms iv ACRONYMS ASI Alternative Sources of Income BIOREDD+ Biodiversity – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resource Management COCOMASUR El Consejo Comunitario Mayor De Comunidades Negras De La Cuenca Del Rio Tolo Y Zona Costera Sur COP Colombian Peso COR Contracting Officer’s Representative DO Development Objective EVAL Evaluation and Analysis for Learning FARC The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia—People's Army (Spanish: Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) GOC Government of Colombia IP Implementing Partner IR Intermediate Result PD Project Description PMP Performance Management Plan SOW Scope of Work ToC Theory of Change USAID U.S. Agency for International Development REDD+ A form of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) that incorporates social, cultural and economic development v PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY SHEET Type of Evaluation Final Performance Evaluation Activity Name BIOREDD+ Climate Change Component: Biodiversity – Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Activity Component on which this evaluation focuses Climate Change Component (although income-generation efforts from the Biodiversity Component are also considered tangentially) Project Number Contract # AID-EPP-I-00-06-00013-00 USAID Funding Sources Funds earmarked by Congress for Climate Change/Sustainable Landscapes, Climate Change/Adaptation, and Biodiversity USAID/Colombia Office Consolidation, Livelihoods and Environment Implementing Partner (IP) Chemonics International, Inc. Target Areas (Geographic) Colombia’s Pacific Coast in four nodes: Buenaventura, Tumaco, Coco Sur, and Uraba/Darien. Planned Life of the Project Originally: 30 Sep 2011 to 29 Sep 2014; extended to 30 May 2015 Funding Originally: $27.9 million; ultimately: $31.9 million NOTE: this funding includes components not evaluated, such as mining. Project Locations The project supported four REDD+ nodes along the Pacific Coast and had offices in Bogota and Cali Activity Purpose Reinforce Colombian efforts to sustainably manage and utilize environmental assets in mitigating and adapting to climate change, preserving biodiversity, and promoting economic growth. Fit with Mission Strategy BIOREDD+ is intended to support the Mission’s Development Objective 4 (DO4), “Environmental resiliency and low-emissions development strengthened”, by contributing to the following Intermediate Results (IRs): • IR 4.1: Natural resource management improved • IR 4.2: Mitigation of greenhouse gases improved • IR 4.3: Increased resilience to the consequences of a changing climate vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USAID/Colombia contracted EVAL (Evaluation and Analysis for Learning) to conduct a final performance evaluation of the climate change component of USAID’s 3.5-year $31.9 BIOREDD+ activity to inform future USAID climate change investments. The four-person team reviewed documentation, interviewed stakeholders, and visited and conducted surveys in a small number of communities in each of the four areas where the project developed REDD+ products for sale to external investors in an effort to conserve coastal forests and manage climate change. The central conclusion of the evaluation is that REDD+ programs, with their emphasis on self￾governance, economic development, and conservation mesh very well with the worldview, values and political needs of the ethnic groups that live along the coast. Developing REDD+ projects requires participatory planning processes to identify needs that complement existing community life plans and produces investment-ready economic development schemes. These are designed to attract private sector funds as part of carbon offset purchases. BIOREDD+ was not able to sell any of the projects during its life, most likely due to poor carbon market conditions (the Evaluation Team was instructed not to examine the attempted sales or the market context.) But, the social infrastructure (commitment to conservation, plans, analyses, etc.) developed to meet the rigorous REDD+ standards remain relevant to potential buyers for five years and to communities for their development beyond REDD+. USAID should use the REDD+ infrastructure immediately to support economic development schemes designed by BIOREDD+, providing economic incentives as if there were investors. USAID should continue its interim support to Fondo Acción to support these communities to seek sales and to actually implement REDD+ projects – including providing thorough institutional strengthening and alternative sources of income support. This would provide the kind of direct benefits so highly valued by communities that eluded them in BIOREDD+. USAID should complement this with a rigorous and participatory monitoring, evaluation and learning component so communities, the GOC, and USAID can really see if REDD+ can work and how to optimize it in Colombia. At the same time, community leaders could be mobilized to expand the idea of REDD+ to other areas along the coast, and beyond. The difficult part of the carbon measurement science has been completed. Only slight additional cost would be required for additional coastal communities to enter. Phasing should favor economic development and community organization, and include proactive plans to address gender – and possibly youth – issues. The REDD+ regimen provides an excellent framework for supporting these vulnerable, under-served and remote communities as part of a post-conflict scenario where USAID could rationalize its funding portfolio by combining various Congressional earmarks to feed its support to the peace process, consistent with the CDCS. USAID should work with the GOC (both conservation and development arms) to establish a critical mass of these projects, learn from them, and improve them. With rigorous analysis, the communities and GOC might even be able to influence market requirements. Throughout this process, USAID could build on BIOREDD+ by reinforcing cross-community collaboration, possibly by establishing a formal network of Coastal REDD+ communities to achieve economies of scale, advocate to government, and learn from each other. 1 Final Performance Evaluation of BIOREDD+ Climate Change Component I.INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY A. Reader’s Guide to this Report This report is designed in a way its authors hope will maximize utilization by a diverse readership. This section will help each reader tailor his or her use of the document according to individual needs and available time. The following presents the options: 1. Readers can gain a quick sense of the structure of Project by glancing at the Project Identification Summary Sheet, above. 2. For those with very little time, a one-page overview of the report’s main conclusions and recommendations is presented in the Executive Summary, also above. 3. Section II, Discussion of Evaluation Questions, is intended to “tell the story” of this study in a way that is quickly understandable for those who can invest more time than just the Executive Summary, but prefer “to just get to the point” rather than delve into the data and analytic detail of Annex A. Each of the sub-sections, organized by the Evaluation Questions that drive this study, begins with a brief synthesis of the most salient findings and conclusions from Annex A and ends with recommendations, if any, for each Evaluation Question. 4. For those who want to focus on the proposed way forward, Section III, Strategic Suggestions, reiterates the recommendations from the body of the report (stated first in Section II), sorted along the strategic issues facing the Mission, rather than by Evaluation Question. The intent is to support what the authors suggest could be a Mission decision￾making process on the way forward that involves the Front, Program, and various Technical Offices. Readers will note that recommendations in this report are numerous, relative to most final performance evaluation reports, reflecting the fact that this report is intended to inform future programming decisions. The intent was to provide a greater number of more finely grained recommendations, rather than fewer broader ones, to support a concrete Mission planning process. 5. The analytic meat of the report is contained in Annex A, Findings Conclusions and Recommendations Table, where Evaluation Questions are examined systematically. It is a transparent mechanism to enable readers to understand the logic of the report’s conclusions and recommendations (and to empower readers to consider alternative conclusions and recommendations, based on data collected.) 2 Thus, some readers will find themselves shifting from the body of the report to the Annex; others will get what they need from Section II or the Executive Summary. Annex H presents the results of a community-executed Woman and Man in the Street Survey. The balance of this section provides an introduction to the Project, describes the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology, and limits of the approach and its product. B. Project Overview BIOREDD+ was designed to strengthen Colombian capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity and support the development of remote, impoverished communities. The project has developed eight REDD+ projects for funding along the Colombian Pacific Coast, reportedly covering 700,000 hectares, intended to benefit thousands of chiefly Afro-Colombian and indigenous people in a region recognized as a biodiversity hotspot, including forest ecosystems, wetlands and mangroves. USAID invested in BIOREDD+ to develop targeted communities’ capacity to address climate change, particularly by preparing them to attract REDD+ investments – investments that are not yet fully expressed in the marketplace worldwide. The United Nations defines REDD+ as follows (www.un-redd.org/aboutredd): Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. "REDD+" goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. BIORED+ worked from offices in Cali and Bogota, using grants, technical assistance and contracts to help communities prepare to sell REDD+ products. C. Evaluation Purpose This document is not intended to pass judgment on whether or not the activity was a success. Rather, it will use lessons learned from the activity to provide USAID/Colombia with conclusions and recommendations to inform possible future investments in the climate change arena. D. Evaluation Questions The following are the Evaluation Questions addressed in this report. They originated from the SOW, and were modified during the evaluation Team Planning Meeting, with USAID concurrence. Evaluation Question 1: What, specifically, are the theories of change (TOCs) that drive the BIOREDD+ climate change intervention, particularly with respect to community participation and enjoyment of benefits? 3 Evaluation Question 2: Are these development hypotheses (the TOCs), particularly with respect to community participation, likely to be successful, both in terms of providing community benefits and addressing global climate change, in the areas in which BIOREDD+ is now working? 2A. What are the strengths of the project’s organizational capacity development models? 2B. Are members of the governance bodies of the communities and the community members themselves sufficiently aware of the REDD+ model to have the kind of community support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? 2C. Is the level of community participation satisfactory, to drive conservation and development objectives, by age and gender? 2D. Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+ in the context of the PDs? 2E. What is the utility of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions for the community with and without REDD+? 2F. What is the progress in preparing the communities to gain from alternative sources of income? Evaluation Question 3: What are the legal, economic, and political threats and opportunities? Evaluation Question 4: Is it advisable and possible to scale this model more broadly in Colombia? What steps would be needed to succeed? This determination will be made without assuming that carbon markets can provide sustainability, since those markets are not yet proven. Responses to the following questions have been integrated into the questions above: • What other approaches should USAID consider in the future to achieve the Mission’s DO 4? (This question is fully integrated into Evaluation Questions 3 and 4, above.) • Report on the gender issues relevant to achieving success in BIOREDD+ and/or for future investments to support DO4. (This is integrated into the other Evaluation Questions, particularly 2C, above). 4 E. Methodology A copy of the evaluation SOW is presented in Annex B. Fieldwork for the four-person external evaluation team was conducted February-April 2015. A draft evaluation work plan was provided to USAID and revised, based on feedback in Week One. A wide set of secondary information was consulted to orient the team (see Annex D). The team interviewed key stakeholders in Bogota, Cali (the location of the activity’s headquarters) and visited each of the four REDD+ nodes (the List of Persons Interviewed is in Annex D). Community enumerators surveyed almost 200 non-leadership community members using a simple Woman and Man in the Street approach (see Annex H) to provide quantitative data to complement the mostly qualitative methods of the evaluation. The Getting to Answers Table (used by the team to orient its data collection and analysis) is included in Annex F. A more detailed description of the methodology is presented in Annex C. F. Limitations of Evaluation The evaluation team’s fieldwork was somewhat rushed as there was very little time to conduct fieldwork before the activity ended. Due to the nature of the terrain and of the governance structures of the communities visited, the team was highly dependent on the IP for assistance in setting up field visits. The IP, Chemonics, was very supportive in this regard. However, it meant the team was usually travelling with a project staff person and that the team had to fit its schedule into Chemonics’ frantic work schedule as it raced to close down the activity while still sprinting in pursuit of sales opportunities. An additional challenge was when USAID provided BIOREDD+ a one-month extension, requiring a major shift in team schedule and reducing the availability of some team members. Figure 1: Local learning -- In each community the Evaluation Team visited it trained local community members to conduct Woman and Man in the Street surveys. 5 II. DISCUSSION OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS A. Theory of Change Evaluation Question 1: What, specifically, are the theories of change that drive the BIOREDD+ climate change intervention, particularly with respect to community participation and enjoyment of benefits? The Overall Theory of Change pursued by BIOREDD+ recognizes that three pillars of community development are required to succeed in REDD+: • Empowerment to manage resources through institutional strengthening of community management bodies; • Value placed community-wide on the natural resource base; and • Wealth increased community-wide to reduce the economic necessity to cut trees. The Value Pillar tracks very well with community mores along the coast that cherish the natural resource base, both spiritually, and as virtually the only sustainable source of livelihood. The Empowerment Pillar aligns with the ethnic communities’ strong desire to be powerful, competent, semi-autonomous governments. The Wealth Pillar is central to community member and leader passion to eliminate poverty and improve living standards. Even tiny investments in economic benefits were much appreciated. Once understood, REDD+ was perceived as aligned with local priorities. This bodes well for acceptance among most communities along the coast. If any of the three pillars – Empowerment, Value, and Wealth – are not achieved, REDD+ is not likely to succeed. Recommendation R1.1: USAID should continue current REDD+ work and consider expanding throughout the coast, as described later in this report. B. Specific Development Hypotheses Evaluation Question 2: Are these development hypotheses (the TOCs), particularly with respect to community participation, likely to be successful, both in terms of providing community benefits and addressing global climate change, in the areas in which BIOREDD+ is now working? A host of highly technical analyses must be produced to a high standard to attract REDD+ investors. These were predominantly conducted by consultants external to the REDD+ communities and appear to have been prioritized by BIOREDD+ in implementing the project 6 over the Empowerment and Wealth pillars. The fact that the external validation review, conducted by Rainforest Alliance, was positive indicates they were adequately done – and just in time, as it occurred at project closing. However, these priorities, perhaps necessary for a program that was targeted to REDD+ sales, led to a large proportion of project benefits accruing outside of the community and only modest gains in Empowerment and Wealth Pillars. Where the project did manage to provide investment in concrete economic benefits (mostly from biodiversity funding), however, it was much appreciated. The project’s slightly greater effort in environmental awareness to gain community approval of REDD+ programs – building as it did on a local worldview that already highly valued environmental sustainability – appears to have made reasonably good progress. Based on the theory of change, however, the communities are further behind in the longer-term track to become viable REDD+ implementers due to deficiencies in the Empowerment and Wealth Pillars. BIOREDD+ terminated without selling any REDD+ products. Such sales would have provided resources to develop all three Pillars, and could have catalyzed Empowerment and Wealth. While many aspects of the REDD+ scheme have potential to spark sustainable development along the Pacific Coast, future designs should not be so dependent on ultimate REDD+ sales, particularly since all project participants report the market is currently very weak. The duration of the project appears to have been adequate for sales, if well implemented and assuming favorable market conditions. Nevertheless, potential follow-on USAID support to communities through Fondo Acción could provide critical support to developing the Empowerment and Wealth Pillars while the mission considers an innovative incentive approach (discussed below) to “prime the pump” of diverse benefits that could accrue from real implementation of REDD+. Fondo Acción support to selling REDD+ products is also important, but emphasis on this strand should be paced to carbon market viability (not studied in this evaluation). Recommendations Figure 2: Promote Mission Synergies -- linking biodiversity earmark-funded alternative development efforts with climate change funds can produce important synergies, as with this fisheries project. 7 R2.1: Next generation USAID climate change investments should place relatively greater emphasis on community-wide participation and immediate direct community economic benefits to ensure sustainability. This should be independent of REDD+ project sales. R2.2: Future USAID REDD+ efforts should review the Theory of Change to consider how community members could enjoy greater immediate- and mid-term benefits from the process of developing REDD+ projects through more local labor. R2.3: USAID should maintain support to Fondo Acción until community capacity is increased and some alternative sources of income (ASI) streams are sustainable. R2.4: Future REDD+ efforts should consider how to develop REDD+ projects of sufficient scale to attract investors, combining smaller communities, as was done by BIOREDD+. Organizational capacity development models Evaluation Question 2A: What are the strengths of the project’s organizational capacity development models? The implementing partner (IP) wisely varied its package of institutional support to consejos and cabildos, providing greater support to weaker institutions. While top IP management can articulate a logical approach to institutional strengthening, there does not appear to have been a coherent, written strategy to develop these critical management bodies. Assistance to bring local natural resource use regulations in line with REDD+ was useful, but the approach does not seem to have constituted comprehensive institutional strengthening strategy. In cases where assistance was deeper, it seems to have provided incremental gains. BIOREDD+ appears to have made significant progress in increasing existing association among the family of community governance bodies, an important accomplishment on which future programming can build. Even greater linkages could enhance learning, achieve economies of scale, and enhance advocacy. Recommendations R2A.1: Support of Fondo Acción and future USAID support to community management bodies should strive to make them capable of fully managing REDD+ programs. R2A.2: Future USAID projects working on REDD+ should build on years of USAID investment in the coast and BIOREDD+ progress, linking consejos to help the consejos and resguardos become a unified force for mutual learning and policy dialogue and to help achieve economies of scale. 8 Community awareness of, and support for REDD+ model Evaluation Question 2B Are members of the governance bodies of the communities and the community members themselves sufficiently aware of the REDD+ model to have the kind of community support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? A relatively high level of knowledge is necessary to implement an intense CBNRM (Community-Based Natural Resource Management) regime, such as REDD+. The required depth of understanding is higher at the cabildo/consejo level than for other community members, but a significant level must be achieved community-wide, as well. Evidence points to familiarity among the overall population of the general parameters of REDD+. But, a fine-grained understanding of how REDD+ works has not yet been achieved community-wide. Observed levels did not appear to be sufficient to implement a REDD+ program, particularly outside of leadership and among women. But, this conclusion must be understood in a context where none of the nodes is actually in implementation mode. The Evaluation Team did feel there was sufficient awareness for leaders and community members to have made a relatively informed decision on whether to proceed with REDD+. This is apparent from the Woman and Man in the Street Survey data, from the fact that some communities rejected the REDD+ model outright and most General Assemblies approved it. That level of awareness seems appropriate to the progress made by BIOREDD+ (that is, where commitment to proceed was achieved, but no sales made). Wider and deeper knowledge would be required if the communities shifted into implementation mode. The IP adeptly walked a difficult tightrope in achieving enough support to advance without raising REDD+ expectations too high if no sales were made (which turned out to be the case). That balance will be useful to maintain for future programming and in light of shifting market conditions. Recommendations R2B.1: USAID should use its agreement with Fondo Acción to help develop the community-wide support necessary to implement a REDD+ program. This will become particularly urgent as communities shift from pre-REDD+ to REDD+ implementation. R2B.2: If USAID should shift to a pseudo-REDD+ model with existing partners to provide incentives for REDD+ behaviors, expanding understanding and commitment to the full community will become urgent. Adequacy of community participation, by age and gender Evaluation Question 2C 9 Is the level of community participation satisfactory, to drive conservation and development objectives, by age and gender? Although BIOREDD+ had a written gender strategy, there is no evidence of a systematic approach to addressing gender issues. IP staff generally articulated an attitude – that mirrored the position of men in communities – that it was best not to upset community norms by having proactive programs to include women. Women in focus groups did not agree: they generally felt the program should have specific programs to benefit women, since they feel that the current arrangements benefit men over women. They said they would be more supportive of REDD+ and could gain wider community support of men and, particularly, youth, if they received greater economic benefits. Full engagement of women would recognize their rights to equal treatment, increase the likelihood of ultimate success, and establish greater compliance with USAID and REDD+ objectives. There was no evidence of a proactive plan to engage youth systematically in BIOREDD+. This is logical, given the need to focus on those who could vote in General Assemblies. But, since youth will soon be responsible for managing the resources, it would be wise to consider how to include them in the future. Recommendations R2C.1: Future USAID programs working on REDD+ should include proactive approaches to reach out to women and youth and design initiatives to tailor activities to their needs, especially regarding economic opportunity. R2C.2: The approach should include an overall strategy grounded in Colombian REDD+ experience and implemented through annual gender work plans. Elements could include economic empowerment, encouraging women to work in consulting contracts and reaching out to community women. R2C.3: Economic indicatives aimed at women should be defined, as much as possible, by women. Some potential areas include ecotourism and forest promotion. R2C.4: When possible, have women consultants work in the field to spur women's participation. 10 R2C.5: In general, REDD+ programs should try to have those who intervene in communities resemble their target communities. Communities are keen to work with ethnically and culturally similar individuals. Women also appreciate working with women. R2C.6: Once projects shift to implementation, it would be wise to make special efforts to reach out to youth as they will be the future resource stewards. Community capacity to manage REDD+ funds Evaluation Question 2D Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+ in the context of the PDs? While there is a wide range of management capacity and initiative among communities, none appears to be ready to manage funds received through REDD+. However, this was not the intent of the program. All negotiations with potential investors have featured third-party management, which appears to have been a prudent approach at this time. BIOREDD+ arranged for Fondo Acción to play this role, and they remain available for this under a separate USAID agreement. Although cabildos and consejos now accept this arrangement, as part of their longer-term overall empowerment they would like to improve their capacity to the point where they could manage such funds without external assistance. Recommendations R2D.1: One dimension of the Fondo Acción support should be to improve management bodies’ systems to the point where they will increasingly be able to manage REDD+ funds. Caution should be used to avoid rushing to this stage, as skill development must proceed with accountability. R2D.2: Likewise, in future REDD+ interventions, USAID should strive to assist management bodies to be able to manage their own funds, but with a measured pace, and beginning with accountability measures to contain corruption. Utility to Communities of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions Evaluation Question 2E 11 What is the utility of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions for the community with and without REDD+? There was wide consensus that the Project Description (PD) process, and the resulting product, were useful and that communities value the product as an important community resource for future planning in general and for negotiations with potential investors in particular. The PDs met the standards of the REDD+ marketplace, as evidenced by the Rainforest Alliance validation. But, beyond a REDD+ sale, the IP and communities felt that the process: • Helped to bring the community together to discuss issues; • Synthesized existing plans into a greater new whole; • Updated community thinking on a range of economic development and resource management issues; • Developed innovative business plans to obtain alternative sources of income, and • Increased knowledge of their territory, which strengthened governance capability. Recommendations None. Progress in preparing communities to gain from alternative sources of income (ASI) Evaluation Question 2F What is the progress in preparing the communities to gain from alternative sources of income? Colombia’s Pacific Coast is an area characterized by poverty and relatively low levels of education. It lacks infrastructure, significant markets, and efficient transportation. As a result, it has received very little direct investment from outside the community and a large portion of licit economic activity is little more than subsistence, based on utilizing the natural resource base. Thus, achieving the objective of developing alternative sources of income (ASI) is challenging, to say the least. Through the Climate Change Component, BIOREDD+ developed plans for ASI that could be implemented when REDD+ investor funds arrive from a carbon sale. Targeting various Figure 3: Incomplete work on which to build in the future – this shed to support Naidi processing activities was built in Bahia Malaga. While it was still incomplete and lacked processing machinery with one month remaining in the project, such infrastructure can support ongoing REDD+ efforts. 12 products, such as tree crops Naidí (that has been successfully harvested in Brazil) or cacao (that has been successfully developed in Colombia through prior USAID programs), these plans are generally based on value chain methodology with external investors, often with a Public Private Partnership angle. In some cases, they may still need fine tuning to be appropriate to the communities they were designed to serve. For example, some appear to be somewhat complex arrangements, involving communities being minority investors in larger corporations. Further, in some cases achieving equal treatment among the communities engaged could prove challenging based on their respective locations relative to the physical value chain. In other cases, coordination with local initiatives could be improved. But, certainly they are a start, and with proper attention and REDD+ investment, they could possibly help transform these chronically under￾served communities. However, the activity has ended, no REDD+ sales have been made, and these remain plans with no direct community benefits provided via ASI through the Climate Change Component. That was how BIOREDD+ was designed. Thus, when considering only formal Climate Change Component ASI initiatives, little concrete progress was made (or intended in the design), if we consider progress in terms of concrete impact on people’s lives. Some community members, however, did benefit from economic alternatives provided through the Biodiversity Component. These occurred in (some, but not all) REDD+ communities and did provide some tangible economic benefits. For programmatic reasons emanating from USAID/Washington, Biodiversity funds were targeted only to communities on the ocean. There was some progress in some of these initiatives, but in many cases sustainability remains precarious. In most cases, it appears to have been “too little, too late,” certainly from the communities’ perspectives. Notable exceptions include initiatives that began under earlier programming, such as with cacao and fisheries where incremental progress was made. The IP made impressive progress helping communities gain access to complementary GOC support for a wide range of income generation efforts. Some examples show the shortcomings that the Evaluation Team noted from the small sample of places it visited that might point to systemic issues: • Chocolate Delicias del Mira, the chocolate production initiative in Bajo Mira that was conceived by the IP and funded by the GOC through IP efforts to leverage resources, appears to have been ill-conceived and inadequately executed. There was no business Figure 4: Begin with the end in mind -- Future efforts to support enterprise development should be based on business plans to promote sustainability (photo is of chocolate processing plant Delicias del Mira.) 13 plan, staff have worked for over a year with no pay, the borrowed facility does not meet health standards, and it is not in harmony with the larger Cacao business plan as part of the Project Description. • In Bahia Malaga, several ecotourism products have been developed through multiple USAID support sources, including a hostel, a tour based on Piangua harvesting, and a relatively up-scale lodge. Unfortunately, transportation is extremely expensive for tourists seeking to take advantage of these resources. No business plan was developed to support these investments and community leaders had no solution for how to address the possibly fatal challenge of transportation costs. Initially, BIOREDD+ had to find its way to identify economic opportunities under the Biodiversity Component, with many of the suggested activities (such as raising chickens) having little linkage with either biodiversity or climate change.1 It was later better aligned with larger ecological and project climate change objectives, something that should be replicated in later projects. However, future efforts to support communities in such enterprises should be coherent and focused on sustainability. Recommendations R2F.1: Future REDD+ interventions should be designed to move beyond business plans to actually produce benefits. This would not only ensure communities actually benefit, with or without a sale, but would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the future REDD+ product to potential investors. R2F.2: In future REDD+ 1 While this evaluation is looking only at the Climate Change Component, we consider Biodiversity Component investments since, in REDD+ communities, they play a role similar to what is hoped for in ASI. Figure 5: Create wealth out of what is there -- An IP Regional Coordinator holds some Naidí. Future REDD+ efforts should fine tune and breathe life into the business plans developed for this and other alternative sources of income. 14 programs, and other USAID work, IPs that help initiate business should do so with complete planning and a firm commitment to enterprise sustainability, or at least being on a sustainable course before the project ends. R2F.3: As part of picking up the reins from BIOREDD+, Fondo Acción may want to review the ASI plans to ensure community and cross-community compatibility and that communities understand some of the more complex aspects of the arrangements. R2F.4: Likewise, Fondo Acción should monitor local enterprises started by BIOREDD+ and help them to achieve sustainability. R2F.5: Future USAID REDD+ initiatives should learn from the impressive work of BIOREDD+ attracting GOC investment. C. Broader Programming Context for the Future Threats and Opportunities Evaluation Question 3 What are the legal, economic and political threats and opportunities? The main threats to ongoing REDD+ work are: • The basic human and physical infrastructure presents a challenge to any development effort. • The carbon market to invest in REDD+ markets is reportedly very weak, which may partly explain why BIOREDD+ has been unable to sell any REDD+ products. There is hope among some market players that this will improve. • GOC policy on REDD+ is not yet clear. It is possible that the GOC may try to capture at least a portion of the external funds invested in REDD+ projects. • If USAID does not continue the work begun under BIOREDD+, gains made in those communities could be lost and other Pacific Coast communities could become still more reluctant to explore REDD+ opportunities. • Without broad community support, changes in elected community leadership could reduce support for REDD+ and capacity to manage it. On the opposite side of the balance sheet, opportunities for the future include: • USAID’s providing resources to Fondo Acción to complete BIOREDD+’s work could result in a number of significant REDD+ initiatives, if funding could be provided through the schemes suggested in this report or through a REDD+ sale. 15 • These, together with the existing REDD+ project in COCOMASUR (established outside BIOREDD+), could provide a critical mass to scale-up REDD+ along the Pacific coast and foster a self-reinforcing network of consejos dedicated to REDD+ and to helping sister communities develop programs. • USAID’s extensive experience on the Pacific coast and the GOC’s acknowledgement of that comparative advantage presents an opportunity for significant USG/Colombian collaboration in developing a large REDD+ network. • If USAID could work with the GOC to provide communities economic incentives as if they were REDD+ investors, while waiting for the market to rebound, it could catalyze REDD+ formation and rural development. Further thought is required to specify precisely what form such incentives might take. One option considered by the evaluation team was to provide a “carbon floor price.” If USAID has difficulties utilizing the floor price mechanism, possibly the GOC or other donors/private sector players could provide that portion of the support. Or, perhaps grants could provide the incentives, if they were linked to efforts to develop REDD+ projects and related behaviors. • Working with Consejos to develop REDD+ schemes would provide an excellent vehicle for USAID support to economic development and to local governance in its decentralized form along the coast. It could be an important element of USAID support to the peace process. • The key to successfully using the REDD+ tool, as described above, will be to scale it up thoughtfully. This would require analysis and a carefully developed approach. But, the upside potential could be substantial in supporting peace, development, forest conservation, empowering vulnerable populations and combating climate change. • Easily accessible timber has already been harvested. Now it is so costly to extract wood with existing technology, and the work is so arduous, that most men would prefer almost any economic alternative. Thus, communities are very receptive to REDD+, with its promises of alternative sources of income along with protection of the environment. Recommendations R3.1: USAID should discuss the issue of community rights to carbon benefits with the GOC vigorously and help build local constituencies among Pacific communities Figure 6: The easy pickings are gone -- Logging and cutting wood is so arduous that most men prefer virtually any alternative source of income. 16 to retain their rights to benefit fully from the resources. R3.2: In the medium-term, future USAID-supported REDD+ initiatives should not place total emphasis on obtaining external investment. Rather, they should use the mechanism to support conservation and development, while preparing communities for REDD+ at a moderate pace, and funding conservation success. R3.3: The Mission could leverage the opportunities to provide economic incentives to communities that have met REDD+ requirements while they develop valuable experience implementing the model and continue to market their carbon products internationally. R3.4: Such a practice could help establish a critical mass of REDD+ activities to support scale up. R3.5: Such a community of REDD+ projects would provide an excellent laboratory for testing the utility of REDD+ schemes as well as an opportunity to learn from them. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, improve impact, and influence the international REDD+ dialogue. Scaling the Model Evaluation Question 4 Is it advisable and possible to scale this model more broadly in Colombia? What steps would be needed to succeed? This determination will be made without assuming that carbon markets can provide sustainability, since those markets are not yet proven. As mentioned previously, the fact that REDD+ resonates with communities along the Pacific Coast makes it fertile ground for REDD+ scale up. The same factors that are consistent with local values and world views – strengthening local governance, increasing economic development, and environmental sustainability – are also cornerstones of USAID’s strategy to support the peace process. The REDD+ model presents a uniquely well-suited vehicle for supporting USAID's strategy in the medium term. USAID could have a substantial impact and foster a Post-USAID transition in supporting the fledgling local government institutions key to Colombia’s future in the Pacific region. The model provides the tools for collective planning, implementation, and governance. Thus, scaling the model has potential to both benefit communities and feed the Mission’s strategy. Combining climate change earmarks with earmarks for Afro-Colombian and indigenous groups and for biodiversity could help the mission focus more fully on peace while achieving the intents of the earmarks and enhancing its funding flexibility. While the community participation tools used by BIOREDD+ were not particularly innovative, 17 some could be replicated as informed by experience with other community-based projects in the region. Some of the other tools developed by BIOREDD+ could also be used, likely with improvements upon reflection. Perhaps the greatest legacy in this regard is the carbon valuation work completed by NASA under BIOREDD+. The IP reports that these data and methodologies could be applied to communities considering joining a REDD+ movement, with only a modest additional cost per community. An adjustment to the BIOREDD+ implementation model for future REDD+ communities would be to consider creative ways to increase local benefits in REDD+ preparation. One dimension would be to prioritize governance and economic development over completion of all of the REDD+ requirements. All elements would need to be completed eventually. But, since the market is, by all accounts, now weak, it may be wiser to delay full compliance until the market is on stronger footing. This would have the benefit of solidifying local commitment and developing products that would have richer appeal to investors. Another dimension would be to seek creative ways to increase participation of community members in pre-REDD+ work. Some community members, such as those in Bahia Malaga, appear to have a strong understanding of REDD+ and could usefully train other communities. The universal community endorsement of the COCOMASUR exchange indicates the valuable role cross-community training could play. Community members could also be involved in data gathering and analysis in some cases. Any scale-up effort would need to build on BIOREDD+’s success in fostering communication and coordination among consejos. In addition to the training just mentioned, it might be advisable to begin to develop an association of communities engaged in REDD+ to help each other technically; develop economies of scale in marketing, technical assistance and donor support; and to advocate to government. Success would require a systematic approach to scaling up, based on cutting edge approaches to this work, consideration of the results of this evaluation, and good data on the model and how it is developing on the ground. The latter implies a systematic approach to working with communities to improve theories of change, monitoring and analysis. Results could provide quick-cycle learning to emerging REDD+ programs and feed donor and community policy dialogue with the GOC. Over time, a well informed and diverse REDD+ portfolio could inform a South-to-North dialogue on simplifying REDD+ requirements without losing required rigor. The conservation payoff of a modest investment in learning on top of the development agenda could be substantial, with benefits extending beyond Colombia, sharing lessons learned in implementation with REDD+ initiatives internationally – just as the forest degradation model developed under BIOREDD+ can feed REDD+ initiatives other countries. All the above is sensible in the current absence of a market for REDD+ projects. It provides mechanisms to support the peace process and a transition from USAID assistance, while rationalizing USAID expenditure. But, it is impossible to avoid thinking of scenarios where REDD+ investors would invest private sector funds into REDD+ schemes. This could transform Pacific communities, support peace, and provide a huge boost to fight to combat climate change. That reality remains elusive, but if it could happen…. Recommendations 18 R4.1: USAID should consider following BIOREDD+ with a REDD+ network to work with the GOC to develop the Pacific coast as an uninterrupted REDD+ reservoir. R4.2: This would require developing a scaling-up strategy and working closely with the government. R4.3: Most likely, it would involve donor/GOC provided incentives, as if they were REDD+ investors, while the carbon market recovers to expand the number of communities pursuing REDD+ programs. Since the market is not now viable, donors, the private sector, and GOC could fund such initiatives. Incentives could feed the model, support development, and help transition to a time when the carbon market improves. R4.4: Participating communities would need to satisfy REDD+ standards to receive the floor price. R4.5: Such a large-scale project could leverage earmarks (Afro-Colombian, Biodiversity, and Climate Change) into an integrated approach that could transform the Pacific while supporting USAID transition and conserving critical biodiversity and forest resources. R4.6: This is a no-regrets approach. If the market improves, it could provide an unprecedented boom in private sector investment. If the market remains sluggish, the incentive approach will support focused development that sustainably combats climate change. R4.7: Future REDD+ projects should build on the five REDD+ initiatives in the Pacific by consciously linking REDD+-committed communities, possibly through an informal association. R4.8: As long as the carbon market remains anemic, future scale-up efforts should modify the approach used in BIOREDD+ to increase content directed at community development, and prioritize governance and economic development impacts over compliance with REDD+ requirements. All must be accomplished; it is a question of phasing and priorities. R4.9: In so doing, the Mission should consider leading-edge scale-up methodologies to ensure success. R4.10: If USAID decides to continue with REDD+ work, it would be advisable to carefully review prior Mission experience in the Pacific region regarding 19 community participation to complement BIOREDD+ experience and develop an optimal model. R4.11: The Mission should validate that additional communities can leverage existing NASA research and obtain carbon estimates at minor marginal cost. R4.12: USAID should consider developing a rigorous learning element to complement such a REDD+ scale up. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, and improve impact R4.13: If it could support a critical mass of REDD+ “learning laboratories,” USAID/Colombia’s rigorous learning agenda could influence the international REDD+ dialogue, possibly in favor of community members. III. STRATEGIC SUGGESTIONS This document is intended to provide suggestions for the Mission on the way forward to combat climate change, given potential Mission resources. Recommendations must go beyond what would be offered for a typical “follow-on” project because the Mission finds itself planning amidst the following unique confluence of dynamics: • Fondo Acción is receiving funds to help transition the REDD+ communities from BIOREDD+ assistance to whatever comes next; • The Mission is operating under a “Transition Strategy”, in which it is committed to building its partner GOC institutions to carry on after USAID exits Colombia in approximately five years; • The GOC and FARC are in what many hope will be the final stages of peace negotiations. If an accord is signed donors may be eager to support a post-conflict scenario. Even without an accord, the Mission’s portfolio is centered on supporting the peace process; • A significant portion of the Mission’s overall funding portfolio is dedicated to satisfying particular Congressional earmarks, while the Mission’s overall funding is in a declining trajectory. This means that if the Mission does not consider its earmarked portfolio in the sort of integrated fashion that this report suggests, it will find itself with less funding specifically targeted to support peace, even as an accord becomes more likely. The authors hope this somewhat unusual approach to formulating and organizing recommendations will provide a menu from which various Mission planners can pick and choose either particular recommendations or pieces of recommendations as part of future decisions. Below are presented each of the recommendations included in Section II, above, sorted by decision fields the Mission may be considering: • Fondo Acción’s Role: Interim actions, shifting from BIOREDD+ to another vehicle to 20 support climate change efforts; • Technical Office Issues: design considerations for a new climate change vehicle (NOTE: many of these insights could also be considered by Fondo Acción, depending on the scope and duration of its work); and • Program and Front Office Issues: integrating earmarks for peace and to satisfy Congressional intent. Each recommendation in this section is referenced to its origin in Section II and its presentation in Annex A. For example, R4.1 is the first recommendation for Evaluation Question 4; R2C.2 is from the second recommendation that emerged from responding to Evaluation Question 2C. Fondo Acción’s Role R2.3: USAID should maintain support to Fondo Acción until community capacity is increased and some ASI streams are sustainable. R2A.1: The support to Fondo Acción and future USAID support to community management bodies should strive to make them capable of fully managing REDD+ programs. R2B.1: USAID should use its agreement with Fondo Acción to help develop the community￾wide support necessary to implement a REDD+ program. This will become particularly urgent as communities shift from pre-REDD+ to REDD+ implementation. R2D.1: One dimension of the Fondo Acción support should be to improve management bodies' systems to the point where they will increasingly be able to manage REDD+ funds. Caution should be used to avoid rushing to this stage, as skill development must proceed with accountability. R2F.3: As part of picking up the reins from BIOREDD+ Fondo Acción should review the ASI plans to ensure community and cross-community compatibility and that communities understand some of the more complex aspects of the arrangements. R2F.4: Likewise, Fondo Acción should monitor local enterprises started by BIOREDD+ and help them to achieve sustainability. Technical Office Issues R1.1: USAID should continue current REDD+ work and consider expanding throughout the coast. R2.1: Next generation USAID climate change investments should place relatively greater emphasis on community-wide participation and immediate direct community economic benefits to ensure sustainability. This should be independent of REDD+ project sales. R2.2: Future USAID REDD+ efforts should review the Theory of Change to consider how community members could enjoy greater immediate and mid-term benefits from the process of developing REDD+ projects through greater local labor. 21 R2A.2: Future USAID projects working on REDD+ should build on years of USAID investment in the coast and BIOREDD+ progress, linking consejos to help the consejos and resguardos become a unified force for mutual learning and policy dialogue and to help achieve economies of scale. R2.4: Future REDD+ should consider how to develop REDD+ projects of sufficient scale to attract investors, combining smaller communities, as was done by BIOREDD+. R2A.2: Future USAID projects working on REDD+ should build in years of USAID investment in the coast and BIOREDD+ progress linking consejos to help the consejos and resquardos become a unified force for mutual learning and policy dialogue and to help achieve economies of scale. R2B.2: If USAID should shift to a pseudo-REDD+ model with existing partners to provide incentives for REDD+ behaviors, expanding understanding and commitment to the full community will become urgent. R2C.1: Future USAID programs working on REDD+ should include proactive approaches to reach out to women and design initiatives to tailor activities to their needs, especially regarding economic opportunity. R2C2: The approach should include an overall strategy grounded in Colombian REDD+ experience and implemented through annual gender work plans. Elements could include economic empowerment, encouraging women to work in consulting contracts and reaching out to community women. R2C.3: Economic initiatives aimed at women should be defined, as much as possible, by women. Some potential areas include ecotourism and forest promotion. R2C.4: When possible, have women consultants work in the field to spur women's participation. R2C.5: In general, REDD+ programs should try to have those who intervene in communities resemble their target communities. Communities are keen to work with ethnically and culturally similar individuals. Women also appreciate working with women. R2C.6: Once projects shift to implementation, it would be wise to make special efforts to reach out to youth as they will be the future resource stewards R2D.2: Likewise, in future REDD+ interventions, USAID should strive to assist management bodies to be able to manage their own funds, but with a measured pace. R2F.1: Future REDD+ interventions should be designed to move beyond business plans to actually produce benefits. This would not only ensure communities actually benefit, with our without a sale, but would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the future REDD+ product to potential investors. R2F.2: In future REDD+ programs, and other USAID work, IPs that help initiate business should do so with complete planning and a firm commitment to enterprise sustainability, or at least being on a sustainable course before the project ends. 22 R2F.5: Future USAID REDD+ initiatives should learn from the impressive work of BIOREDD+ attracting GOC investment. Program and Front Office Issues R3.1: USAID should discuss the issue of community rights to carbon benefits with the GOC vigorously and help build local constituencies among Pacific communities to retain their rights to benefit fully from the resources. R3.2: In the medium-term, future USAID-supported REDD+ initiatives should not place total emphasis on obtaining external investment. Rather, they should use the mechanism to support conservation and development, while preparing communities for REDD+ at a moderate pace, and funding conservation success. R3.3: The Mission could leverage the opportunities to provide economic incentives to communities that have met REDD+ requirements while they develop valuable experience implementing the model and continue to market their carbon products internationally. R3.3: Such a practice could help establish a critical mass of REDD+ activities to support scale up. R3.4: Such a community of REDD+ projects would provide an excellent laboratory for testing the utility of REDD+ schemes as well as an opportunity to learn from them. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, improve impact, and influence the international REDD+ dialogue. R4.1: USAID should consider following BIOREDD+ with a REDD+ network to work with the GOC to develop the Pacific coast as an uninterrupted REDD+ reservoir. R4.2: This would require developing a scaling-up strategy and working closely with the government. R4.3: Most likely, it would involve donor/GOC provided incentives, as if they were REDD+ investors, while the carbon market recovers to expand the number of communities pursuing REDD+ programs. Since the market is not now viable, donors, the private sector, and GOC could fund such initiatives. Incentives could feed the model, support development, and help transition to a time when the carbon market improves. R4.4: Participating communities would need to satisfy REDD+ standards to receive the floor price. R4.5: Such a large-scale project could leverage earmarks (Afro-Colombian, Biodiversity, and Climate Change) into an integrated approach that could transform the Pacific while supporting USAID transition and conserving critical biodiversity and forest resources. R4.6: This is a no-regrets approach. If the market improves, it could provide an unprecedented boon in external investment. If the market remains sluggish, the floor price approach will support focused development that sustainably combats climate change. 23 R4.7: Future REDD+ projects should build on the five REDD+ initiatives in the Pacific by consciously linking REDD+-committed communities, possibly through an informal association. R4.8: As long as the carbon market remains anemic, future scale-up efforts should modify the approach used in BIOREDD+ to increase community content directed at community development, and prioritize governance and economic development impacts over compliance with REDD+ requirements. All must be accomplished; it is a question of phasing and priorities. R4.9: In so doing, the Mission should consider leading-edge scale-up methodologies to ensure success. R4.10: If USAID decides to continue with REDD+ work, it would be advisable to carefully review prior Mission experience in the region regarding community participation to complement BIOREDD+ experience and develop an optimal model. R4.11: The Mission should validate that additional communities can leverage existing NASA research and obtain carbon estimates at minor marginal cost. R4.12: USAID should consider developing a rigorous learning element to complement such a REDD+ scale up. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, improve impact, and influence the international REDD+ dialogue. R4.13: If it could support a critical mass of REDD+ laboratories, USAID/Colombia’s rigorous learning agenda could influence the international REDD+ dialogue, possibly in favor of community members. Figure 7: Chart a course for transformation: REDD+ may present an unusual route to peace; it may also be more one of the efficient ones. 1 ANNEXES Contents Annex A: Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations Table................................................................... 2 Annex B: Scope of Work of the Evaluation................................................................................................. 43 Annex C: Design, Methods and Limitations ................................................................................................54 Evaluation Design....................................................................................................................................54 Methods ...................................................................................................................................................55 Limitations of Evaluation..........................................................................................................................56 Annex D: Information sources.....................................................................................................................57 Interviews.................................................................................................................................................57 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................59 Annex E: Instruments..................................................................................................................................61 Annex F: Getting to Answers Table ............................................................................................................66 Annex G: BIOREDD+ Theories of Change - General Theory ....................................................................71 Annex H: Woman and Man in the Street Survey ........................................................................................78 The Survey ..............................................................................................................................................78 The Survey Results ................................................................................................................................. 79 Annex H: Conflict of Interest Forms ............................................................................................................93 2 ANNEX A: FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE The table below presents separately the following with respect to the evaluation Team’s efforts to address each Evaluation Question: • Findings, the verifiable facts and figures emerging from qualitative and quantitative inquiry. These should not include the team’s. • Conclusions are the Evaluation Team’s inferences drawn from the Findings and from other Conclusions that are already established in the analytic argument. To help the reader understand on which Findings a Conclusion is based, we have included a column (Sources) referencing the main relevant findings. Note that some findings in one Evaluation Question will feed a Conclusion in another section and that in some cases a Recommendation can inform the argument of a conclusion. • Recommendations are suggestions for actions by USAID, based on the conclusions. Likewise, the main Conclusions that drive each Recommendation are included in a Source column. In some cases a Recommendation can inform the argument of another Recommendation. Findings represent the authors’ best effort to determine the facts in a complex, diverse project in a limited time and with the team’s finite capacity. Since inaccuracies are always possible, the Team welcomes corrections based verifiable sources. Conclusions represent the team’s collective learning – the implications of the data – in a way that can respond to the Evaluation Questions and meet the purpose of the evaluation. Readers’ are welcome to draw their own distinct conclusions from the data presented. Recommendations are derived from conclusions and from other recommendations to support a decision-making process in USAID. 3 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 1: What, specifically, are the theories of change that drive the BIOREDD+ climate change intervention, particularly with respect to community participation and enjoyment of benefits F1.1 The Evaluation Team worked with the IP to develop graphic theories of change so that the BIOREDD+ model could be specified, both to understand the logic of the interventions and to provide an analytic framework to consider what in the model merited replication. These theories of change are included in Annex G to the report. C1.1 F1.1; F1.2 In general, the theories of change, as jointly constructed, seem logical, consistent with international community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) experience, and likely to bear fruit, if implemented effectively. The basic tenets that underpin REDD+ are mainstays of CBNRM regimes and seem sound R1.1 C1.6; C1.7 USAID should continue current REDD+ work and consider expanding throughout the coast, as described later in this report. F1.2 The highest-order objectives (in red font) in the REDD+ Overall Theory of Change, indicate that the three highest-order changes (pillars) to succeed are at the community level. For REDD+ to succeed, communities must (1) be empowered to manage their area; (2) value the standing forest more; (3) increase their wealth so that they have less incentive to cut trees. C1.2 F1.1; F1.2; C1.1 A REDD+ program will not succeed if does not empower communities, ensure that they value standing trees, and increase their wealth from non￾timber enterprises. F1.3 The left column (in grey font, indicating that they were provided by sources external to the community) in the REDD+ Overall Theory of Change contains six highly technical results that are required to be prepared to make a REDD+ sale. C1.3 F1.1; F1.2; F1.5; C1.8 If social capital is not adequately enhanced through institutional strengthening of the community management bodies, REDD+ projects are unlikely to be successful. F1.4 Increases in wealth (one of the three pillars of REDD+ programs) appear to emanate from the REDD+ sale circle in the theory of change. C1.4 F1.1; F1.2 ; F.1.7; F2.1; F2B.5; F2F.9 The Evaluation Team was surprised, however, that even small amounts invested in income generation activities was extremely well received. This may be because of the high degree of poverty and that many of these communities receive little outside attention. It indicated to the 4 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation team that even modest amounts can go a long way to build support for REDD+ programs. F1.5 Social capital/institutional capacity (green font) feeds into both the Empowerment and Value Pillars. C1.5 (Intentionally left blank) F1.6 The Overall BIOREDD+ Theory of Change, in Annex E, uses green font to indicate community-executed activities during the pre-REDD+ stage. Black font indicates community-executed activities under REDD+ and blue indicates activities that involve paying individuals outside of the community to complete them. Only two of the cells are green, indicating that the majority of the pre-REDD+ activities (and hence a great deal of the funds) were directed at institutions and individuals outside the community. C1.6 F1.1; F1.2; F1.8; F1.9; F1.10; F1.11 The REDD+ model, from the community viewpoint, is compatible and coherent with their world view and their territorial development objectives. It allows them to consolidate their government and increase the security in their territory. F1.7 Virtually all respondents reported that BIOREDD+ investments (even when appearing relatively small to the Evaluation Team) in economic growth (see below) were highly valued by community members and galvanized community support for the entire REDD+ scheme, including reducing logging. C1.7 F1.1; F1.2 F1.8; F1.9; F1.10; F1.11; F1.16 The compatibility of the REDD+ model with Afro-Colombian and indigenous cultures and social/political needs revealed through the BIOREDD+ experience indicates that future efforts grounded in BIOREDD+ are likely to be well received, if properly introduced. 5 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F1.8 There was broad agreement among community leaders that the REDD+ planning process -- requiring as it does considerable social, economic, and ecological analysis -- increased collective community knowledge of their resources and community and developed documents that would be useful in contact with outside donors and government. C1.8 F1.1; F1.2; F1.5; F1.7 The model is driven by community support. To succeed support must extend beyond leadership and include men, women, youth, and any minorities. F1.9 Community leaders felt that the planning documents and dialogues with external investors constituted greater articulation of their rights over their territory. F1.10 Leaders and community members -- in both the indigenous community and the Afro￾Colombian communities visited -- noted that their cultures already have a commitment to conserving the environment and collective economic advancement that is consonant with REDD+ objectives. Survey Questions T1-T4 support this notion, with virtually all respondents indicating the importance of nature conservation and the centrality to natural resources to their wellbeing. F1.11 The various stages of gaining community￾wide endorsement of REDD+ programs require community-wide General Assemblies that were funded by BIOREDD+. These are relatively expensive undertakings (as travel and support costs are required), but are highly valued by community members and leaders as they can also conduct on a personal level and conduct a wide range of other community business when they meet. 6 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2. Are these development hypotheses (the ToCs), particularly with respect to community participation, likely to be successful, both in terms of providing community benefits and addressing global climate change, in the areas in which BIOREDD+ is now working? F2.1 While grateful for the assistance and attention provided by BIOREDD+, community members and their leaders repeatedly expressed the desire for greater economic benefits sooner from the program. C2.1 F1.2; F2.1; F2.7; C1.2; C2C.2; C2F.1; C2F.6; C2F.9 In future projects, earlier, greater investment in fostering sustainable alternative sources of income could lead to greater community commitment and more attractive products to investors in the longer term. R2.1 F2.1; F2.2; F2.14; F2.15; C1.2; C1.3;C 1.4; C2.1; C2.12; C2.19; C2B.5 Next generation USAID climate change investments should place relatively greater emphasis on community￾wide participation and immediate direct community economic benefits to ensure sustainability. This should not be dependent on REDD+ project sales. F2.2 BIOREDD+ terminated without selling any REDD+ products. C2.2 F1.3; F1.4; F1.6; F2.18; C1.2 While it was appropriate for BIOREDD+ resources (given the demand for deliverables of REDD+ sales) to be directed to meet technical REDD+ requirements, even greater community commitment could emerge if a greater proportion of project resources could be aimed directly at immediate community welfare. R2.2 C2.1; C2.2; C2.3 Future USAID REDD+ efforts should review the Theory of Change to consider how community members could enjoy greater benefits from the process of developing REDD+ projects through greater local labor. F2.3 USAID is currently supporting Fondo Acción to continue some aspects of the BIOREDD+ assistance to communities. This appears to include helping them to sell REDD+ products. C2.3 F2.2; F2F.16; C2D.1; C2F.6; C2F.9; C2F.13 Judged at the completion date of BIOREDD+, the project was of limited value to communities in generating economic benefits, as it will end before a sale and without sustainable ASI and not sufficiently trained staff. R2.3 C2.4; R2.2 USAID should maintain support to Fondo Acción until community capacity is increased and some ASI streams are sustainable. 7 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2.4 BIOREDD+ was not designed, or initially implemented, in a way that integrated the Biodiversity and Climate Change components. C2.4 F2.3; C2.2; C2.3 However, USAID has wisely continued support to communities through Fondo Acción to help communities deepen their projects and sell REDD+ products to investors. R2. 4 C2.18 Future REDD+ programs should consider how to develop REDD+ projects of sufficient scale to attract investors, combining smaller communities, as was done by BIOREDD+. F2.5 Despite the importance of alternative sources of income (ASI) to conserving forests, the Climate Change Component did not include resources to support ASI work (beyond planning) during the project period. The Biodiversity Component did, however, contain funds to support economic development, which were targeted to communities with valuable coastal biodiversity. Over time the project did realize the potential synergies between the biodiversity and climate change components through the economic opportunities encouraged through the biodiversity component. C2.5 F2.1; F2.4; F2.5; F2.7 The strictly-coastal focus of the biodiversity component limited its ability to integrate investments with Climate Change component. Positive synergies were reported for coastal communities (such as Buenaventura and Tumaco), but a gap existed for those not in the appropriate areas (such as Mutata and Apartado). F2.6 However, such funds were directed only at coastal communities. Thus, non-coastal communities, such as Apartado and Mutata, did not receive significant resources to support productive activities (Apartado and Mutata). Residents of these communities demonstrated noticeably lesser support for the overall scheme in Evaluation Team group interviews than the coastal communities. C2.6 F1.1; F1.2; F1.7; F2F.8 C2.5 The notably weaker support for REDD+ in communities with very little direct economic benefits supports the development hypothesis that tangible economic alternatives are essential to support REDD+ initiatives. 8 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2.7 The Climate Change component did not contemplate any ASI investments (beyond plans) during the project, and biodiversity investments arrived somewhat late. C2.7 F2.1; F2.2; F2.4; F2.5; F2.6; F2.1; C2.5; C2.6 Greater, and earlier, conscious integration of the biodiversity and Climate Change components from the start could have resulted in greater success. F2.8 The original project duration was 3 years. This was ultimately extended to 3.5 years. C2.8 F1.2; C1.2; C2.5; C2.7 Lack of adequate funding for, and investment in, income generation activities created a gap in REDD+ development, consistent with what one would predict with the Theories of Change. This was less dramatic among communities on the coast, which benefited from biodiversity resources targeted to economic development. F2.9 Virtually all respondents reported that the first year of implementation was "lost", in terms of achieving results that fed into REDD+ Success. This shortcoming was the result of an initial plan that was -- all now agree -- over ambitious. The project originally covered both the Caribbean and Pacific Coast. There were many disagreements between USAID and the IP over many implementation issues in Year One. C2.9 F1.13; F2.8; F2.9; F2.10; F2.11; C1.8 Given the need to sell REDD+ products within a fixed time frame, BIOREDD+, quite rationally, emphasized expenditure on meeting analytic requirements of investors, perhaps at the expense of deeper community engagement and sustainable economic benefits. F2.10 By Year Two the strategy was revised to focus on the Pacific, to have greater strategic integration of biodiversity and Climate Change components. Some key staffing changes also occurred in the IP. From this point on, respondents report a greater harmony in USAID and IP vision on the way C2.10 F2.8; F2.9; F2.10; C2.5; C2.9 The three years initially allocated for program implementation would have been enough if the learning curve had not been so steep. This resulted in the program initially being over-scaled, in delays in getting traction, delays in being strategically focused, and other 9 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation forward. complications that led to few results (apart from community leader buy-in) in Year One. F2.11 A success reported by virtually all respondents in the first year was building community leadership ownership and willingness to participate in REDD+ programs. C2.11 F1.2; F1.4; F2.2; C1.2 Under the BIOREDD+ model it is very difficult to increase community wealth without a REDD+ sale. Thus, since no sales were made, wealth increases in communities are not likely, unless the model is modified. F2.12 By the end of Year One USAID and Chemonics agreed that BIOREDD+ was not succeeding in the field. Many senior staff were changed and Regional Coordinators were added to oversee agreements in each of the four nodes. Regional Coordinators were responsible for making sure planned activities on the ground occurred and were accounted for appropriately. They do not seem to have had a significant technical or coaching role. C2.12 F2.11; F2.13; F2.14; F2.15; C2.1; C2B.5 For a project that is trying to erect a viable CBNRM effort, the participation level fell short of accepted norms of reaching beyond management bodies to reach the general population. This fault appears to have resulted in significant lack of understanding by many women. F2.13 The evaluation team noted that in meetings held separately with men and women, women displayed a significantly weaker understanding of REDD+ concepts and generally felt less fully attended to in income generation. C2.13 F2.2; C2.3; C2.11; C2.12; C2F.1; CDF.6; C2F.9 In adverse carbon market conditions, the model used by BIOREDD+ faces enormous challenges because it cannot demonstrate that the economic alternatives are working. 10 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2.14 In group interviews by the Evaluation Team with non-leadership community members (held separately for men and women) the non-leaders were less well-informed than was the leadership. This is not surprising since the focus of BIOREDD+ communication was with the leadership, with communications with broader community members chiefly occurring through non￾frequent General Assemblies. C2.14 F1.3; F1.6; C2.5; C2F.1; C2F.3; C2F.6; C2F.13 Only a small portion of the funds spent on climate change efforts under BIOREDD+ provided economic benefits to communities. F2.15 BIOREDD+ efforts on climate change prioritized studies and workshops to raise awareness of REDD+. These were targeted on the Juntas Directivas and strategic General Assemblies. C2.15 F2.16; F2.17 An important contribution of the Program was that it managed to map degradation for the first time in the world. F2.16 Respondents noted that the Program developed innovative scientific approaches that succeeded in being able to track degradation for the first time in the world. C2.16 F2.13; F2.14; F2.15; C2.9; C2.12 BIOREDD+ did not have a coherent strategy to ensure that REDD+ awareness extended beyond the Juntas Directivas. Likewise there did not appear to be any systematic efforts to help Juntas Directivas spread the message to their communities apart from the important General Assemblies. F2.17 The IP reports that 2 million hectares of forest were measured with the model used by BIOREDD+ which combined various modes of remote sensing. This data can now benefit any community in the Pacific region of Colombia. It appears that no new measurements are needed for future projects for the next five years, with only modest investment required to bring new communities on line with respect to competing for REDD+ funds. C2.17 F2.20; F2.21; F2.22; F2A.8 Initially, it appears that some of the communication media choices and level of technical language used was not as well targeted to the learning needs of relatively low-educated rural population to which it was addressed. This improved over time as the project aligned its pedagogical approaches to its target audiences. 11 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2.18 In large part, it is logical that funds for analysis required for REDD+ would be expended on individuals from outside the community as the rigorous demands of REDD+ require a specific set of technical analyses that require a higher level of expertise than is present in communities. C2.18 F2.19 BIOREDD+ was wise to combine various smaller communities into larger REDD+ projects that might be suitable to investors. F2.19 The IP reports that investors consider that small REDD+ projects are not sufficiently profitable. There appears to be minimum size that is required for investors. In some cases multiple communities were combined to a single REDD+ project. C2.19 F2.23; C2.18 The learning curve of understanding how to work with Afro-Colombian communities in such a participatory project indicates that the IP did not take full advantage of acquired Mission experience working with such communities in Colombia and USAID experience in community resource management worldwide. F2.20 The socioeconomic studies performed by the program show that education services in the Pacific Region are precarious "Quality and coverage and infrastructure for education services are deficient" The socioeconomic studies for Bajo Mira and Acapa state that "15.8% of the population do not have any type of education". "Results show that 17.1% of the population above 15 years of age is illiterate. These data shows a greater level of illiteracy in these communities than in the municipality of Tumaco (8.1%), and a much greater one than the national level (7.2%)" F2.21 Early efforts at communicating utilized PowerPoint presentations. Over time, the project learned that more interactive approaches and use of animated communication efforts were more useful at reaching a wider range of individuals. 12 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2.22 Communities expressed their appreciation for the experience exchange activities with the COCOMASUR community lead by Fondo Acción. F2.23 USAID programs prior to BIOREDD+ already had the knowledge and experience on community work and development, and used appropriate methodologies and tools to work with them. It is not clear why these lessons were not integrated more rapidly in BIOREDD+ work with communities. 13 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2A. What are the strengths of the project’s organizational capacity development models? F2A.1 Virtually all Juntas Directivas reported the greatest governance benefit of BIOREDD+ was that it provided transportation/lodging funds for them to mobilize remotely-located constituents to central areas do discuss REDD+ issues, most frequently via General Assemblies. They would use these opportunities to discuss other issues as well and to build/reinforce relationships. Communities appear to agree on the importance of meetings: they universally (equally among men and women) report liking to participate in meetings (Survey Question P1) C2A.1 F2A.1; F2A.2 Although IP management can articulate an informal consistent logic that was followed over time to supporting local governance, there does not appear to have been a comprehensive, written approach to planning, executing or measuring the impact of efforts to improve governance. R2A.1 C1.2; C1.3; C2A.1 Support of Fondo Acción and future USAID support to community management bodies should strive to make them capable of fully managing REDD+ programs. F2A.2 A formal governance strengthening strategy and work plan was not committed to writing by BIOREDD+. The IP reports, however, that it did develop an approach to governance strengthening in the communities that tried to ensure that local regulations were suitable to REDD+ requirements, included training for leaders via HARMOS (provided by Fondo Acción, near the end of the project), sought to link leaders across communities, and to use General Assemblies (once BIOREDD+ learned this were required) to bring communities together. C2A.2 F2A.4; F2A.3 BIOREDD+ seems to have wisely varied governance support to Juntas Directivas, possibly based on perceived needs. But the level of support in all cases did not seem to be sufficient to elicit a significant long-term change in overall capacity. Little evidence of such improvement was apparent to the team as a result of BIOREDD+ efforts. R2A.2 C2A.4; C2A.6; R2A.1 Future USAID projects working on REDD+ should build in years of USAID investment in the coast and BIOREDD+ progress linking Consejos to help the Consejos become a unified force for mutual learning and policy dialogue. F2A.3 The HARMOS leadership coaching provided by Fondo Acción was universally appreciated by participants (five or fewer from each management body). The training was provided in the final months of the program. C2A.3 F2A.2; F2A.3; F2A.5; F2A.6; F2A.7 Although extremely highly valued by those who received it, HARMOS training occurred too late to have in impact in the period of the project. It may prove useful in future years. 14 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2A.4 In some cases, such as for Bajo Mira, the capacity of the Juntas Directivas was seen to be sufficiently sound that little significant assistance was provided. To the Junta. In that same community, however, BIOREDD+ went beyond the junta to help develop Comites Veredales in education, environment, planning, and production. Thus, some communities received a great suite of assistance than others. C2A.4 F1.11; F2A.1 BIOREDD+'s financial support for General Assemblies provided immediate-term support to governance by bringing leaders and community members together. F2A.5 There are cases where punctual assistance in governance (such as the support given to Acapa to develop their regulations) was highly appreciated. C2A.5 F2A.4; F2A.6; F2A.7 The concept of building capacity at the Vereda level, in the few places it occurred, seemed promising, at least for purposes of communication. F2A.6 Capacity development models in the program were not the same for each community because the capacities of each community were different. Capacities of some communities (such as Bajo Mira) were already more developed capacities than others (such as Apartado). In Bajo Mira, for example, C2A.6 F1.11; F2A.8; F2A.9; F2A.10 F2A.11; F2A.12 BIOREDD+'s efforts have helped foster a sense of community and shared interest among Consejo Comunitarios participating in the program. The evaluation team felt this was an important accomplishment, sowing the seeds for future collaboration. F2A.7 BIOREDD+ worked to strengthen the Juntas Directivas of the Consejos but not the leaders of the Juntas Veredales (except for Bajo Mira.) F2A.8 The experience exchange with COCOMASUR, the only community in Colombia (an Afro-Colombian community) to have a funded REDD+ program, was appreciated by all communities. They liked having the opportunity to learn from citizens like themselves, rather than "Bogotanos or Paisas". 15 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2A.9 Although the various government bodies face very different circumstances, they face similar challenges and have undergone very similar experiences in BIOREDD+ in understanding REDD+, learning how to work with donors, and socializing the messages. F2A.10 Junta members from the Management Bodies worked together in several forums under BIOREDD: meetings in Cali and Bogota with Chemonics; regional meetings; COCOMASUR exchanges. Leaders valued this opportunity to work with across management bodies and exchange experiences. F2A.11 Members of several Management Bodies stated that, although they had contact previously with many of their peers, this practical level of camaraderie was highly valued. F2A.12 Several leaders mentioned that they would use Internet to maintain these contacts in the future. They felt this was particularly important in dealing with entities outside the Consejos. 16 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2B. Are members of the governance bodies of the communities and the community members themselves sufficiently aware of the REDD+ model to have the kind of community support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? F2B.1 Governance bodies are more aware of the REDD+ model than other community members. Their understanding of the model exceeded the Evaluation Team's expectations. C2B.1 F2B.1; F2B.2; F2B.3; F2B.4; F2B.5; F2B.7; C2.12; C2.16; C2.19 The socialization strategy showed progress in reaching nearby communities at a superficial level. Possibly sufficient for the pre￾REDD+ stage. However, it was not sufficient to succeed in having deep REDD+ project information reach the whole community. R2B.1 C1.2; C2B.7; C2B.5; USAID should use its agreement with Fondo Acción to help develop the community-wide support necessary to implement a REDD+ program. This will become particularly urgent as communities shift from pre-REDD+ to REDD+ implementation F2B.2 Survey data reveal that REDD+ awareness among communities with easy access to the outside world was encouragingly high (see Survey questions R1 and R4), at least a superficial level. However, focus groups revealed that community members, in general, do not have a good understanding of the meat of the REDD+ model (especially women). People who actually participated in program activities understand parts of the model. Knowledge does not appear to spread widely or deeply beyond this group. C2B.2 F2B.4; F2B.5; C1.4 Community members are likely to support most projects that they think will bring economic benefits to the community, even modest ones. Thus, even if they don't fully understand the dynamics of climate change and REDD+, they can be supportive of efforts related to enhancing alternative sources of income R2B.2 C1.2; C2B.5; C2B.7; R3.3; R4.3; R4.6 If USAID should shift to a pseudo-REDD+ model (see below) with existing partners to support a carbon floor price, expanding understanding and commitment to the full community will become urgent. 17 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2B.3 Although REDD+ model awareness is low among non-leadership community members, they support the governance bodies in the implementation of the project. This is evidenced by passage of REDD+ schemes in the large majority of the communities in which BIOREDD+ worked. C2B.3 F2B.6; C2B.1; C2B.2 Since the beacon of the project was to establish REDD+ regimes, the fact that communities endorsed the programs in General Assemblies indicates that community-wide awareness was sufficient to establish REDD+ Programs. F2B.4 Governance bodies report that they have socialized REDD+ to the communities. Survey data substantiate this, with 90% of the respondents indicating that it was the governing body that informed them of REDD+ (Survey question R3), seemingly typically in a meeting (Survey Question R5) within the last two years (Survey Question R2). C2B.4 C2B.3; F2B.2 Community members appear to have sufficient knowledge of REDD+ to understand why they BIOREDD+ and their leaders were pursuing external investors. That is an important accomplishment. F2B.5 Qualitative data indicate that community members were extremely pleased with even very modest support to their economic welfare. Economic benefits -- or the promise of such benefits -- seemed to be a major reason for their support for REDD+. C2B.5 C2.6; C2.16; C2B.1; C2B.2; C2B.3; C2B.4 The Evaluation Team is not confident that a wide enough portion of the community yet understands REDD+ to implement it as a community-based natural resource scheme. Likewise, some community leaders appear to lack the fully-nuanced understanding required to lead implementation of a REDD+ program. Certainly, they could not do so at this time without a group like Fondo Acción to support them. 18 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2B.6 A fundamental phasing challenge for BIOREDD+ was the need to build community leader and community-wide understanding of REDD+ and commitment to proceed while at the same time not raising expectations to the level where if a REDD+ agreement was not signed community members would be hugely dissatisfied with the process and their leaders. C2B.6 F2B.6; F2B.7; C2B.4; C2B.5 BIOREDD+ phased its engagement with communities in a way that gained full leadership support (for most, but not all, communities) and gained General Assembly endorsement, while wisely constraining community-wide expectations. This delicate touch is likely to help communities through the period of waiting to find an investor. F2B.7 BIOREDD+ began focusing almost exclusively on leaders. Over time the IP realized that it needed General Assembly buy-in to get a REDD+ deal and supported Assemblies to gain community support. C2B.7 F2.2; C2B.6 However, no REDD+ projects have yet been sold. Thus, it is not yet time to "implement" REDD+ programs. With considerable support to knowledge and capacity building through a group such as Fondo Acción once agreements are signed, communities and their leaders could well fill any gaps in understanding so that they could implement programs. 19 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2C. Is the level of community participation satisfactory, to drive conservation and development objectives, by age and gender? F2C.1 The third edition of the CCBA (The Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance) establishes that “projects are required to identify women, or sub-groups of women, as Community Groups that must benefit from the project by receiving income, means of sustenance and cultural values from the area of the project and from other members of the community.: Additionally, an indicator was included in the Gold Level that requires projects to state clearly their impacts on women. C2C.1 F2C.1; F2C.2 Both REDD+ standards and USAID's Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy call for greater women's engagement than seems to have been achieved in BIOREDD+. R2C.1 F2C.7; F2C.8; F2C.9; F2C.10; C1.2; C2C.1; C2C.2; C2C.4 Future USAID programs working on REDD+ should include proactive approaches to reach out to women and design initiatives to tailor activities to their needs, especially regarding economic opportunity. F2C.2 USAID Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy states “The goal of this policy is to improve the lives of citizens around the world by advancing equality between females and males, and empowering women and girls to participate fully in and benefit from the development of their societies”. And, “Reduce gender disparities in access to, control over and benefit from resources, wealth, opportunities and services - economic, social, political, and cultural”. C2C.2 F2.13; F2C.3; FC2.4; F2C.5; F2C.6; F2C.7; F2C.8; F2C.9; F2C.10; F2C.1.1 F2C.12; F2C.13; C2.1 The Evaluation Team felt that the project would have benefited from greater proactive attention to women's participation. This would likely have resulted in greater overall community commitment to REDD+ as well a degree of female empowerment in the communities. Survey Question R9 (where almost all respondents thought the project could have done something better to include women and youths in its activities) supports this conclusion. R2C.2 F2C.10; C2C.2; C2C.3; C2C.4 The approach should include an overall strategy grounded in Colombian REDD+ experience and implemented through annual gender work plans. Elements could include economic empowerment, encouraging women to work in consulting contracts and reaching out to community women. 20 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2C.3 Although the IP does have a written gender strategy, there was little indication of its being implemented and staff report that gender programming was not proactively pursued. C2C.3 F2C.3; F2C.4; F2C.10; C2C.2 The bias among men in communities and among IP staff was to avoid engaging differentially in women. This attitude could have been one reason why a conscious gender strategy was not implemented effectively. R2C.3 F2C.9; F2C.10 C2C.2; R2C.1 Economic initiatives aimed at women should be defined, as much as possible, by women. Some potential areas include ecotourism and forest promotion. F2C.4 Men play a dominant role in all communities according to BIOREDD+ staff. IP staff almost universally felt that program should not intervene in the autonomous processes of the communities. C2C.4 F2C.14; C2C.2; C2C.3 One tactic to enhancing women's participation is to encourage outside consulting teams to include women and have those women proactively recruit women, particularly young women who may be riper for change. R2C.4 C2C.4 When possible, have women consultants work in the field to spur women's participation. F2C.5 There are contradictions between the way men and women in visited communities perceive female participation. In many cases men felt that women were happy with their traditional roles and enabling men to have greater participation in BIOREDD+. In most cases, however, women disagreed. They felt somewhat disenfranchised, relative to men, in REDD+ programs. This dynamic is also reflected in Survey Question R7 where all men thought women played a significant role in the project and a lesser percentage of women held that opinion. C2C.5 F2C.15 The lack of focus on youth as differentiated focus of BIOREDD+ is consistent with the need to focus resources on getting communities REDD+ ready, since youth are not yet decision makers in the community. R2C.5 F2A.8; F2A.11 F2A.12 C2A.6; C2C.4; C2A.6 In general, REDD+ programs should try to have those who intervene in communities resemble their target communities. Communities are keen to work with ethnically and culturally similar individuals. Women also appreciate working with women. F2C.6 Women in multiple communities noted that, in general, program benefits in BIOREDD+ tend to go to men. They felt that the project is active in male spheres, but not very much in women's spheres. R2C.6 Once projects shift to implementation, it would be wise to make special efforts to reach out to youth as they will be the future resource stewards. 21 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2C.7 Women report that if there were more benefits targeted to them, they would be more motivated to support the program. For example, they could be effective mobilizers and encourage their men to not cut trees, if it were in women's benefit to ensure trees were not cut. F2C.8 Most women said they had little or no knowledge about the program. A few of them understand what kind of help the community received or what activities were financed by it. F2C.9 Women in Bahia Malaga said that if they want to reach women, future programs should dedicate funds to women, enabling women to decide where they can choose what to do with it. F2C.10 Women identified the following constraints to greater female participation: -Having to tend to children -Greater workloads, leaving men more time to tend to new community projects, such as REDD+ overall, and specific economic benefits programs under BIOREDD+ -Cultural norms that women should stay at home -Most program activities were more male centered -Not feeling capable of working in the forest 22 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2C.11 Some activities did benefit women significantly, such as piangua in Bahia Malaga. But, this appears to have been more as a result of the nature of the product than by an effort to reach out to women. Even in this case, it is mostly men who benefit from the tourism opportunity provided by the resource. F2C.12 A project that was communicated as being a women's project was the Delicias del Mira. It began with 15 women associates. Now it has only eight, two of whom are men. The leader and spokesperson is a man. As noted elsewhere in this report, this project prospects for success appear to the Evaluation Team to be bleak. F2C.13 There were some notable exceptions. In Apartado, for example, the level of participation and the knowledge of the program that young women had were outstanding. Four women worked in the establishment of the research plot. Women from Bajo Mira have received support from diverse donors, although many of the activities implemented no longer exist. F2C.14 Some women reported being motivated by seeing women consultants from outside the community working in forests. It made local women think that perhaps they could break out of the mold. F2C.15 Interviews revealed that BIOREDD+ did not appear to have a program-wide strategy to proactively reach youth. Survey question R8 generally supports this conclusion. 23 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2D. Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+ in the context of the PDs? F2D.1 Key informant interviews and Evaluation Team observations indicate a wide range of capacity to manage funds among the various communities. Those with prior USAID experience are reported to have a relatively greater capacity to manage funds. For example, many were capable of managing grants funds in modest amounts. However, community members of some of those same communities did not have confidence in their leaders' ability to manage funds (Survey Question C1). C2D.1 F2D.1; F2D.2; F2D.3; F2D.4; F2D.6 Communities are not prepared to manage REDD+ funds. This does not seem to have been an intention of the project. Indeed, it would have been difficult to achieve this, given the many other challenges facing the project. R2D.1 C2D.1 C2D.2 One dimension of the Fondo Acción support should be to improve management bodies' systems to the point where they will increasingly be able to manage REDD+ funds. Caution should be used to avoid rushing to this stage, as skill development must proceed with accountability. F2D.2 Overall, key informants perceive that Juntas Directivas, in general, do not appear to yet have the organizational capacity to be able to manage REDD+ funds on their own. C2D.2 F2D.3; F2D.4; F2D.5; C1.2; C1.3; C2D.1 In the longer-term, it would be advisable to work with communities to help them get to the point where they could manage funds. This will be a considerable challenge, given the structure of the Consejos and the relatively low level of human capacity development. R2D.2 R2D.1 C1.2; C1.3 Likewise, in future REDD+ interventions, USAID should strive to assist management bodies to be able to manage their own funds, but with a measured pace and with accountability measures to contain corruption. F2D.3 Most juntas recognize that they do not yet have the capacity to manage REDD+ funds and that investors would lack confidence in an approach where funds went directly communities at this time. A number of communities, however, expressed the desire to manage their own funds as soon as possible. They hope that Fondo Acción will help them to achieve this goal. 24 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2D.4 USAID and the IP have arranged for a local NGO established by USAID years ago (Fondo Acción) to help the communities manage funds, should such REDD+ funds become available. F2D.5 Juntas Directivas plan to rely on Fondo Acción to manage the resources resulting from REDD+ projects, now that BIOREDD+ is terminated. F2D.6 General investor and Rainforest Alliance satisfaction with the model indicate that investors are likely satisfied with the approach of having Fondo Acción manage REDD+ funds. 25 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2E. What is the utility of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions for the community with and without REDD+? F2E.1 Virtually all the Juntas Directivas stated that they thought the process and product of developing PDs was useful because through it they not only met REDD+ requirements, but also it: -Got the community together to discuss issues -Developed a synthesis of existing plans -Updated community thinking -Increased knowledge of their territory which improves governance C2E.1 F1.8; F1.9; F2E.1; F2E.2; F2E.3 PDs are now community assets that can be used for future negotiations regarding REDD+ and other development opportunities. The process and product appears to have reinforced the communities’ empowerment to use the territory. NONE F2E.2 Although the team did not examine the process of REDD+ sales, it seems that the PD documentation was adequate for purposes of Rainforest Alliance validation and to support sales efforts F2E.3 All communities appreciated the way REDD+ processes helped them proclaim greater control over their territory while learning much more about it and its potential. 26 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 2F. What is the progress in preparing the communities to gain from alternative sources of income? F2F.1 Efforts to support ASI in climate change (cacao, naidí, chontaduro, etc.) were generally restricted to sensitization, community planning and business plans. C2F.1 F2F.1; F2F.2; F2F.8 Efforts in ASI through climate change were still at the beginning stage as the project ended. This presents fatal challenges to sustainability, unless communities are able to sell REDD+ products or the communities continue to receive assistance to make ASI a reality. R2F.1 C1.2; C2F.1; C2F.6; C2F.7; C2F.8; C2F.9; C2F.10; C2F.12; C2F.13; C2F.14 Future REDD+ interventions that create large-scale ASI plans should be designed to move beyond business plans to actually produce benefits. This would not only ensure communities actually benefit, with our without a sale, but would also demonstrate the effectiveness of the future REDD+ product to potential investors. F2F.2 Through the Climate Change component, BIOREDD+ developed plans for alternative sources of income (ASI) that could be implemented when REDD+ investor funds arrive with a sale. Targeting products such as tree crops Naidí (that has been successfully harvested in Brazil) or cacao (that has been successfully developed in Colombia with USAID funding) these plans are generally are based on value chain methodology with external investors and often a Public Private Partnership angle. C2F.2 F2F.1; F2F.2 The business plans are creative efforts to develop economic alternatives in a part of Colombia that has very few options for development. R2F.2 C2F.2; C2F.13 In future REDD+ programs, and other USAID work, IPs that help initiate smaller￾scale local business should do so with complete planning and a firm commitment to enterprise sustainability, or at least being on a sustainable course before the project ends. 27 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2F.3 These plans often involve linking multiple communities in a single value chain, such as cacao or naidí. In at least one case among the communities visited by the project, the plan called for processing the project (cacao) in Bogota, whereas the BIOREDD+ has been working locally to develop a chocolate production unit in Bajo Mira. in at least one case (cacao) communities located further from the collection point will have to incur greater transportation costs to deliver products to the collection point than other communities, which seemed unfair to them. C2F.3 F2F.3; F2F.4; C2F.2 There seems, however, to be some inconsistency in the ASI plans and some aspects of them (such as the corporate structure) may be relatively complex for communities to understand, certainly beyond the level of management body. R2F.3 C2F.3; C2F.12; C2F.13; C2F.14; R2F.2 As part of picking up the reins from BIOREDD+ Fondo Acción may want to review the ASI plans to ensure community and cross-community compatibility and that communities understand some of the more complex aspects of the arrangements. F2F.4 In some cases, the plans call for external investors to reach agreements with communities over production quantity and quality, with the investor being a majority owner of a firm in which numerous communities are stakeholders. These are communities with little experience in complex corporate arrangements. C2F.4 F2F.3; C2F.3 The cultural differences between community organizations -- and the experience of their subsistence-based members -- could lead to misunderstandings and the feeling of being “ripped off" by corporate interests. In such cases simpler arrangements may have better chance of longevity than more complex ones. R2F.4 C2F.15 Likewise, Fondo Acción should monitor local enterprises started by BIOREDD+ and help them to achieve sustainability. F2F.5 Near the end of the project, the IP did facilitate construction of some sheds to house Naidí processing equipment (which hadn't arrived by the time of the evaluation). But, communities involved with naidí are still establishing the way it will be commercialized and women in communities with naidí claim they still need training on how to handle the product. New value chains are not yet functional. C2F.5 F2F.3 In at least one case, the ASI plan appears to be in conflict with the project's own local economic development initiatives. R2F.5 F2F.15 Future USAID REDD+ initiatives should learn from the impressive work of BIOREDD+ attracting GOC investment. 28 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2F.6 Informants report that environmental conditions in the Pacific are highly beneficial for plagues that attack monocultures. Examples that the evaluation team witnessed in their brief visits to the field were in Tumaco with African Palm and Buenaventura with Chontaduro. C2F.6 C1.2; C2F.1; C2F.3; C2F.6 Efforts to support ASI through climate change among BIOREDD+ communities are not likely to have impact without further funding and accompaniment. F2F.7 Fortunately, the economic development component of the REDD+ model benefited from resource-based economic alternatives promoted by BIOREDD+'s biodiversity component in some communities. C2F.7 F2F.9; F2F.10; C1.4 Extremely favorable responses of community members to the modest BIOREDD+ efforts to support economic gains reinforces the overall Theory of Change and highlights the need for effective ASI initiatives, both to gain community commitment and attract investors. F2F.8 Unfortunately, BIOREDD+ economic development funds were only targeted to coastal communities. Those that were inland, such as Apartado/Buenaventura did not receive such investments. Community members in such communities expressed less support in focus groups for REDD+ than coastal communities that received active support for such initiatives. As one logger noted in Apartado: “I'm a wood logger and although I don't like that activity, if I have no other option I have to keep on doing it”. C2F.8 F2F.4; F2F.5; F2F.8 In most communities where the development of new ASI was pursued via biodiversity funding, the enterprises remain precarious. 29 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2F.9 Interviews with community members reveal that income generating initiatives are part of the program that interests community members the most and where they have most hopes for a better future. Even where project support for economic activities as modest, the level of community support for such efforts was high. C2F.9 F2F.11; F2F.16; C2F.8; C2F.10 C2F.11 C2F.12 For the most part, efforts to create economic alternatives under the Biodiversity Component were too little/too late to have a lasting impact without additional time and money that could come from a REDD+ sale. A possible exception is with responsible fisheries where significant progress seems to have been made. F2F.10 Loggers in all communities agree that virtually any other line of work would be more beneficial for them and their families than logging. The relatively accessible trees have already been harvested. Cutting remaining trees is very hard work, sometimes illegal, and remuneration hardly pays for expenses. C2F.10 F2F.14 The Bajo Mira chocolate business does not at this point appear viable and project assistance is terminating. Although members of the enterprise displayed a positive outlook, it does not appear they are economically better off than when they began the enterprise. The team also had doubts about the economic viability of ecotourism efforts in Malaga. F2F.11 Bahia Malaga leaders claim they have ecotourism potential via ruta de la piangua, whale watching, and bird watching. Malaga is also hoping to tap into Ethnotourism to involve the tourist with the culture of the community, a different approach to the Ladrilleros beach tourism. Women hope to benefit directly from ecotourism, as they can work as craftswomen, cooks, guides. However in most locations they still need training and better infrastructure. C2F.11 F2F.14 Efforts that expanded prior investments, such as in cocoa, seem likely to be more productive. F2F.12 The Malaga community leaders, which were an impressively analytic group, noted that transportation costs to Malaga from Buenaventura for potential tourists are extremely costly. After discussion they C2F.12 F2F.11; F2F.12; F2F.13 The Evaluation Team was surprised that new ventures supported by BIOREDD+ were not developed with a business plan understood by community members. This calls into 30 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation noted that this seemed to call into question the feasibility of these ecotourism schemes. No community business plan that took into account such factors was available. question the viability of Chocolate Delicias Mira and ecotourism in Malaga, for example. F2F.13 The efforts to start an artisanal chocolate factory in Bajo Mira resulted in delivery of equipment and training of individuals without creation of a business plan nor continual support for commercialization, as far as the Evaluation Team could surmise. The group lacks both INVIMA certification and an adequate place for production. Staff have worked for over a year without pay in the hopes of future splitting of profits, which they have no way of calculating. C2F.13 C2F.3; C2F.4; C2F.5; C2F.6; C2F.9; C2F.10 Insufficient time, planning, and resources seem to have been invested to properly develop new sustainable value chains and enterprises that would benefit communities. F2F.14 In In Bajo Mira, BIOREDD+ strengthened the productive activities that had already started with MIDAS: Cocoa and fishing. This appears to have been a productive effort, built on existing infrastructure. The community has started negotiations with Swiss Contact to export the product to Japan. The program has supported the community to get a FLO certificate to increase benefits. C2F.14 C1.2; C2.3; C2.8; C2.11; C2.14; C2F.1; C2F.6; C2F.13 Conceptually, it appears that successful establishment of effective ASI value chains in communities could help significantly to achieve development and conservation objectives. This was not accomplished under BIOREDD+. 31 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2F.15 BIOREDD+ worked productively with the Department of Social Prosperity (DPS/UACT) on a number of fronts to support the initiation of economic alternatives and seek sustainability of them. Relevant aspects of the joint work with the BIOREDD+ program in collective territories include: •Joint efforts were coordinated, allowing support to families in Tumaco (Bajo Mira and Acapa), Buenaventura (Cajambre y Malaga) and Choco (Concosta, Rio Pepe y Sivirú) •To support these territories activities were divided: UACT was in charge of productive activities and BIORREDD+ was in charge of governance and conservation activities. • A single project was formulated with only one POA in each community, financed with resources from BIOREDD+ and UACT depending on the components. • Joint work between UACT and BIOREDD+ managed to increase support from COP $2 MM per family in 8 months to $4-$5 million per family. • Projects were formulated with the communities and are operated by them. • There do not appear to be any double-efforts • The Tumaco case is outstanding because communities were given integral support: Colombia Responde, UACT and BIOREDD+, in the frame of the PDRIN Program. • Simultaneous certification of the territories in terms of no illicit crops and conservation. C2F.15 F2F.15 A "seed" has been planted, but if activities are not monitored and supported, it seems that many of them will decline. 32 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F2F.16 Community members report relatively low levels of employment (11.4% from men; 9.7% from women), and slightly higher levels of training (22.7% for men; 26.9 for women) -- Survey Question R5. With respect to training specifically targeted to ASI, figures appear to be even lower (Survey Question C2; C2A; C2B; and C2C, although due to limitations described results may understated.) C2F.16 F2F.15 The IP has made impressive progress in fostering community/government collaboration and facilitating significant GOC investment. These ties bode well for the welfare of communities. 33 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 3: What are the legal, economic and political threats and opportunities? Threats F3.1 The GOC's REDD+ strategy and policy is still under construction. It is not yet certain that communities will retain full rights to carbon values on their areas or how the government will regulate them. C3.1 F3.1; F3.2; F4.1 A potential threat exists to future REDD+ programming from the GOC seeking to capture at least a portion of the REDD+ economic benefits. R3.1 C1.2; C3.1 USAID should discuss the issue of community rights to carbon benefits with the GOC vigorously and help build local constituencies among Pacific communities to retain their rights to benefit fully from the resources. F3.2 There is a possible division of the country by ecosystems that has not yet been approved (Biogeographic Chocó). There is a proposal that the GOC should be part of the carbon business in collective territories, but it is still in discussion. To avoid this conflict, the REDD+ methodologies are concerned with use rights and not property rights. There is a legal limbo because the GOC has not made an official decision on the subject. If the GOC were to acquire access to even a portion of the economic benefit of REDD+ programs it would reduce the community incentives to conserve on which the entire REDD+ program is founded. C3.2 F3.3 REDD+ sales are not likely in the short-term. Medium- to long-term potential exists (this is based on conversations, not a market analysis, as the team was specifically asked to avoid this issue). Thus, it does not make sense to pursue sales urgently at this time, although helping communities to become REDD+ - ready (while using REDD+ tools to support participatory development) could be prudent. R3.2 C1.6; C2.2; C3.2; C3.9 In the medium-term, future USAID-supported REDD+ initiatives should not place total emphasis on obtaining external investment. Rather, they should use the mechanism to support conservation and development, while preparing communities for REDD+ at a moderate pace, and funding conservation success. 34 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F3.3 The main economic threat to REDD+ is the current weak market for REDD+ products. This is evidenced by the failure to sell any REDD+ products (although, the IP and USAID report that there was market interest in portions of the portfolio) and by key informants. There is reason to believe that as threats to climate change increase, and with the upcoming climate talks in Paris, the market could improve, particularly if the market shifts from voluntary to one based on emerging regulatory demands. Opportunities F3.4 Many of the community governance bodies were pleased with the added inter￾Community Council/Cabildo interactions. They all expressed interest in greater collaboration. C3.3 C3.2 The Mission's ongoing support to Fondo Acción could help the communities with which USAID works to sell REDD+ products. If properly structured, this assistance could also complete the unfinished work of developing ASI. This could have significant local development and conservation impacts. R3.3 C3.6; C3.7; C3.8; C4.3; R3.2 The Mission could leverage the opportunities to provide a "floor carbon price" to communities that have met REDD+ requirements while they develop valuable experience implementing the model and continue to market their products internationally. F3.5 The GOC expressed appreciation for the years of investment of USAID in the Pacific and acknowledged USAID's comparative advantage in the region. C3.4 F3.4; F3.5; F3.6; F3.7; F3.8; F3.9; C3.3; C37 If USAID/Fondo Acción are able to sell four REDD+ products it might possibly provide a tipping point to entice communities along the coast to join the movement. R3.4 C3.3; C3.4; C3.5; C3.6; C3.8 Such a practice could help establish a critical mass of REDD+ activities to support scale up. 35 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F3.6 The GOC also expressed interest in collaborating with USAID on ongoing REDD+ investments. C3.5 F3.5; F3.6 There is ample room for greater GOC/USAID collaboration in developing REDD+ solutions. This extends beyond merely the ministries assigned to manage natural resources and conservation. R3.5 R3.4 Such a community of REDD+ projects would provide an excellent laboratory for testing the utility of REDD+ schemes as well as an opportunity to learn from them. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, improve impact, and influence the international REDD+ dialogue. F3.7 The length of the Pacific coast contains valuable biodiversity and forest resources of which the BIOREDD+ nodes form only important dots. C3.6 F3.7; C3.3; C3.4; C3.5; C3.8 Any signals that the Mission could provide the specific assisted￾communities and in the larger coastal arena that REDD+ approaches provide real benefits could help grow the movement. F3.8 The MADS expressed interest in collaborating with USAID on investing in the Pacific coast. They may have funds available to work with USAID to string pre￾REDD+ projects along the coast. C3.7 F3.9; C4.6; C4.7; C4.8; R4.3 If a carbon floor-price approach is properly analyzed to determine its benefit to communities, and if exchanges (such as the successful COCOMASUR effort) were promoted, a movement could be born. F3.9 The two capacity development efforts most roundly praised by communities were the HARMOS training and the exchange with COCOMASUR which has a REDD+ agreement. The latter appears to have catalyzed interest in REDD+ and community members appreciated learning from peers. C3.8 C3.4; C3.5; C3.6; C3.7; C3.8 To reach scale, such an approach would need to be integrated with evolving GOC REDD+ policy initiatives and funding via a range of conservation and development windows. 36 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F3.10 The USAID CDCS is focused on institutional support to promote peace in Colombia. Elements of this include reintegration, reconciliation, providing benefits to victims and returnees, improved governance, and support for licit economic development. The REDD+ model provides an extremely focused model for pursuing these objectives in a vulnerable area that is difficult to reach. It is requires participatory approaches which are supportive of peace objectives. C3.9 F3.10; F3.11 REDD+ provides an extremely useful tool for USAID to reach communities with focused development assistance and build on its years of investment in the Pacific. F3.11 The model also recognizes the sovereignty of local NRM and governance systems. This resonates with priorities of residents, with the political reality of a large number of small semi-autonomous units and USAID/Colombia's emerging bottom-up decentralized tactics in supporting peace, reconciliation and development in Colombia. C3.10 F3.10; F3.11; F3.12; C3.9 Such an approach would align well with USAID/Colombia's strategy. F3.12 If Colombia enters a post-conflict stage it will be important for donors and the GOC to be able to reach Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities in a way that supports rural development and empowerment. The REDD+ model seems a good tool for this, especially if the current approach can be tweaked to build local governance capacity more rapidly. C3.11 C4.6; C4.7; C4.8; C4.9; The key to successfully using the REDD+ tool will be to scale it up carefully. This would require analysis and a carefully-developed approach. But, the upside potential could be substantial in supporting peace, development, forest conservation, empowering vulnerable populations and combating climate change. C3.12 F2F.10 Local pressures to extract timber are declining, apart from the project. 37 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation 4: Is it advisable and possible to scale this model more broadly in Colombia? What steps would be needed to succeed? This determination will be made without assuming that carbon markets can provide sustainability, since those markets are not yet be proven. F4.1 The GOC believes that BIOREDD+ has complied with national procedures and was implemented accordingly. However national project priorities are different. C4.1 F4.2; F4.9 C3.9; C3.10; C3.11; As indicated above, the REDD+ model appears to resonate extremely well with coastal communities and concretely addresses the key elements of USAID/Colombia's support to the peace process strategy: governance, economic growth, environmental sustainability via institutional support. R4.1 C4.1; C4.2; C4.3; C4.9; C4.11; C4.12 USAID should consider following BIOREDD+ with a REDD+ network to work with the GOC to develop the Pacific coast as an uninterrupted REDD+ reservoir. F4.2 Communities have a big interest in influencing GOC policy on REDD+, since it is they who live with the resource. Likewise, REDD+ is predicated on direct community incentives to conserve, which could be under treat from government policy (see above). C4.2 F4.4; F4.5; F4.6; F4.7; F4.8; C2.15 The science developed under BIOREDD+ appears to have left a legacy that will enable communities to satisfy the science requirements of REDD+ at minimal marginal cost. R4.2 C3.1; C3.5; C3.8; C3.9; C3.11; R4.1 This would require developing a scaling-up strategy and working closely with the government. F4.3 Residents of the Pacific Coast are not traditionally powerful players in national politics. Individual Consejos have limited political influence. Joined as group, however, REDD+-focused communities might be able to influence policy. C4.3 F4.2; F4.3 BIOREDD+'s success in further building Consejo communication and sharing via a common REDD+ agenda could be built on to help REDD+ communities advocate collectively for their rights over their resources and seek GOC support in ongoing REDD+ programs. R4.3 C4.9; R3.3. Most likely it would involve donor/GOC provided "carbon floor price" while the carbon market recovers to expand the number of communities pursuing REDD+ programs. Since the market is not now viable, donors and GOC could fund such initiatives. Using a "carbon floor price" would feed the model, support development, and help transition to a time when the carbon market improves. 38 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F4.4 In terms of technology, the BIOREDD+ approach to REDD+ is more complex and is perceived by the GOC as being significantly more expensive than the national standards. Thus, the GOC feels it could not be scaled on a national level. C4.4 F4.4; F4.5; F4.6; F4.7; C2.15 The NASA/BIOREDD+ methodology to measure forest degradation appears to be a global innovation that can be used elsewhere in the world. R4.4 R4.3 Participating communities would need to satisfy REDD+ standards to receive the floor price. F4.5 The IP, on the other hand, claims the approach is not nearly as expensive as it appears to the GOC. C4.5 C2.10; C2.12; C2.16; C2.17; C2.19; C2A.2; C2B.1; C2B.5; C2C.1; C2C.2; C2C.3 There is little in the BIOREDD+ approach to participation in the project that is innovative, integrated, or warrants special consideration for replication beyond other development experiences. R4.5 F4.14; F4.15; R4.4 Such a large-scale project could leverage earmarks (Afro-Colombian, Biodiversity, and Climate Change) into an integrated approach that could transform the Pacific while supporting USAID transition and conserving critical biodiversity and forest resources. F4.6 The evaluation SOW specifically precluded the team from studying the measurement approach, so no analysis of costs and benefits was completed. C4.6 C2A.6; C4.3; R2C.5 There is reason to believe that, if some economic success can be demonstrated from REDD+ programs, and if a Consejo-Leader-to￾Consejo-Leader communication strategy is developed, it is a model that would likely have a high degree of acceptance among traditionally under-served ethnic coastal communities. R4.6 R3.3; R4.1; R4.3; R4.4 Since the market is not now viable, donors and GOC could fund such initiatives. Using a "carbon floor price" would feed the model, support development, and help transition to a time when the carbon market improves. F4.7 All respondents indicate that the program's methodological approach to measuring carbon was both innovative and rigorous. It is the first successful approach internationally to measure degradation, rather than deforestation. This was critical, because the main challenge along the Pacific Coast is C4.7 F4.12; C4.3; C4.6; C4.1 Together, Consejos could develop their communities under a REDD+ system. Collectively they could more effectively dialogue with the GOC and donors on what they need from a national REDD+ program. Eventually, they could possibly even R4.7 R4.6 This is a no-regrets approach. If the market improves, it could provide an unprecedented boon in external investment. If the market remains 39 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation degradation, not deforestation. dialogue with potential buyers (when the market improves) over a more balanced approach to meeting investor needs. sluggish, the floor price approach will support focused development that combats climate change. F4.8 According to the IP, the data on hand from the NASA work is sufficient to conduct analyses in a very large area of interest along the coast. The marginal cost of using that data to conduct an analysis for each additional community, according to the IP, is quite low. C4.8 F4.10; C4.7 To feed emerging REDD+ programs, effectively influence government policy, and help shape the REDD+ requirements dialogue would require a rich learning program on REDD+ experience in Colombia. This would include improved Theories of Change, monitoring and analysis -- with communities. The payoff in conservation of a modest investment on top of the development agenda could be substantial, with benefits extending beyond Colombia. R4.8 C3.4; R4.7 Future REDD+ projects should build on the five REDD+ initiatives in the Pacific by consciously linking REDD+- committed communities, possibly through an informal association. F4.9 As noted above, the BIOREDD+ experience indicates the integrated REDD+ approach is one that meshes particularly well with the cultures, political needs, and values of the Pacific coastal communities. C4.9 C4.7 If the REDD+ market improves, eligible communities could gain valuable economic resources. Even if it doesn't, the discipline of pursuing REDD+ provides a superb toolkit for analyzing social/cultural/economic/development needs, developing concrete approaches to addressing them, gaining community buy-in and for external agents to fund them -- all in a context of forest conservation to address climate change and local sustainability. If many communities pursued REDD+ it could provide an excellent mechanism to precisely target development assistance while conserving world-critical natural resources. R4.9 R4.8 As long as the carbon market remains anemic, future scale-up efforts should modify the approach used in BIOREDD+ to increase community content, and prioritize governance and economic development impacts over compliance with REDD+ requirements. All must be accomplished; it is a question of phasing and priorities. 40 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F4.10 Currently, REDD+ is a "buyers' market". Requirements for communities to meet standards are rigorous and costly. Buyers may not be flexible regarding simplification that might be to the benefit of communities. If the market should become more favorable to communities in the future, there may be some flexibility to maintain rigor, while reducing the cost and increasing the community-labor content of the research. C4.10 C4.7 Given that the market for REDD+ is currently weak, right now it does not make sense to prioritize donor and community investment towards meeting all the needs of buyers. Rather, it makes sense to focus on identifying community needs, gaining community commitment to conservation, and rapidly implementing ASI strategies -- while developing systems REDD+ sales readiness. R.410 R4.9 In so doing, the Mission should consider leading￾edge scale-up methodologies to ensure success. F4.11 The legal portion of the Pacific economy is generally poorer than most of the country. Little external investment arrives and it is difficult for the GOC to reach the more rural areas. The Consejo structure provides a mechanism, among other key local determination functions, to aggregate individual citizen interest, manage development and communicate needs to the GOC, investors and donors. C4.11 F4.11; F4.12; F4.13; F4.14; F4.15; F4.16; F4.17; F4.18 The REDD+ model presents a uniquely well-suited vehicle for supporting USAID's strategy in the medium term to have a substantial impact and foster a Post-USAID transition. The model provides the tools for collective planning, implementation, and governance that provide a structure for productive post-accord peace support to residents of the Pacific Coast that is in harmony with their values and objectives. R4.11 F4.14; R4.10 If USAID decides to continue with REDD+ work, it would be advisable to carefully review prior Mission experience in the region regarding community participation to complement BIOREDD+ experience and develop an optimal model. F4.12 A model that helped similarly disenfranchised, communally-managed, underserved populations blessed with valuable natural resources entering a period of post conflict began in Namibia in 1994 with no "conservancies" -- the equivalent to REDD+ programs, but financed through local market mechanisms. There are now over seventy conservancies through a conscious, government-endorsed national scale up. Their political clout was enhanced, too. Although very different in many ways, the example does provide hope if a C4.12 C4.9; C4.10; C4.11; C4.12; If the REDD+ market improves, external funding from REDD+ could transform an area that has very few alternatives sources of income. R4.12 C4.2; C4.4 The Mission should validate that additional communities can leverage existing NASA research and obtain carbon estimates at minor marginal cost. 41 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation supportive policy environment could be ensured. F4.13 The USAID mission strategy is focused on targeting institutional improvement to support the peace process. Key elements of this are governance, economic development, and environmental sustainability. C4.13 C4.7 The work of BIOREDD+ was incomplete in many ways. While very promising, there is not yet proof of the model. Serious analysis of the model is required to ensure its efficacy and to improve it while being used. R4.13 C3.7; C3.11; R3.5 USAID should consider developing a rigorous learning element to complement such a REDD+ scale up. It could specify and validate the model, reduce learning cycle time, build common understanding, cut costs, and improve impact F4.14 The Mission has a long-standing commitment to the Pacific Coast and is perhaps the largest, most long-term donor in that area. The Mission also benefits from a Congressional earmark to support attention to Afro-Colombian and Indigenous groups in Colombia. R4.14 F4.10; C3.11; C4.13; R4.13 If it could support a critical mass of REDD+ laboratories, USAID/Colombia’s rigorous learning agenda could influence the international REDD+ dialogue, possibly in favor of community members. F4.15 The Pacific coast contains biodiversity of global importance. The Mission also receives very substantial biodiversity earmark funding. F4.16 Although the Mission is committed to supporting the peace process, its non￾earmarked funding is shrinking. Anything that could direct earmarks towards the peace agenda, while meeting the earmarks rules, could provide significant leverage. 42 Findings Conclusions Recommendations ID Finding ID Source Conclusion ID Source Recommendation F4.17 Given the middle-income status of Colombia and the talent and resources the country boasts, USAID/Colombia is currently planning on a phase-out strategy that would essentially close the mission in approximately five years. Thus, top management is considering institutional exit strategies that could place partner institutions in a position to succeed without further USAID support. F4.18 The Consejos are perhaps the critical governance unit for Afro-Colombian people living on the Pacific coast. USAID has worked with them through various projects for years. 43 ANNEX B: SCOPE OF WORK OF THE EVALUATION Notes to SOW After the SOW was approved, the following modifications became necessary: • The period of the project was extended for a month; • The REDD+ projects also occur in Nariño and Valle; and • The team later learned that the October 2014 PMP indicated the following: “BIOREDD+’s goal directly supports Development Objective 4 (DO4), which is to strengthen Colombian’s efforts to sustainably manage the country’s environmental resources” and “BIOREDD+ will support the achievement of DO4 through the following intermediate results at the Program level: IR 4.1 environmental Governance Strengthened IR 4.2 Climate change mitigation and adaptation improved IR 4.3 Conservation of biodiversity improved” 44 Scope of Work for the Final Performance Evaluation of BIOREDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation Program Development Objective: Environmental resiliency and low-emissions development strengthened Project: BioREDD+, focusing on the community participation aspect of its climate change component. Award Number: AID-EPP-I-00-06-00013-00 Award Dates: September 2011 to March 2015 Funding: $31.9 million Institutions Prime Contractor: Chemonics Major Subcontractor: Optim Other Subs: FondoAccion – REDD+ Project Administrators Araujo Ibarra, G&A, Dinamo -- business plans USAID resource: Development Credit Authority Other partners: Althelia, Terra Global Capital, GEOECOMAP and the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and many others Contracting Officer Representative: Daniel Lopez Evaluation activity manager: Elizabeth Mendenhall I. Purpose of the Evaluation The BIOREDD+ program ends March 2015, but USAID’s commitment to the Development Objective to which it contributes (see Section III, below) will continue. Thus, this final performance evaluation will examine the successes and challenges observable in the BIOREDD+ experience in light of current conditions in Colombia and emerging Mission strategies to provide conclusions and recommendations to inform possible future investments in the climate change arena. The evaluation will state and test the development hypothesis on which the current interventions are based – with particular emphasis on community participation investments – to determine which aspects merit continuation and possible scalability. II. Background on Significance of Activity and on Leveraging Carbon Values Tropical forests provide vital ecosystem services that support water flow regulation and supply, soil erosion control, the production of food, materials and medicines, climate change mitigation and energy sources. Forests provide livelihoods for more than a billion of the world’s poor, including at least 60 million indigenous people who depend entirely on them. Forests sequester almost 15% of carbon dioxide emissions, produce oxygen, play a vital role in water cycles and host most of the world’s biodiversity. It has been estimated that almost 20% of greenhouse gas emissions arise from deforestation and degradation. The conservation and restoration of natural forests generates large environmental and social benefits, both locally and globally. Thus, rewarding local communities for protecting forest under their stewardship makes good sense. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an international effort to create financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable 45 development. "REDD+" goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.1 REDD+ recognizes developing country communities for the economic value of emission reductions they achieve as a result of decreasing deforestation and forest degradation. Private organizations can invest in REDD+ initiatives through the purchase of emission reductions in duly validated projects. These investments seek to reduce global CO2 emissions and at the same time drive sustainable development in motivated communities. REDD+ activities seek simultaneously to strengthen stakeholder capacity to manage and conserve traditional territories, protect biodiversity, improve livelihoods, and generate income from sustainable agriculture production. This can reduce incentives to unsustainably exploit and degrade forests. REDD+ projects strive to contribute to climate change mitigation, and to the enhancement of natural forest, while ensuring better health, education, and sanitation for communities that are often remote, poor, ethnic and/or otherwise marginalized. BIOREDD+ was designed to strengthen Colombian capacity to adapt to and mitigate climate change, protect biodiversity and support the development of remote, impoverished communities. USAID notes that the project has developed eight REDD+ projects along the Colombian Pacific Coast, covering about 700,000 hectares and reportedly benefiting 20,000 people in a region recognized as a biodiversity hotspot, including forest ecosystems, wetlands and mangroves. The region is well known for the periodic migration of marine species such as the humpback whale. BIOREDD+ is in the process of validating the REDD+ projects with the Rain Forest Alliance to obtain Verified Carbon Standard (VCS) and Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) gold standards. BIOREDD+ projects are located in the following geographic nodes in Choco Department: Tumaco Node (Tumaco and Francisco Pizarro municipalities); Buenaventura Node (Buenaventura Municipality); Choco Sur Node (Bajo Baudo, Alto Baudo and Medio Baudo Municipalities); and Uraba Darien Node (Riosucio and Chigorodo municipalities). 1 http://www.un-redd.org/aboutredd/tabid/102614/default.aspx 46 USAID has invested in BIOREDD+ to develop targeted communities’ capacity to address climate change, particularly by preparing them for REDD+ investments – investments that are not yet fully expressed in the marketplace worldwide. Thus, USAID wants to learn which aspects of the community support are effective and worth continuing, even if REDD+ investments fail to materialize. III. Fit with USAID Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) and Project Conceptualization BIOREDD+ is intended to support the Mission’s Development Objective 4 (DO4), “Environmental resiliency and low-emissions development strengthened”, by contributing to the following Intermediate Results (IRs): • IR 4.1: Natural resource management improved • IR 4.2: Mitigation of greenhouse gases improved • IR 4.3: Increased resilience to the consequences of a changing climate 47 The following excerpt from the BIOREDD+ Performance Management Plan (PMP) describes the mix of activities and the theory of change of the activity: As represented in the program’s conceptual framework … BIOREDD+ is an integrated initiative that seeks to link biodiversity and climate change activities (mitigation and adaptation) wherever possible. Policy work is, by in (sic) large, intended to improve the enabling environment in which these activities play out, rather than serve as stand-alone activities. Implementation efficiency in the field can best be achieved by developing activities that occupy the shaded area where climate change and biodiversity overlap2 . Within BIOREDD+, these activities are almost always “sustainable production activities” that either directly or indirectly reduce pressure on forests, while responding to demonstrable biodiversity threats. New Conceptual Framework Consistent with this framework, the development of stronger local governance and public-private partnerships, the leveraging of external resources, and sustainable livelihoods initiatives are all considered cross-cutting mechanisms essential for successful climate change, biodiversity and adaptation initiatives, rather than separate activity areas or ends in their own right. Below is presented the “Project Results Framework”, with the portions of the project relevant to this evaluation in blue, as included in the PMP: 2 Theoretically, successful REDD+ initiatives that preserve or enhance forestlands will always be synonymous with biodiversity conservation. In this context however, mention of an “overlap” refers to those climate change or biodiversity activities specifically financed by BIOREDD+. 48 NOTE: Two years into implementation of BIOREDD+ a component was added to the project that seeks to reduce the release of mercury into the environment as a result of artisanal gold mining. This evaluation will not examine that component because (1) the Mission is poised to issue an RFP to solicit proposals to continue some elements of that work, so results would arrive too late to inform that investment; and (2) the Mission wants to focus its evaluation investment on obtaining insights for a potential activity to address the consequences of climate change. Similarly, while BIOREDD+ also seeks to conserve biodiversity, this evaluation will not examine biodiversity results. It will, however, examine BIOREDD+ investments that target both biodiversity and climate change to extract lessons learned to inform future investments in climate change. IV. Project Interventions BIOREDD is working on two levels: (i) to strengthen national capacity to more effectively administer policies, laws and regulations for the sustainable management of environmental assets and biodiversity conservation in Colombia, and (ii) to strengthen Colombia’s regions, rural municipalities, and Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities in their capacity to effectively implement policies, laws and regulations written by the government. Over the course of the last two quarters there has been an increasing focus on REDD+ development as well as a change in emphasis away from Bogota towards the regions, where future voluntary REDD+ projects will play out.3 USAID notes that BIOREDD+ works with 19 Afro-Colombian and indigenous communities through 8 REDD+ projects along Colombia’s Pacific Coast. Total land area exceeds 700,000 hectares, in one of the world’s ten biodiversity “hot spots”. BIOREDD claims that “potential investment is close to US$ 14 million at this stage, and covers all 8 projects.” 3 BIOREDD+ Quarterly Report for the period July to September 2014. BIOREDD+ DO4: Environmental resiliency and low￾emissions development strengthened IR4.1: Natural resources management improved IR4.2: Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions increased IR4.3: Increased resilience to the consequences of a changing climate DO3: Improved conditions for inclusive rural economic growth 49 The overarching strategic intent of BIOREDD+ is to create an array of sustainable capacities, incentives and private sector investment that will sustain targeted forests as a resource to cope with global climate change. The project seeks to attract a flow of private sector payments to communities, based on favorable performance of those communities in conserving the resource. USAID funds are targeted to improve the capacities of those communities, to liaise with the GOC, and to attract investors. If successful, sustainable REDD+ community enterprises could form an important part of USAID’s exit strategy from Colombia. But, USAID also wants to use to be sure that the models used in BIOREDD+ would constitute a wise investment, even in the absence of REDD+ income streams. The system has not yet resulted in actual payments by the private firm to any communities. Important organizational partners are listed at the top of this SOW. V. Uses of the Evaluation Evaluation results will inform future mission planning in the climate change arena. VI. Key Evaluation Questions The following Evaluation Questions should not constrain the team from pursuing other relevant issues: 1. What, specifically, is the theory of change that drives the BIOREDD+ climate change intervention, particularly with respect to community participation? 2. Is this development hypothesis, particularly with respect to community participation, likely to be successful, both in terms of providing community benefits and addressing global climate change, in the areas in which BIOREDD is now working? 3. Is it advisable and possible to scale this model more broadly in Colombia? What steps would be needed to succeed? This determination will be made without assuming that carbon markets can provide sustainability, since those markets are not yet proven. In addressing Evaluation Questions 1-3, above, determine which of the following dimensions of the intervention merit intensive examination, and report on them: a. What are the strengths of the project’s organizational capacity development models? b. What is working well in preparing community members for the REDD+ work? i. Are members of the governance bodies of the communities sufficiently aware of the REDD+ model to have the kind of community support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? ii. Is the level of community participation satisfactory, by age and gender? iii. Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+? iv. What is the utility of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Documents? c. What is working well with ecotourism efforts to support the project? d. What are the legal, economic, and political threats and opportunities? 50 4. Could continuation and expansion of the activities benefit from complementary activities in terms of achieving the Mission’s DO 4? VII. Deliverables and Timeframes The Evaluation Team shall submit to USAID the following deliverables within the specified timeframes: Work plan: To be submitted in draft form for USAID comment within ten days of the start of the evaluation. Work plan must include the final written evaluation design. Draft evaluation report: The Evaluation Team must submit to USAID/Colombia within twelve weeks of the TPM a draft electronic report and present the same orally, including findings, conclusions, and recommendations. EVAL’s COR will determine if copies of the report will be shared with country–level stakeholders and implementing partners. Final report: USAID will have three weeks to provide a unified set of comments on the draft report. If such comments are not received in that time the draft will be considered final and the evaluation effort completed. The team will consider the comments in completing a final version, to be submitted to USAID within two weeks of receipt of unified comments from USAID. Evaluators will determine which comments from USAID to reflect in the final report. The team will, however, provide a table listing each comment received from USAID and the team’s response to the recommendation. If USAID has major disagreements with the final report, a statement of differences can be used to disclose divergence. Evaluation documentation: EVAL will submit to USAID a list of data sources, such as: populated databases, filled questionnaire or other forms, and records of data collection from interviews and focus groups. VIII. Suggested Methodology The Evaluation Team will propose its methods and approaches for collecting and analyzing information required for the evaluation, consistent with USAID’s Evaluation Policy. The methodology will be discussed with USAID at the Team Planning Meeting. USAID will also review the team’s draft work plan, which will describe the methodology in detail. The Evaluation Team is expected to review relevant project documents, contracts, reports, and M&E data collected by the implementing partner. The team will interview USAID staff, partners and stakeholders and will identify and interview NGOs/companies/organizations receiving project support, ensuring geographic representation. The team must conduct site visits and observe impacts of the integrated approach. BIOREDD+ has baseline PMP data. The evaluation should be carried out in 120 working days, using the following phases: • Phase 1. Literature Review During this phase, the contractors should review the project literature, project contract, amendments, quarterly reports, reported results, field reports and other information 51 considered important by USAID and the IP. A product of this effort will be to state – to the extent possible from available data – the development hypothesis. • Phase 2. Information Compilation and Analysis EVAL should examine existing project data, conduct interviews, and possibly conduct focus groups and surveys. As part of the work plan, EVAL will present its Getting to Answers matrix to describe how qualitative and quantitative data will be collected and analyzed to address each specific Evaluation Question. By reviewing this matrix, USAID will be able to determine if it has confidence that the methodology will address the questions sufficiently. The IP will be expected to provide a significant level of data to support this analysis. a. Possible elements of the quantitative dimension:  Review of indicators and progress towards achievement of targets;  Surveys of beneficiaries/participants key stakeholders; and  Randomly validate non-carbon-related core project indicators and results. b. Possible elements of the qualitative dimension: • Conduct key interviews with local partners, beneficiaries, social and civil organizations and leaders from the producers associations and Colombian Forestry Chamber representatives. The COR and IP will provide an initial list of possible subjects. • Conduct Observational Analysis to observe the achievements and project performance (this may well contain a quantitative element, as well). The Evaluation Team will conduct site visits to gain insights into actual progress, challenges and dynamics on the ground. Site visits will be selected by the evaluation team. The IP will be expected to provide guidance with respect to local security conditions. Any possible logistical support, based on existing IP assets (such as for transportation) that could reduce redundant evaluation expenses would be appreciated. • Conduct focus groups with stakeholders. The Evaluation Team could consider holding several focus groups to collect the perceptions and opinions related to project activities, performance, and results from the beneficiaries and stakeholders. The Evaluation Team will design the focus groups. IP support in recruiting participants and staging sessions would be appreciated, if convenient. • Phase 3. Draft Recommendations Once that information has been analyzed, the Evaluation Team will submit a draft a report to EVAL’s COR including its findings, conclusions and recommendations. 52 • Phase 4. Final Report IX. Resources The assessment team will review the project documents below: 1. BIO REDD+ Program Contract and Amendments 2. BIO REDD+ Program Annual Work plans 3. BIO REDD+ Program Annual and Quarterly Reports 4. BIO REDD+ Program Performance Management Plan (PMP) 5. BIO REDD+ Program Quarterly or other Financial Reports 6. USAID/Colombia Country Development Cooperation Strategy 7. All reports produced by the project 8. Records available from community counterparts summarizing discussion and resolutions related to the initiative 9. Any other non-confidential information available from the IP or USAID that may be determined by the team as useful in the course of the evaluation. X. Geographic Areas for the Evaluation The geographic areas that the evaluation team plans to visit will be selected by the Evaluation Team to reduce selection bias and to promote the independence of the evaluation. USAID and the IP will be consulted regarding logistical, security, and political considerations. BIOREDD+’s main office is in Cali, with a smaller office in Bogotá. XI. Suggested Team Composition EVAL will present resumes of the proposed Evaluation Team for USAID review. Ideally, the team would consist of Colombian and international experts that – combined – include the following skills: • Extensive experience in conducting qualitative and quantitative evaluations. • Experience in leading evaluation teams and preparing high quality documents in English. • Experience and training in sustainable development, biodiversity, environment. • Experience working with and evaluating climate change and biodiversity programs in developing countries (preferably in Latin America). • Experience working in rural and lowlands environments and societies. • Experience in understanding behavioral change and gender issues in developing countries with complex scenarios. • Skill at working with basic survey statistics and conducting focus groups. • Wide experience in implementation and evaluation of USAID-funded projects and good understanding of project administration, finance and management. • Excellent oral and writing skills in English and Spanish. According to USAID Evaluation Policy: for external evaluations, all Evaluation Team members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest relative to the project being evaluated. XII. Suggested Timeline 53 It is hoped that the assignment will begin in mid-February 2014 and be completed in 120 working days. A six-day work-week is authorized. XIII. Logistical Support EVAL is responsible for arranging all logistical support for the evaluation. However, given the difficulties of travel within project intervention sites, the BIOREDD+ IP is requested to be available to support logistical arrangements for the Evaluation Team. XIV. Oversight and Management The Evaluation Team will report to USAID’s EVAL COR, Elizabeth Mendenhall. Technical inputs to the evaluation will be provided by USAID’s Environment Office. XV. The final evaluation report will be presented to USAID/Colombia The draft and final report will be in English. It should contain, at minimum, the following: 1. Executive Summary 2. Table of contents. 3. List of Acronyms 4. Introduction 5. Background 6. Methodology 7. Answers to the Evaluation Questions. These will summarize Table of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations to be included as an annex. 8. References 9. Annexes – A copy of this SOW, evaluation methods in greater detail; evaluation tools used; interview list; table of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Sections 4-7, above, should not exceed 30 pages. 54 ANNEX C: DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS Evaluation Design The evaluation was mainly participatory and used predominantly qualitative methods to extract lessons learned for the Mission to inform future programming. It was not an assessment of Chemonics’ (the Implementing partner: IP) work or of USAID’s oversight of that work. BioREDD+ worked with communities in the Pacific Region of Colombia, in a number of Afro￾Colombian and Indigenous communities that exhibit a range of cultures and world views. These conditions make exclusively quantitative study less helpful in understanding the how and why of program practices and lessons. Methods used in the evaluation therefore included document review, key informant interviews, group interviews with members of the community, observation of project productive activity investments and "Woman and Man in the street" surveys. Team Planning Meeting The process initiated with a Team Planning Meeting (TPM), in which team members systematically reviewed the material on hand (already helpfully provided by the IP) in light of the SOW. The team developed a thorough understanding of the SOW as it developed the methodology described below. The team also developed some clarification questions for USAID. USAID responded to these questions as part of the TPM, and also used the opportunity to describe what the Mission wanted out of the evaluation. Sampling The team reviewed project documentation to understand the project’s activities, its modes of operation, its accomplishments and its challenges. The team then considered all the communities where BioREDD+ was working, and chose two from each of the four regional nodes (Tumaco, Buenaventura, Chocó Sur and Urabá-Darien) for the field visits. Communities were chosen according to the type of productive projects developed, biodiversity, ensuring that the team visited both Afro-Colombian and Indigenous communities, size and perceived capacity of the community, amount of carbon in the territory and ease of access. The team decided that in each community it would interview the government body, conduct focus groups of women and men (including both adults and youth) separately and survey 30 community members in each community that were not part of the government body and had not participated in the focus groups. This design was intended to provide insights into community leadership, the reach of the project beyond leadership, and differential experiences of men and women. The team also interviewed those responsible for managing productive/income generation projects whenever that was possible. After the field visits were established, the team determined the key public and private non￾community stakeholder to be interviewed. These included members from the Chemonics, OPTIM and FondoAcción staff, GOC entities and USAID. The evaluation team conducted 36 non-community in-depth interviews. The full list of respondents is included in Annex D. Based on the evaluation questions; the team designed the interview protocols to capture different perspectives regarding each activity under study. For an overview of the instruments to conduct the interviews and surveys, refer to Annex E. Many of the communities were located in 55 relatively remote places, requiring a combination of truck, boat and air transport. The IP was extremely helpful in helping to arrange these complex logistics with the team. Methods Document review There are a wide range of documents of import to the evaluation, partly as a result of the deep analytic requirements of seeking REDD+ investors. The team reviewed these documents, in varying degrees of depth, as well as work plans, quarterly reports, and the PMP provided by the IP. For a full list of the documents reviewed by the evaluation team refer to Annex D. Quantitative Data Collection Quantitative data collection and analysis is likely to include the following: • Review of project monitoring and reporting data. • “Woman and Man in the Street” surveys in the communities. Qualitative Data Collection Qualitative data will be collected through: • Key informant interviews. • Observation of project productive activity investments. • Government body interviews; both in groups and individually. • Group interviews with members of the community, separately for men and women. In-depth interviews In-depth interviews were used in the evaluation to examine the activities from different perspectives. Interview guides for various individuals and classes of informants were constructed to address the relevant Evaluation Questions from the evaluation design. Draft interview instruments were prepared and discussed with the team to address the evaluation questions. The team had to adapt some of the questions in the interview guides in the field as themes emerged. An example of the interview guide can be found in Annex E. Notes from all interviews were typed up by one member of the team and were shared with others present to ensure accurate recollection and so that absent team members could benefit from the information. Survey "Woman and Man in the Street" surveys were performed in each of the communities visited. A man and a woman from the respective community were chosen to survey 15 people each of their same gender from their community. When arriving at each community, the two chosen assistants were trained by a team member. All questions were reviewed and directions were given to guarantee that surveys were conducted appropriately. Interviewers were selected by community leaders and the methodology and purpose was fully explained to community leaders before beginning to that they could decide whether or not to permit the surveys in their communities. In all cases, community leaders approved of the conducting the surveys. After the training, the 56 assistants would go to find people to participate in the survey. One of the team members would periodically check that surveys were being filled in correctly. A total of 199 surveys were collected by the end of the evaluation. The results of the surveys were recorded in a table and relevant survey questions were analyzed and used to help answer evaluation question. The following table summarizes the total sample division for each community: Community Cajambre Bahía Málaga Bajo Mira Mutatá Apartadó Buenavista Río Pepé Sivirú TOTAL Women 15 6 15 15 15 15 14 95 Men 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 104 Adults 22 20 30 20 30 19 29 170 Youths 8 0 0 10 0 11 0 29 Data Analysis Methods The evaluation team systematically analyzed the interview notes, including examining patterns, convergence and divergence of opinions and experience, and trends analysis, to answer each of the evaluation questions. These were sorted and further analyzed in a collective exercise of developing the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations Table (Annex A). Interviews with Chemonics and subcontractor staff were used to understand the intent of the project, to flag potential lessons learned, and to prepare for field work. Group and individual interviews with non-leadership body members were used to address the same questions as well as attempt to understand the degree to which the leadership bodies have succeeded in transmitting information and gaining enthusiasm from their constituents. “Woman and Man in the Street” interview protocols were targeted to address similar issues. Limitations of Evaluation The evaluation team’s fieldwork was somewhat rushed as there was very little time to conduct the field work before the project ended. Due to the nature of the terrain and of the governance structures of the communities visited, the team was highly dependent on the IP for assistance in setting up field visits. The IP, Chemonics, was very supportive in this regard. However, it meant that the team was usually travelling with a project worker and that the team had to fit its schedule into Chemonics frantic work schedule as it had to close down the project. An additional challenge was when USAID provided BIOREDD+ a one-month extension, requiring a major shift in team schedule and reducing the availability of some team members. The team tried to arrange an interview with the indigenous leadership of Chigorodó to understand why that community had elected not to participate. Unfortunately, the IP was not able to arrange this meeting for the team so no community-based data are available on that experience. 57 ANNEX D: INFORMATION SOURCES Interviews Entity Name Title/Activity Chemonics Michelle Cassal Environmental Activity Fund Manager Chemonics Peter Doyle Chief of Party Chemonics Pilar Herron Biodiversity component coordinator Chemonics Oscar Pinzón Biodiversity component Chemonics Juan Carlos Gonzalez Head of Security FondoAcción Natalia Arango Technical Director OPTIM Juan Andrés Lopez Climate change component coordinator Community Cajambre Community Council Community Cajambre Women's focus group Chemonics Bernardo Orobio Buenaventura node regional coordinator Community Bahía Málaga Community Council Community Bahía Málaga Women's focus group Community Bahía Málaga Men's focus group Community ACAPA Community Council Community Bajo Mira Community Council Community Bajo Mira Women's focus group Community Bajo Mira Men's focus group Community Bajo Mira Delicias del Mira (chocolate processing) Chemonics Kelber Gamba Tumaco node regional coordinator Chemonics Helena Andrade M&E Manager GOC - MADS Diana Marcela Vargas ENREDD+ coordinator GOC - MADS Iván Darío Guerrero Office of International affairs GOC - IDEAM Edersson Cabrera Forest and carbon monitoring coordinator Community Mutatá Cabildo Mayor Community Apartadó Buenavista Community Council Community Apartadó Buenavista Men's focus group Community Apartadó Buenavista Women's focus group GOC - DPS - UACT Patricia Meléndez Alternative development coordinator Community Río Pepé Community Council Community Río Pepé Focus group Community Sivirú Community Council Community Sivirú Men's focus group Community Sivirú Women's focus group Chemonics Mauricio Camacho Baudó node regional coordinator Chemonics Juan Carlos Riascos Local governance consultant 58 USAID Jonathan Richter Director of Program Office USAID Daniel Lopez Environment Officer 59 Bibliography . Document Period Work Plans Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Fiscal Year 2012-2013 Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Quarterly Reports Q1 October - December 2011 Q2 January - March 2012 Q3 Aril - June 2012 Q4 July - September 2012 Q5 October - December 2012 Q6 January - March 2013 Q7 Aril - June 2013 Q8 July - September 2013 Q9 October - December 2013 Q10 January - March 2014 Q11 Aril - June 2014 Q12 July - September 2014 Project Documents BioREDDAcapa-BMF REDD+ Project Description v4.7 BioREDD BCBM REDD+ Project Description v4.10 BioREDDCajambre REDD+ Project Description v2.6 BioREDD CDD REDD+ Project Description v4.6 BioREDDConcosta REDD+ Project Description v2.7 BioREDDMutata REDD+ Project Description v2.8 BioREDD SUPP REDD+ Project Description v4.7 BIOREDD+ RFTOP (1) BioREDD+ Evaluation SOW 30 Dec 2014 BioREDD+ PMP Oct 2014 Subcontracts grants and consultancies mitigation and biodiversity Strategy for the integration of gender perspective for BioREDD Socioeconomic studies -Fundación Laurel Socioeconomic studies- Universidad Autónoma de Occidente Socioeconomic studies- Universidad de Antioquia Business Plans Achiote - Dínamo Consultores Cocoa - Araujo Ibarra & Asociados S.A Naidí - Araujo Ibarra & Asociados S.A Coconut - Araujo Ibarra & Asociados S.A Peach Palm - Araujo Ibarra & Asociados S.A Biodiversity Monitoring in the Permanent Field Plots - Instituto de Investigación Alexander Von Humboldt Work Plan and Activity Chronogram Sampling Protocols and Capacity Transfer Strategy Advances and Recommendations Report Field Report on Biodiversity Measures 60 Performance Evaluation of Tanzanian CBNRM implementation project - USAID USAID Climate Change Programming: Lessons Learned 2014 Draft Report: Conflict Resolution on Land and Natural Resources: Afro-Colombian Women’s Leadership for Land Tenure in the Middle and Lower Atrato, Choco - Protierra DQA BIOREDD+ BR04-002 and 004 Anexo Explicativo Fortalecimiento de Capacidades para Organizaciones vinculadas a proyectos REDD+ Estrategia De ‘Socialización’ REDD+ 61 ANNEX E: INSTRUMENTS Interview Guides Interviews were the main tool to collect qualitative information for this evaluation. All the interviews conducted in the evaluation followed the structure developed in the Team Planning Meeting in order to answer the Evaluation Questions. This Annex presents two examples of the interview guides used. However, it is important to note that for each group or individual interview some of the questions were modified according to the person or group who was going to be interviewed. Although interview guidelines were adapted to appropriately fit each interview session, in some cases (especially community interviews) the questionnaire structure had to be modified during the interview to capture specific information according to what was being discussed. Interview Guide Example (one of approximately ten guides for individuals and classes of individuals, such as IP Regional Coordinators) 1. Peter Doyle - Chemonics Chief of Party Tiempo entrevista: 60 minutos Temas: Jefe de proyecto, Visión general 1. Datos personales: • Cargo • Cuando llegó al proyecto 2. Rol en el proyecto: • Descripción del proyecto en 5 palabras (no una oración) 3. Verificación de teoría de cambio: • Cambios y sugerencias sobre toda la teoría • Percepción de la proporción de dinero que fue invertido en aumentar la capacidad de las comunidades y cuanto fue invertido en lo demás. 4. Punto de vista sobre las comunidades: • ¿Ha visto un cambio en la capacidad de las comunidades con las que ya se ha trabajado anteriormente en otros proyectos ambientales? (ej. Bajo Mira) - Con USAID - Con otros cooperantes internacionales • ¿Que considera que podría cambiar/mejorar para aumentar la capacidad de las comunidades para desarrollar futuros proyectos ambientales de USAID? 5. Género y edad: • ¿Qué participación tuvieron las mujeres y los jóvenes durante el desarrollo de los proyectos REDD+? 62 • ¿Desde su punto de vista el proyecto hubiera podido hacer algo mejor para incluir la participación de mujeres y jóvenes? 6. Amenazas y Oportunidades: • ¿Desde su punto de vista cuales son las amenazas y oportunidades que puede haber para futuros proyectos ambientales de USAID en términos políticos y económicos/de mercado? 7. Punto de vista sobre todo el proyecto REDD+ • ¿Valdría la pena que USAID realizara futuros proyectos REDD+ en Colombia? • Formas de simplificar los trámites para la realización de proyectos REDD+ • ¿Existe un foro de la UN donde se puedan discutir estos trámites? ¿Valdría la pena que el gobierno de USA participara? 8. ¿Desde su punto de vista el proyecto BIOREDD+ fue exitoso? ¿Por qué? 2. Community Government Bodies Temas: Proyectos REDD+ en la comunidad 1. Datos generales: • Miembros • Historia de cooperación -USAID -Otros cooperantes • Cuando se establecieron los primeros contactos con el equipo de BIOREDD+ 2. Descripción del proyecto en 5 palabras (no una oración) 3. Rol en el proyecto: • Qué papel juega el Consejo/Resguardo dentro del proyecto REDD+? 4. Verificación de teoría de cambio: • Revisar la parte de participación comunitaria dentro de la teoría de cambio de BIOREDD+ de una marea fácil de explicar específicamente para ellos • ¿Consideran que el proyecto REDD+ es importante para la comunidad y el territorio? ¿Cómo? 5. Participación de la comunidad (Tratar de contestar estas preguntas con la anterior) • ¿Cómo fue el proceso de participación de la comunidad durante la formulación del proyecto REDD+? 63 • ¿Qué consideran que se pudo haber hecho de mejor manera durante el proceso de consulta con la comunidad? 6. Fortalecimiento de capacidades • ¿De qué manera los proyectos REDD+ contribuyeron a fortalecer su capacidad de gobernanza? • ¿Cómo pudo el proyecto REDD+ contribuir de mejor manera a fortalecer su capacidad de gobernanza? • ¿Consideran que están suficientemente preparados para la implementación del proyecto REDD+? ¿Por qué? 7. Género y edad: • ¿Existen dentro de su plan de vida (plan de etno-desarrollo, plan de manejo, etc.) consideraciones sobre la participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en las actividades de la comunidad? • ¿Las mujeres y los jóvenes juegan algún papel especial en el proyecto REDD+? • ¿El proyecto hubiera podido hacer algo mejor para incluir mujeres y jóvenes dentro de sus actividades? 8. ¿Ustedes consideran que la comunidad está mejor como resultado del proyecto? 64 Surveys "Woman and Man in the street" surveys were conducted in each community visited. Results were used to help answer Evaluation Questions. However, it is important to consider that most communities are comprised of several settlements and have diverse populations. Since surveys were done in a single settlement and the maximum survey sample for each community was 30, the surveys are not truly representative an entire community. They were also conducted at settlements relatively easily reached by transport. However, they can be used as guidelines to understand how community members that are not part of the governance body perceived the BIOREDD+ projects and how they were involved in it. Woman and Man in the Street Instrument No._____________ Municipio: Vereda: Comunidad: Sexo: F M Edad: Joven (- 21) Adulto Fecha: Entrevistador/a: (+ 21) Buenos días/tardes, mi nombre es (nombre y apellido). Actualmente me encuentro trabajando con MSI, una compañía dedicada a realizar estudios de base en Colombia, y el día de hoy estoy realizando una encuesta sobre algunos proyectos que se han desarrollado en la comunidad. Su opinión nos será muy valiosa y le agradecería si me pudiera dedicar 5 minutos de su tiempo para contestar algunas preguntas. ¿Podemos realizar la encuesta? Si / No PARTICIPACIÓN P1. ¿A usted le gusta participar en los espacios con los que cuenta la comunidad para dar sus opiniones? Si / No P2. ¿Cuándo fue la última vez que participó en una reunión del Consejo Comunitario/Cabildo? ________ CAPACIDADES C1. ¿Usted cree que su comunidad tiene la capacidad de manejar proyectos sin ayuda externa? Si / No / NS C2. ¿Usted ha participado en algún tipo de capacitación en los últimos tres años? Si / No Si lo ha hecho: A) ¿Quién le proporcionó esta capacitación?______________________________________ B) ¿Sobre qué era la capacitación? ____________________________________________ C) ¿Considera que fue útil para usted? Si / No C3. ¿Usted sabe de algún proyecto que se haya hecho en los últimos 3 años para ayudar a las personas de la comunidad a conseguir más ingresos? Si/No A) ¿Cuál? Pesca / Ecoturismo / Cacao / Coco / Chontaduro / Naidí / Achiote / NS / Otro AMBIENTE Y TERRITORIO T1. ¿Usted considera que la protección de la naturaleza es importante para su territorio? Si / No T2. Por favor numere los siguientes temas en el orden de lo que usted considera más necesario para su comunidad en este momento: (1 es lo más importante y 6 lo menos importante) ___Educación ___Salud ___Acueductos ___Protección de la Naturaleza ___Generación de empleos ___Orden Público T3. Usted cree que los proyectos para proteger la naturaleza pueden ayudar a la comunidad a: A) ¿Tener un mejor uso de su territorio? Si / No / NS B) ¿Mejorar la situación de seguridad en su territorio? Si / No / NS 65 C) ¿Generar nuevos empleos? Si / No / NS PROYECTO REDD+ R1. ¿Usted tiene conocimiento del proyecto BIOREDD+ que se viene trabajando con su comunidad? Si / No Si no lo conoce: "Este es el final de la entrevista, muchas gracias por su colaboración." Si lo conoce: SEGUIR CON LAS DEMÁS PREGUNTAS. R2. ¿Hace cuánto tiempo se enteró del proyecto?___________________________ R3. ¿Cómo se enteró del proyecto?_________________________________________________________________ R4. ¿Sabe usted para qué es el proyecto BIOREDD+? (NO LEE LAS RESPUESTAS, SINO MARCA TODOS LOS QUE MENCIONA LA PERSONA) __Generar nuevos empleos __Mejorar infraestructura __Protección de la Naturaleza __Ecoturismo __Pesca __Cultivar y vender frutas __Mejorar la educación __Disminuir la tala de árboles __Mejorar la calidad de vida de la comunidad __Otro R5. ¿De qué forma ha participado usted en el Proyecto BIOREDD+? (LEE CADA UNO, MARCA CON X SI DICEN QUE SI) __Siendo empleado __Mediante una capacitación __Participación en reuniones R7. ¿Usted piensa que las mujeres juegan algún papel especial en el proyecto BIOREDD+? Si / No / NS R8. ¿Usted piensa que los jóvenes juegan algún papel especial en el proyecto BIOREDD+? Si / No / NS R9. ¿Usted cree que el proyecto hubiera podido hacer algo mejor para incluir mujeres y jóvenes dentro de sus actividades? Si / No / NS R10. ¿Usted considera que el proyecto BIOREDD+ ha traído beneficios a la comunidad? Si / No / NS A) Si así lo cree ¿Qué tipo de beneficios? (NO LEE LAS RESPUESTAS, SINO MARCA TODOS LOS QUE MENCIONA LA PERSONA) __Monetarios __Conservación de la Naturaleza __Mantener las tradiciones de la comunidad __Aumentar la seguridad __Mejorar el uso de su territorio __Generar empleos __Otro R11. Por favor use 3 palabras para describir el Proyecto BIOREDD+ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Muchas gracias por su colaboración y espero que tenga un muy buen día. 66 ANNEX F: GETTING TO ANSWERS TABLE Evaluation questions Data collection Sampling or selection criteria, as necessary Analysis plan Source(s) Method(s) 1. What, specifically, is the theory of change that drives the BIOREDD+ climate change intervention, particularly with respect to community participation and enjoyment of benefits? • Project documentation • Team’s Theories of change (ToC), as validated by Chemonics • Team develops ToC (based on project documentation) and validates with Chemonics team. • Focused on Climate Change portion only (with small influence of biodiversity component) • The team will track the ToCs to guide analysis of questions below. 2. Is this development hypothesis (theories of change), particularly with respect to community participation, likely to be successful, both in terms of providing community benefits and addressing global climate change, in the areas in which BIOREDD is now working? A. What are the strengths of the project’s organizational capacity development models? • Project Annual Work Plans • Project Descriptions • Quarterly Reports • BIOREDD+ Team • Leadership Bodies • General Assembly meetings • FondoAcción • Minutes of the Leadership Bodies • PMP/Monitor • Interviews • Observations • Document review • Database review • Group interviews with: *Leadership Bodies • Key Informant Interviews with: *Helena Andrade; Peter Doyle; Juan Carlos Riascos; Juan Andrés Lopez *Fondo Acción Mauricio Salazar (donación Cocomasur), Adriana Pombo (coaching organizacional HARMOS). • Document Analysis • Compare work plan with organizational progress using secondary data, perceptions and direct observation • Interview content analysis B. Are members of the governance bodies of the communities and the community members themselves sufficiently aware of the REDD+ • Leadership Bodies • Community at large • General Assembly meetings • Minutes of the Leadership • Document review • Database review • Interviews • Survey • Group interviews with: * Leadership Bodies * Community • Document Analysis • Database indicator analysis 67 Evaluation questions Data collection Sampling or selection criteria, as necessary Analysis plan Source(s) Method(s) model to have the kind of community support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? Bodies interviews of non￾leaders. Men and women will be interviewed separately • Woman and Man in the street surveys: * Of random community members. Conducted by female for females and a male for males. • Interview content analysis • Frequency of opinions from surveys • Comparison of interview and survey results between different communities C. Is the level of community participation satisfactory, by age and gender? • Quarterly Reports • Project Descriptions • PMP/Monitor • BIOREDD+ Gender Strategy • Leadership Bodies • Community at large • General Assembly Meetings • Minutes of the Leadership Bodies • Document Review • Database review • Interviews • Observation of General Assemblies • Group interviews with: * Leadership Bodies * Community interviews of non￾leaders. Men and women will be interviewed separately • Document Analysis • Database indicator analysis • Interview content analysis • Comparison of interview results between different communities D. Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+ in the context of the PDs? • Project Descriptions • Quarterly Reports • Minutes of Leadership bodies • Leadership Bodies • Reports of grants management by Leadership Bodies • BIOREDD+ Team • FondoAcción • Document Review • Interviews • Group interviews with: * Leadership Bodies • Key Informant Interviews with: * Chemonics: Michelle, Helena Andrade, Juan Carlos Riascos * FondoAcción • Document Analysis • Analyze success of grant management by Leadership Bodies • Interview content analysis 68 Evaluation questions Data collection Sampling or selection criteria, as necessary Analysis plan Source(s) Method(s) E. What is the utility of REDD+ Action Plans and Project Descriptions for the community with and without REDD+? • Project Descriptions • Action Plans • Leadership Bodies • BIOREDD+ Team • Review documents • Interviews • Group interviews with: * Leadership Bodies • Key Informant Interviews with: * Chemonics: Peter Doyle, Juan Andrés Lopez, Helena Andrade. • Document Analysis • Interview content analysis • Comparison of interview results between different communities F. What is the progress in preparing the communities to gain from alternative sources of income? • Work Plans • Quarterly Reports • PMP/Monitor • Business Plans • Leadership Bodies • Beneficiaries • BIOREDD+ Team • Business partners • Site visits • Document review • Database review • Interviews • Observations • Group interviews with: *Leadership Bodies *Beneficiaries • Key Informant Interviews with: *Beneficiaries *Business Partners *Chemonics: Peter Doyle, Helena Andrade • Document Analysis • Database indicator analysis • Interview content analysis • Comparison of interview results between different communities • Validate site observations with Work Plan targets 3. Is it advisable and possible to scale this model more broadly in Colombia? What steps would be needed to succeed? This determination will be made without assuming that carbon markets can provide sustainability, since those markets are not yet proven • Findings Conclusions and Recommendations (FCR) Table • Reports on similar REDD+ projects on other parts of the country • Scaling Up Methodology from MSI • Ministry of Environment • Other international donors • Document review • Interviews • Key Informant Interviews with: *Ministry of Environment *International donors • Analysis of FCR table • Comparison with information from other REDD+ projects • Interview content analysis • Use of the Scaling Up 69 Evaluation questions Data collection Sampling or selection criteria, as necessary Analysis plan Source(s) Method(s) Methodology from MSI A. What are the legal, economic and political threats and opportunities? • Work Plans • Quarterly Reports • Project Descriptions • BIOREDD+ Team • Business Plans • National environmental policies • Document reviews • Policy review • Interviews • Key Informant Interviews with: *Chemonics: Peter Doyle. • Document Analysis • Comparison between national policies and project targets • Interview content analysis 4. What other approaches should USAID consider in the future to achieve the Mission’s DO 4? • Findings Conclusions and Recommendations (FCR) Table • Reports on other climate change activities in Colombia • Ministry of Environment • Other environmental stakeholders • Other international donors • Document review • Interviews • Key Informant Interviews with: *Ministry of Environment *Other environmental stakeholders (e.g. (IDEAM, FondoAcción, NGOs) *Other international donors • Document analysis • Expert analysis on reports • Interview content analysis 5. Report on the gender issues relevant to achieving success in BIOREDD+ and/or for future investments to support DO4. • BIOREDD+ Gender strategy document • USAID gender strategy document • MSI gender strategy document • Quarterly Reports • Work Plans • PMP/Monitor • Community at large • Leadership bodies • Document Review • Interviews • Gender mapping using ToC • Database review • Observations • Group interviews with: * Leadership Bodies * Community interviews of non￾leaders. Men and women will be interviewed separately • Database analysis • Document analysis • Interview content analysis • Comparison of interview results between different communities • Analysis of 70 Evaluation questions Data collection Sampling or selection criteria, as necessary Analysis plan Source(s) Method(s) • Plan de etno-desarrollo • General assemblies gender mapping 71 ANNEX G: BIOREDD+ THEORIES OF CHANGE - GENERAL THEORY Fund community REDD+ investment for territorial control Social Capital of community leaders to implement REDD+ improved. - Exchange -Awareness -Priorities -Institutions Community REDD+ approval documentation process completed Carbon value set by forestry and carbon science Science validated by Rainforest Alliance Alternative sources of income (ASI) developed GOC policies enable targeted carbon trading Value of targeted REDD+ schemes communicated effectively to feasible buyers Empowerment: Communities are more able to defend their territorial rights. Value: Communities value standing forests more Wealth: Reduced community incentives to harvest trees Decrease Deforestation Increase Biodiversity and Standing Carbon REDD+ produces alternatives to buyers DCA Permit ASI Investors Participatory sustainable ASI External non￾carbon ASI investment Fund ASI Social Investment Monitoring and Verification Carbon Key: Red: Objectives Green: Community Based Grey: External Cultural Conservation Solidarity Norms SALE! Manage REDD+ 72 BIOREDD+ Social Capital Awareness of REDD+ processes and mechanisms established Interactions/Exc hanges (FondoAcción) Workshops Resource - based benefits provided to communities Skills developed by leaders for: -Resource management -Grant management Awareness of REDD+ opportunities and risks established: -Money -Cultural identity Grants: -Bajo Mira: Cacao, pesca -Cajambre: pesca, cacao, naidi -Malaga: ecoturismo, pesca, naidi -Mutatá: Guardas Ambientales Social Capital of community leaders to implement REDD+ project activities improved 73 BIOREDD+ community REDD+ approval documentation process Community resource diagnostics Participatory community discussions/ workshops REDD+ action plans Project Documents Meetings with community to discuss action plans and PD summaries Approval by General Assembly Validation by Rainforest Alliance Introducing communities to REDD+ process and mechanisms Introduction of community to BIOREDD+ and commitment to proceed 74 BIOREDD+ Carbon Science Deforestation/degradation projections in 30 and 60 years Projections of carbon emission reductions for each of the REDD+ projects. Effectiveness analysis of the action of REDD+ projects Types of forest cover and state of forests Historic analysis of deforestation/degradation rates between 1990 and 2012 Timber study: Amount of wood logged and exit routes Allometry: Carbon content by forest type Plot Laser Rada Remote sensor methodology to determine cover type and state of forests 75 BIOREDD+ Alternative Sources of Income Identification of prospective strategic associates Socioeconomic studies per node. Identification of target products Market analysis Development of technical aspects of the value chain REDD+ Fund Other Funds Business Plan Consolidation of Special Purpose Vehicles: Enterprises where the communities are associates Design of financial structure and Special Purpose Vehicles Products Plan Products Fishing Ecotourism Cocoa Tilapia Bahia Malaga Naidi Achiote Coconuts Peach Palm Generate added value for the communities If Viable 76 BIOREDD+ Validation by Rainforest Alliance Register Project Document: *Markit Environmental Registry *VCS *CCBA Call to choose validating entity: Rainforest Alliance Validation Report: Requirements and requests Report with the final verdict Comments Time to answe BIOREDD+ BIOREDD+ BIOREDD+ Rainforest Alliance Rainforest Alliance Verify that projects comply with the required standards: *VCS: Carbon measuring methodology *CCBA: Community participation Publicly available at VCS 77 BIOREDD+ Biodiversity Continue with alternative income activities from prior programs in non￾REDD nodes Less loss of Biodiversity in target ecosystems Decreased pressure on forest and marine resources Develop new alternative sources of income for the communities Start implementing new alternative income activities in REDD+ Nodes Lessons Learned Increased community capacity to manage collective resources Productive Projects: • Sustainable Fisheries • Ecotourism (Strengthen prior of projects) • Agro-forestry: -Cocoa (Tumaco) -Peach Palm (Buenaventura) -Naidi (7 communities) -Coconut (Acapa, Bajo Baudó) Capacity Strengthening • Governance (e.g. Territory Management Plans) • Establishment of Special Financial Vehicle • Training: - Crop Management -Administration 78 ANNEX H: WOMAN AND MAN IN THE STREET SURVEY The Survey A "women on the street" survey was performed in each of the communities visited by the Evaluation Team. A man and a woman were chosen to survey 15 people of their same gender from their community. A total of 199 surveys were collected by the end of the evaluation. The results of the surveys were recorded, and resultant data were analyzed in tabular and graphic form for each survey question. Results are presented below and are integrated into the Findings Conclusions and Recommendations Table (Annex A). The following table summarizes the total sample division for each community: Cajambre Bahía Málaga Bajo Mira Mutatá Apartadó Buenavista Río Pepé Sivirú TOTAL Women 15 6 15 15 15 15 14 95 Men 15 14 15 15 15 15 15 104 Adults 22 20 30 20 30 19 29 170 Youths 8 0 0 10 0 11 0 29 It is important to recognize that most communities are comprised of multiple settlements and have diverse populations and conditions. Since surveys were done in a single settlement and the maximum survey sample for each community was 30, the surveys are not truly representative of an entire community. Moreover the communities surveyed were all relatively easily accessible, meaning we would expect disproportionately high levels of engagement with the governance bodies and BIOREDD+ staff and programming. Nevertheless, the data appear to provide useful insights into how community members that are not part of the governance body perceived the BIOREDD+ projects and how they were involved in it. 79 The Survey Results Evaluation Question 2B: Are members of the governance bodies of the communities and the community members themselves sufficiently aware of the REDD+ model to have the kind of support likely to be needed to implement a REDD+ model? Survey question R1: Are you aware of the BIOREDD+ project that is being implemented in your community? In every community a high percentage of the people surveyed were aware that BIOREDD+ was being implemented in their communities. This shows that even if people were not exactly sure of what the program was about, after three years of implementation they at least had heard of it. We would expect this figure to be relatively high, since we interviewed individuals located with relatively easy access from outside. 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% % of people aware of BIOREDD+ in each community Community % of people aware of BIOREDD+ in each community Cajambre 93.3% Bahía Málaga 70.0% Bajo Mira 96.7% Mutata 80.0% Apartadó Buenavista 96.7% Río Pepé 100.0% Sivirú 89.7% TOTAL 90.5% 80 Survey question R2: How long ago did you learn about the project? The total average time people had known about BOREDD+ was roughly two years. Considering the initial project start-up challenges and the initial lag that would occur between first introducing the program to leadership and when the message would get to community members, this indicates that, in general, community members were informed about the program relatively rapidly. Even in those communities were people had knowledge of the project for the least amount of time, the average time was still close to 1.5 years. Survey question R3: How did you learn about BIOREDD+? It is clear that in all communities the main source of information about BIOREDD+ was the government body of the community (Juntas de Gobierno for Afro-Colombian communities and Cabildo Mayor for indigenous communities). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average time people had known about BIOREDD+ (months) 75.0% 80.0% 85.0% 90.0% 95.0% 100.0% 105.0% % of people who were informed by a government body Community Average time people had known about BIOREDD+ (months) Cajambre 29 Bahía Málaga 16 Bajo Mira 27 Mutata 16 Apartadó Buenavista 25 Río Pepé 22 Sivirú 22 TOTAL 23 Community % of people who were informed by a government body Cajambre 92.9% Bahía Málaga 100.0% Bajo Mira 89.3% Mutata 91.7% Apartadó Buenavista 86.2% Río Pepé 90.0% Sivirú 86.4% TOTAL 90.3% 81 Survey question R4: Do you know what BIOREDD+ is about? The two options with the highest percentage of answers were improve quality of life and nature conservation. However, it is interesting to see how decreasing logging, which could be considered as the main objective of the program, was only chosen by 62% of the people who answered the question. This could indicate that, in general, people had a good idea of what the objectives of BIOREDD+ were, although there is not a complete understanding of the project. It is also possible they identified with the more with the personal benefits of the program than the responsibilities that accompany it. Nevertheless responses seem on target, given the complexity of the program. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% Do you know what BIOREDD+ is about? Options Percentage Creation of jobs 60.0% Improve Infrastructure 26.7% Nature protection 78.9% Ecotourism 11.7% Fishing 33.9% Growing and selling fruits 50.0% Improve education 46.7% Decrease logging 62.2% Improve quality of life 81.1% Others 6.7% 82 Survey question R10: What benefits do you believe BIOREDD+ brought to the community? People surveyed considered that the greatest benefit that the project brought to the community was nature conservation. This is interesting as it indicates that community members in general value nature conservation as a positive thing for their communities, and they perceived that the project helped with this issue. The fact that monetary benefits were rated relatively low may reflect fact that such benefits have not yet been fully realized. 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% What kind of benefits do you think BIOREDD+ brought to your community? Options Percentage Monetary 41.2% Nature conservation 72.3% Maintaining cultural traditions 55.9% Improving safety 26.6% Better use of the territory 68.4% Creating jobs 66.1% Others 8.5% 83 Evaluation Question 2C: Is the level of community participation satisfactory, to drive conservation and development objectives, by age and gender? Survey Questions: • P1: Do you like participating in community meetings? and • P2: When was the last time you participated in a community meeting? Gender % of people who like to participate in community meetings Average time from the last time people went to a community meeting (months) Male 100.0% 2.7 Female 99.0% 2.4 Total 99.5% 2.5 Age group % of people who like to participate in community meetings Average time from the last time people went to a community meeting (months) Adults 99.4% 2.6 Youths 100.0% 2.2 Total 99.5% 2.5 The percentage of people who like participating in community meetings is almost 100% for all people surveyed, showing universal interest. On average, significantly less than three months passed since the last meeting attended by the people surveyed. This would appear to be a relatively brief interval, considering the difficulties that government bodies have when organizing meetings. It could be attributable to General Assemblies convened with project support to address BIOREDD+ issues. In general, there is not a significant difference between the answers given by survey participants when disaggregated by gender or age. Survey Question R5: In which way did you participate in the BIOREDD+ project? Gender % of people employed by BIOREDD+ % of people trained by BIOREDD+ % of people informed about BIOREDD+ through a meeting Male 11.4% 22.7% 86.4% Female 9.7% 26.9% 91.4% Total 10.6% 25.0% 89.4% 84 Age group % of people employed by BIOREDD+ % of people trained by BIOREDD+ % of people informed about BIOREDD+ through a meeting Adults 12.3% 26.0% 89.0% Youths 0.0% 19.2% 92.3% Total 10.6% 25.0% 89.4% Most of the people in all communities participated in BIOREDD+ by attending project meetings. A few survey participants had been trained by project members and even a smaller percentage were employed to perform a specific job. In general, there was not a significant difference in the 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% % of people employed by BIOREDD+ % of people trained by BIOREDD+ % of people informed about BIOREDD+ through a meeting Male Female Total 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% % of people employed by BIOREDD+ % of people trained by BIOREDD+ % of people informed about BIOREDD+ through a meeting Adults Youths Total 85 way people participated in BIOREDD+ when divided by gender or age. However, it is interesting to see that no young people were employed, while almost the same percentage of males and females were employed by the project. It is also worth noting that the percentage of people trained by the project is quite low, particularly given that these were relatively accessible communities. Survey Questions R7: • R7: Do you think women played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities? • R8: Do you think youths played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities? • R9: Do you think the project could have done something better to include women and youths in activities? Gender % of people who think that women played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that youths played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that the project could have done something better to include women and youths in its activities? Male 100.0% 100.0% 98.8% Female 93.7% 88.8% 98.8% Total 96.9% 94.4% 98.2% 82.0% 84.0% 86.0% 88.0% 90.0% 92.0% 94.0% 96.0% 98.0% 100.0% 102.0% % of people who think that women played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that youths played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that the project could have done something better to include women and youths in its activities Male Female Total 86 Age group % of people who think that women played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that youths played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that the project could have done something better to include women and youths in its activities? Adults 96.5% 93.6% 98.6% Youths 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Total 96.9% 94.4% 98.2% When comparing these three questions some interesting contrasts appear. A lower percentage of females than males consider that women played specific roles in project activities. Similarly, a lower percentage of females than males consider that youths played specific roles in project activities. In contrast, all of the young people surveyed consider that youths did play specific roles in the project. Finally, although a very high percentage of all people believe that both women and youths did play specific roles in project activities, there seems to be a contradiction, as an even higher percentage of people think that the project could have done something better to include women and youths in project activities. 90.0% 92.0% 94.0% 96.0% 98.0% 100.0% 102.0% % of people who think that women played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that youths played a special role in BIOREDD+ activities % of people who think that the project could have done something better to include women and youths in its activities Adults Youths Total 87 Evaluation Question 2D: Are communities prepared to manage funds received through REDD+ in the context of the PDs? Survey Question C1: Do you think your community has the capacity to manage projects without external support? Community % of people who think their community can manage projects without external support Cajambre 50.0% Bahía Málaga 90.0% Bajo Mira 18.5% Mutata 20.0% Apartadó Buenavista 86.2% Río Pepé 100.0% Sivirú 47.1% TOTAL 62.0% Opinions vary significantly among people from different communities when asked this question. It is very interesting to see that the two communities that had the lowest values were Bajo Mira and Mutatá, two communities that have had a lot of support (especially Bajo Mira which has the lowest percentage) from external entities in the past. This contrasts with communities like Bahia Malaga, Apartadó Buenavista, and Río Pepé, which have some of the highest values and had none, or very little, external entities in the past. A possible interpretation is that with experience actually seeing their governance bodies manage money, communities learn of their leader’s 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% % of people who think their community can manage projects without external support 88 limitations in a real way. At the least, we can conclude that among communities that have experience observing their governance body’s financial performance, community members lack confidence in their leaders’ ability. Evaluation Question 2F: What is the progress in preparing the communities to gain from alternative sources of income? Survey Questions: • C2: Have you received any type of training in the last three years? • C2 A: Who trained you? • C2 B: What were you trained on? • C2 C: Did you find this training useful? Community % of people who received training from BIOREDD % of people trained by BIOREDD+ to develop an alternative source of income % of people who considered BIOREDD+'s training for alternative sources of income useful Cajambre 55.0% 54.5% 100% Bahía Málaga 0.0% 0.0% N/A Bajo Mira 0.0% 0.0% N/A Mutata 54.5% 8.3% 100% Apartadó Buenavista 100.0% 0.0% N/A Río Pepé 0.0% 0.0% N/A Sivirú 100.0% 0.0% N/A TOTAL 39.4% 14.8% 100% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 120.0% % of people who received training from BIOREDD % of people trained by BIOREDD+ to develop an alternative source of income 89 Overall, only a small percentage of the people surveyed actually received training to develop some type of alternative source of income. (As expected, rates of overall training – including non-BIOREDD+ training – were higher). This was expected for communities like Apartado, Buenavista or Mutatá where the project did not invest in income streams via the Biodiversity Component. But it is interesting to see that in communities like Bahía Málaga and Bajo Mira, where the project did focus on developing productive alternatives such as ecotourism and cocoa crops, none of the people who were surveyed reported receiving any type of training from BIOREDD+. It is possible that they did receive training via BIOREDD+, but did not realize that it was provided through BIOREDD+ funding. The contrast among respondents is marked: in some communities 100% of the people surveyed had been trained by BIOREDD+; in other communities none of the survey participants had received training from the project. Again, this could be related to how the training was branded. Survey question C3: Do you know of any project implemented in your community in the last three years to help community members increase their income? What projects have been implemented in the last 3 years to help community members gain more income? Percentage Fishing 43.1% Ecotourism 8.3% Cocoa 40.9% Coconut 3.9% Peach Palm 0.6% Naidí 30.4% Achiote 8.8% Other 33.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% 90 Respondents identified fishing, cocoa crops and naidí as the most common productive activities implemented in their communities in the last three years. However, given the limitations of the survey, it is not possible to recognize if those activities were implemented by BIOREDD+ or by other external entities. Survey Questions: • T1: Do you think that nature protection is important for your territory? • T3 A: Do you think nature protection projects can help your community have a better use of their territory? • T3 B: Do you think nature protection projects improve the safety of your territory? • T3 C: Do you think nature protection projects help create more jobs? % of people who consider nature protection as important for their community 99.4% % of people who consider that nature protection projects help their community have a better use of their territory 100.0% % of people who consider that nature protection projects improve the safety of their territory 98.3% % of people who consider that nature protection projects help create more jobs 99.5% 97.5% 98.0% 98.5% 99.0% 99.5% 100.0% 100.5% % of people who consider nature protection as important for their territory % of people who consider that nature protection projects help their community have a better use of their territory % of people who consider that nature protection projects improve the safety of their territory % of people who consider that nature protection projects help create more jobs 91 These data support the conclusion that REDD+ projects are very much aligned with the objectives of the communities. Universally, survey participants consider nature protection as important for their territory and see nature protection projects as good opportunities to increase the safety of their territories and generate new jobs for the community. Survey question T2: Rank the following options in order of importance for your community (from 1 to 6, where 1 is most important) Rank the following options in order of importance for your community (from 1 to 6, where 1 is most important) Women average rank Men average rank Total average rank Education 2.16 1.90 2.04 Health 1.75 1.81 1.78 Aqueducts 3.90 4.32 4.09 Nature Protection 3.63 3.69 3.66 Jobs 4.16 3.80 3.99 Public Safety 5.40 5.41 5.40 Although the above table gives the average ranks for each option, the graph illustrates the inverse of those values to have a better visual effect of what the answers show. This way, although the best ranks are those with the lowest values, in the graph the higher columns represent the best ranks. It is interesting to see that priorities do not significantly differ between women and men 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 Education Health Acueducts Nature Protection Jobs Public Safety 1/Wome's average rank 1/Men's average rank 1/Total average rank 92 for any of the options. Following the answers from survey question T1 (shown in the first table and graph from this section) it is clear that nature conservation is a priority for most people in all communities. However, when compared to other needs, health and education rank significantly higher for survey participants than nature protection. This indicates that these communities are still lacking the most basic needs and so any project developed with these communities to protect nature should also focus on addressing these basic needs. 93 ANNEX H: CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS 94 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523