This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by Social Impact’s Liberia Strategic Analysis. Performance Evaluation of People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (“PROSPER”) JULY 27, 2016 Cover photos by Alexandra Dryer. PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF PEOPLE, RULES, AND ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING THE PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEM RESOURCES (PROSPER) JULY 27, 2016 CONTRACT NUMBER AID-669-C-12-00004 ACTIVITY DATES: MAY 2012 – MAY 2017 FUNDING: $21.5 MILLION IMPLEMENTING PARTNER: TETRATECH ARD DISCLAIMER: THE AUTHORS’ VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THIS PUBLICATION DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. CONTENTS Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................5 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................7 Evaluation Purpose & Evaluation Questions.....................................................................................12 Project Background..............................................................................................................................14 Evaluation Methods & Limitations .....................................................................................................18 Findings & Conclusions........................................................................................................................20 I. Benefits and Beneficiaries................................................................................................................ 20 Question 1: What is the extent of monetary and non-monetary benefits that have accrued under PROSPER? Who has benefited and who has not?.................................... 20 Question 2: Has the project positively contributed to forest biodiversity?................... 22 II. Community Forest Management................................................................................................23 Question 3: Do pilot communities/community members supported through PROSPER feel as though the government (at the local and national level) will support them on how they chose to manage their natural resources in the forest areas under their purview?.......................................................................................................................................... 23 Question 4: Do the communities/community members understand sustainable management concepts and how the concepts would apply in their forest management activities?......................................................................................................................................... 24 Question 4a: What PROSPER methods have been most successful in helping community members understand these concepts? ............................................................... 26 Question 5: Is the PROSPER approach to Community Forestry working? Why or why not? What would make the approach work better?............................................................. 27 III. Engagement of Women And Youth.............................................................................................. 33 Question 6a: To what extent have women and youth participated in the community forestry project implementation, especially in relation to livelihood options?............... 33 Question 6b-c: Have women and youth been empowered as a result of their participation with PROSPER? If so, what is the nature of the empowerment they have experienced? .................................................................................................................................. 35 V. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability................................................................ 36 Question 7: To what extent has PROSPER worked with and strengthened local partners in the Liberian government, private sector, and civil society? ........................... 36 Question 8: What are the results in terms of strengthening local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability, especially within the GoL institutions? What additional actions are necessary to assure momentum for community forestry in Liberia as a result? .............................................................................. 36 Recommendations................................................................................................................................40 Recommendations for PROSPER........................................................................................................... 40 Recommendations for USAID and other Donors............................................................................. 41 Annexes.................................................................................................................................................42 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work .............................................................................................. 43 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations.................................................................................... 52 Annex III: PROSPER Date Collection Schedule.................................................................................. 58 Annex IV: List of Documents Reviewed .............................................................................................. 61 Annex V: List of Key Informant Interviews Conducted ................................................................... 63 Annex VI: List of Focus Group Discussions Conducted .................................................................. 66 Annex VII: List of Data Collection Locations...................................................................................... 67 Annex VIII: Data Collection Instruments............................................................................................. 69 Annex IX: Table I1: Project Benefits Reported In Key Informant Interviews And Focus Group Discussions ................................................................................................................................... 87 Annex X: Table III: Methods Used to Support Community Understanding of Sustainable Forest Management................................................................................................................................... 88 Annex XI: Table IV: Aspects of Empowerment Process Reported ............................................... 89 Annex XII: Table VI: PROSPER Partners............................................................................................ 91 Annex XIII: Disclosure of any Conflicts of Interest and Code of Ethics Statements of Evaluation Team Members..................................................................................................................93 ACRONYMS ACDI/VOCA Agricultural Cooperative Development International/Volunteers in Overseas Cooperative Assistance AML Arcelor Mittal Limited/Liberia CA Community Association CAT Community Awareness Team CDCS County Development and Cooperation Strategy CFMB Community Forestry Management Board CFOC Community Forest Organizing Committee CFWG Community Forestry Working Group CJPS Center for Justice and Peace Studies COP Chief of Party DCOP Deputy Chief of Party EG Economic Growth EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETOA Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment EU European Union FDA Forestry Development Authority FGD Focus Group Discussion FIFES Forest Incomes for Environmental Sustainability FTI Forestry Training Institute GoL Government of Liberia KII Key Informant Interview LFSP Liberia Forestry Support Program LRCFP Land Rights and Community Forestry Program LSA Liberia Strategic Analysis MEP Monitoring and Evaluation Plan MLME Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoE Ministry of Education MIA Ministry of Internal Affairs MLME Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy NAEAL National Adult Education Association of Liberia NTFP Non-Timber Forest Product PES Payment for Environmental Services PIDS Performance Indicator Database System PMP Performance Management Plan PROSPER People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation SI Social Impact USAID United States Agency for International Development VPA-SU Voluntary Partnership Agreement-Support Unit 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT BACKGROUND In May 2012, USAID initiated a five-year activity (2012–2017) entitled People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER). The overall goal of the activity is to introduce, operationalize, and refine appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development in targeted areas of the country. The three primary objectives and program components are: 1. Expand educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance (Component 1); 2. Improve community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in target areas (Component 2); and 3. Enhance community-based livelihoods derived from sustainable forest-based and agriculture-based enterprises in target areas (Component 3). EVALUATION PURPOSE AND EVALUATION QUESTIONS This performance evaluation provides an independent and in-depth examination of the progress and achievements of the PROSPER activity. The evaluation was framed by eight evaluation questions, which the evaluation team used to identify the activity’s specific achievements, performance issues, and constraints. The main questions are listed below: I. Benefits and Beneficiaries  What is the extent of monetary and non-monetary benefits that have accrued under PROSPER? II. Forest Management  Do the communities/community members understand sustainable management concepts and how the concepts would apply in their forest management activities?  Is the PROSPER approach to Community Forestry management working? III. Engagement of Women and Youth  Have women and youth been empowered as a result of their participation with PROSPER? IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability  What are the results in terms of strengthening local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability, especially within Government of Liberia institutions? EVALUATION DESIGN, METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The Liberia Strategic Analysis (LSA) evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach to its data collection, reviewing available quantitative data and collecting qualitative data relevant to the evaluation questions posed. The approach included:  Review of documents and data, including existing quantitative data, PROSPER deliverables and reports, and background reports. 8  Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) and small group interviews of 77 individuals (18 women and 59 men) at national, local, and pilot locations, including national and local GoL officials, traditional and community leaders, PROSPER and PROSPER partner staff, community forest governance body members, general community members, private sector representatives, current and former USAID Mission and PROSPER staff, and other donors.  Forty-one focus group discussions (FGDs) that included participants from PROSPER enterprise groups, traditional leaders, along with general community members. About 288 individuals participated in FGDs (130 women and 158 men).  Direct observation at pilot locations. The LSA evaluation team used a set of data collection instruments to guide the KIIs, FDGs, and Direct Observation. In total, the evaluation team collected data from 365 individuals (148 women and 217 men). Site selection and sampling. The LSA evaluation team conducted data collection in Monrovia and at all 11 project locations in Grand Bassa and Nimba counties. At each of the 11 project locations, the team interviewed individuals from three or four towns or villages. In addition, the team interviewed PROSPER staff, partners, and local government officials at central locations in each county. The LSA team used purposeful and random selection methods for data collection locations, key informants, and focus group categories and participants. Data analysis. The LSA team used the following methods and tools to assist in its analysis of the data: 1) individual assignments of LSA team members for a set of evaluation questions; 2) triangulation of available quantitative data with qualitative data, of qualitative data gathered using different methods, and data gathered at different locations; 3) systematic notetaking practices that included contemporaneous notetaking, regular review and recording of notes by note takers and interviewers, and team review of recorded notes; and 4) use of a Preliminary Findings Matrix to record preliminary findings and conclusions and encourage information sharing, testing of hypotheses, and challenging findings and conclusions by team members. Limitations on access to data and data quality. The LSA team noted four circumstances that it recognized could impact the quality of the data collected. TABLE I: POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POTENTIAL LIMITATION MITIGATION MEASURES TAKEN Confidentiality of responses Use of introductory explanation regarding how information would be used and protocol followed for information attributed to specific individuals in the report Limited data collection in remote locations Recognition of limited data from remote locations in findings and conclusions Use of PROSPER vehicle and driver for two days Limited use; no impact on selection of data collection sites; no discussion of findings or conclusions in presence of driver Community response bias on restricted forest activities Consultation with key informants and review of additional background documents prepared by third parties; recognition of potential for biased responses in findings and conclusions 9 KEY FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS Benefits and Beneficiaries  Respondents identified eight separate benefits from PROSPER. Both male and female respondents in every pilot community reported experiencing the top three benefits identified: 1) boundary dispute resolution; 2) knowledge of the forest environment, threats to the forest, and the principle of sustainable use; and 3) technical knowledge of agricultural practices consistent with biodiversity protection. Respondents believed they will continue to experience these benefits into the future, even without continued donor support.  Individuals in community forest governance positions and members of Authorized Forest Communities reported benefiting from knowledge of the forest community processes and systems and the value of community control of its forests. FIFES intends to ground and extend the benefits of this knowledge by continuing to provide the governance bodies with the technical advice necessary for them to function and with activities like the creation of Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues (MSDs) that encourage communication and enterprise development by community forest governance body members, value chain actors, and supporting organizations.  In addition to receipt of technical information, members of many enterprise groups reported benefits of some income and potential for increased future income from the activities, linkages with local organizations for on-going technical support, and potential formalization of the group as a legally-recognized enterprise. Continued development of forest-based and agricultural enterprises under FIFES, the World Bank/Government of Norway LFSP, and other projects will help to ensure that forest-dependent communities do not suffer adverse livelihood impacts from community forestry.  PROSPER has developed a manual for monitoring forest biodiversity and supported biodiversity monitoring training; building on that foundation, in its initial years, FIFES will create a plan for and undertake systematic biomonitoring of community forests. Forest Management  While most community members expect FDA to fulfill its responsibilities under the law and generally express a high level of trust in their local county-level authorities, they recognize that FDA and local authorities do not currently have the financial or human resources, or the technical expertise, to support the authorization process and community forestry governance bodies.  PROSPER’s model for community outreach has effectively raised awareness of community ownership of forests, the value of forest resources, damaging forest practices, and the principle of sustainable use across all stakeholder groups. The model, which had been the least developed in the area of commercial aspects of community forestry, should provide both a solid foundation and opportunity for FIFES’ construction of its community outreach on forest-based economic opportunities.  PROSPER’s model for forest community authorization is an inclusive, participatory process that is building local experience with community forest governance. PROSPER’s model for the establishment of governance bodies has created community-based bodies that are exercising their rights and meeting their responsibilities under the CRL – both during the authorization process and as Authorized Forest Communities. The model contemplates financial support of the bodies through revenue sources, which FIFES plans to help develop as part of its review, extension, and refinement of the PROSPER models.  PROSPER has piloted a number of forest community enterprise activities but has not yet created a model that replaces the income, food, and products communities obtained from unsustainable forest practices in pilot locations. The current work plans and activities of both PROSPER and FIFES are capturing the value of PROSPER’s experience with its livelihoods component by coordinating studies into forest-based enterprises using NTFPs in a manner consistent with forest biodiversity, assessing 10 existing value chains and markets, revisiting various PES options in some locations, and providing continued support for tree crops and agriculture-based enterprises. Engagement of Women and Youth  Women have participated in all aspects of the implementation of the PROSPER activity, community forest governance positions, PROSPER activity positions, and enterprise groups. Rates of participation vary by position, reflecting ongoing challenges to recruit and retain women in the more selective positions with potentially higher status and benefits and for opportunities that require and significant time commitments and literacy. Activities planned under FIFES will address some of these barriers with support for fundamental literacy and strengthening existing social networks.  PROSPER has created opportunities for women and youth in community governance and outreach positions to extend their use of new assets, such as knowledge and confidence, to additional and multiple realms, such as civic action (political realm), enterprise development (economic realm), and within their households (social realm). Those who are not in governance and outreach positions have gained some assets (primarily knowledge of forest rights and environment) but are less likely to take advantage of opportunities.  Youth appear to be participating in community forest-related activities, but the extent to the participation is unknown. Youth may be more vulnerable than other groups to restrictions on livelihood activities in community forests and be less likely than other groups to access land for alternate livelihoods easily. FIFES’ plan to identify and prioritize opportunities for youth in forest enterprise value chains is well-placed. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability  Key informants from the GoL, USAID, PROSPER staff, civil society, and the private sector believe that the future of community forestry in Liberia will be supported by: 1) a substantial, comprehensive, and a long-term commitment to strengthening FDA’s capacity; 2) some level of continued financial and technical support for the institutions implementing community forestry, until the time planned sources of revenue are functional and local technical capacity develops further; and 3) development or strengthening of systems for oversight and accountability of community forestry governance bodies. FIFES’ engagement with and support for PROSPER’s pilot communities and seven others will provide a broad base of experience to inform the refinement and extension of PROSPER’s models for forest community authorization, establishment of governance bodies, and sustainable forest management practices.  Local government authorities are generally trusted by communities to support and enforce of their forest management plans. Most county officials express high degrees of interest in and responsibility for community forestry, and some suggest taking the PROSPER-supported county forestry forums to another level by creating a county-level multi-agency sectoral body that would help integrate community forestry management and attendant livelihoods management of other land, natural resources, and local development issues.  PROSPER’s partners report gaining significant capacity from their engagement with the activity, and ownership is high among partners with whom PROSPER collaborated in the development of materials and approaches. Some partners are eager for increased opportunities to take leadership roles in the community activities, further build their capacity and ownership of processes and outcomes. 11 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROSPER The recommendations do not include activities in FIFES’ FY 2016 Work Plan, including: 1) support for PROSPER’s 11 pilot communities; and 2) assessment and development of forest-based enterprises focused on NTFPs and other selected forest and agricultural value chains. 1. Capture lessons learned and practical tips from experience with boundary dispute resolution. The high value communities place on boundary dispute resolution is a reminder of the negative impact of even relatively small disputes or boundary ambiguities on daily lives and livelihoods. PROSPER could make a valuable addition to the activity’s tools (and to the work of future activities such as FIFES and donors) through the production and dissemination of a document presenting practical tips for boundary dispute resolution. 2. Create brief coversheets or content guides for PROSPER-created documents, manuals, and templates to help strengthen user comprehension and usability. Activities such as FIFES, which will be reviewing manuals and handbooks as part of its Component Three, may wish to explore how some of PROSPER’s highly successful outreach methods might be employed to increase accessibility of the information in various PROSPER documents and manuals. In the meantime, as PROSPER finalizes its manuals, templates, and other documents, it might consider drafting and attaching very brief coversheets or content guides to the front to help improve user comprehension and enhance usability. 3. Support increased opportunities for local partner staff, including women. As an additional method of building capacity and ownership among partner staff, in the last year of its activities, PROSPER’s Monrovia-based staff might look for opportunities to step back and allow partners, including their female staff members, to lead events under their guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID AND OTHER DONORS 4. Provide coordinated, long-term support for comprehensive organizational development and capacity building for FDA, driven by FDA. The pressure on FDA to manage a growing number of community forest applications, to provide technical support for the development of CFMAs and CFMPs, and to evaluate potential commercial uses of community forests is substantial. Key informants identified long-term, coordinated support for comprehensive organizational development and capacity building for FDA, which is driven by FDA, as the single most important action needed to help ensure the future of community forestry in Liberia. 5. Support research and information gathering regarding development of a decentralized multi-agency body to manage land and natural resources, including support for community forestry, at the county level. The potential role and benefits of multi-agency, decentralized, county￾level body—such as helping coordinate efforts on matters of land access, preventing and addressing land and natural resources-based conflict, identifying and supporting harmonization of competing mandates, and coordinating donor engagement—appear to justify an investment in further research into the possibility. 6. Support the development of outreach programs that build community awareness of citizen rights and responsibilities in community forest governance systems. USAID and other donors could extend PROSPER’s highly successful awareness building methods to increase community awareness of how to participate in effectively in their democratic community forest governance systems. The program could help community members, especially women, identify opportunities to extend the knowledge and experience gained from PROSPER to other realms, such as civic life. 12 EVALUATION PURPOSE & EVALUATION QUESTIONS EVALUATION PURPOSE This performance evaluation provides an independent and in-depth examination of the overall progress and achievements of the People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER) activity in Liberia. Eight evaluation questions, which USAID/Liberia developed and revised, framed and guided the evaluation. Within that framework, the evaluation was designed to identify results and lessons learned from implementation and to provide succinct, tailored, realistic, and actionable recommendations to help determine which component(s) of PROSPER to scale up, modify, or re-design in other similar USAID activities. Specifically, the results of the evaluation may help inform a new five-year USAID activity, Forest Incomes for Environmental Sustainability (FIFES), which focuses on enterprise development for forest communities. 1 The Scope of Work for the evaluation is appended as Annex I. The results of the evaluation may also help: inform other United States Government (USG) investments in the natural resource sector; support efforts to standardize the model for community forestry registration and community based natural resource management; identify and strengthen institutional transition and sustainability measures; and document lessons learned for government institutions and NGO projects supporting community forestry in Liberia. The key intended users of the evaluation are USAID/Liberia, USAID/E3/FAB, USAID/AFR, US Forest Service, Tetra Tech ARD, and the Forestry Development Authority (FDA) of Liberia. Other key stakeholders include communities requesting Forest Community authorization, Ministry of Education (MOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Forestry Training Institute (FTI), ACDI/VOCA, and other partners in the private sector and civil society. The evaluation is also occurring as the GoL, World Bank, and stakeholders are working on the plans for implementation of the $37.5 million Liberia Forest Sector Project (LFSP), which is funded by the Government of Norway. The REDD+ project includes support for community forestry; project design documents reference PROSPER’s activities, and evaluation results may help inform project activities. 2 EVALUATION QUESTIONS Part 3 of the SOW for the evaluation (Annex 1) set out the following evaluation questions, organized into the four groups below, with the relative value noted in parentheses: What is the extent of monetary and non-monetary benefits that have accrued from Community Forestry under PROSPER versus other land and resource uses? Who has benefited and who has not? Was poverty reduced as a result of project interventions? Has the project positively impacted forest biodiversity? (30%) 1 USAID/ACDI-VOCA Cooperative Agreement (No. 6, 2015). AID-669-A-16-0002, 15 - 35; USAID-Liberia. 2016. Forest Incomes for Environmental Sustainability (FIFES): Annual Work Plan, FY 2016, revised June 13, 2016 (approved June 17, 2016), 4. 2 World Bank. 2016. IDA PAD 1492. Proposed Grant of US$ 37.5 Million from the Liberia Forest Landscape Single Donor Trust Funds to the Republic of Liberia for Liberia Forest Sector Project; LSA evaluation team interview with N. Hooda, Monrovia, May 22, 2016. 13 Do pilot communities/community members supported through PROSPER feel as though the government (at the local and national level) will support them on how they choose to manage their natural resources in the forest areas under their purview? Do they understand sustainable management concepts and how this would apply in their forest management activities? Do they feel this is a more sustainable method of management than previous mechanisms? (20%) To what extent have women and youth been involved in the community forestry project implementation, especially in relation to livelihood options? (20%) To what extent has PROSPER worked with and strengthened local partners in the Liberian government, private sector, and civil society? What are the results in terms of strengthening local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability especially within Government of Liberia institutions? What additional actions are necessary to assure momentum for community forestry in Liberia as a result? (30%) During initial meetings with LSA and the LSA evaluation team, USAID/Liberia refined these questions into eight questions with some subparts. The questions fall into four categories, as identified below: I. Benefits and Beneficiaries (30%) 1. What is the extent of monetary and non-monetary benefits that have accrued under PROSPER? Who has benefited and who has not? 2. Has the project positively contributed to forest biodiversity? II. Forest Management (20%) 3. Do pilot communities/community members supported through PROSPER feel as though the government (at the local and national level) will support them on how they choose to manage their natural resources in the forest areas under their purview? 4. Do the communities/community members understand sustainable management concepts and how the concepts would apply in their forest management activities? What PROSPER methods have been most successful in helping community members understand these concepts? 5. Is the PROSPER approach to Community Forestry management working? Why or why not? What would make the approach work better? III. Engagement of Women and Youth (20%) 6. To what extent have women and youth participated in the community forestry project implementation, especially in relation to livelihood options? Have women and youth been empowered as a result of their participation with PROSPER? If so, what is the nature of the empowerment they have experienced? IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability (30%) 7. To what extent has PROSPER worked with and strengthened local partners in the Liberian government, private sector, and civil society? 8. What are the results in terms of strengthening local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability, especially within Government of Liberia institutions? What additional actions are necessary to assure momentum for community forestry in Liberia as a result? 14 PROJECT BACKGROUND Liberia contains about 4.3 million hectares of lowland tropical forest that comprises 43 percent of the remaining Upper Guinean forests of West Africa and is a recognized global hotspot for biodiversity. Liberia’s forests provide ecosystem services that maintain soil fertility, provide water for consumption and energy, and habitat for plants and animals.3 In addition, most of the country’s rural population (68 percent of whom live below the national poverty line), depends on these forest resources for their livelihoods. 4 The resources are threatened by deforestation and degradation from logging, shifting cultivation, bush meat hunting, and charcoal production.5 Historically, the country emphasized large scale commercial exploitation of the forests, which benefited a small elite group of Liberians, including the administration of Charles Taylor. Beginning with the ban imposed on importation of Liberian timber by the United Nations Security Council in 2003, collaborative efforts of the transitional government, Liberian CSOs, and the international community (collectively creating the Liberia Forest Initiative) began promoting reforms. The Liberia Forest Initiative (LFI) introduced an approach to forest management that strives to balance values of Conservation, Community, and Commercial, known as the “3Cs.”6 At that time, the Community component of the 3Cs, which supports increased community ownership and involvement in forest management, was a new concept in Liberia. The USG provided early, substantial, and ongoing support for community forestry, including support for and engagement in the LFI. 7 With active engagement of the US Forest Service, USAID’s Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (2007–2011) (LRCFP) and the Liberia Forestry Support Program (2011–2012) (LFSP) helped the GoL develop a legal framework for community forestry and pilot the Forest Community Authorization process8 and environmentally-sustainable community-based livelihood activities. 9 In May 2012, USAID initiated the five-year activity (2012–2017) entitled People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER). This activity, which is implemented by Tetra Tech ARD, built on previous USG investments in the forestry and agricultural sectors, particularly LRCFP and LFSP. PROSPER was designed to improve human, legal, regulatory, and institutional capacities in environmental awareness and wise stewardship of natural resources, with the aim of extending community-based forest management as well as community-based forestry and agricultural enterprise development throughout Liberia.10 3 World Bank. 2011. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. R-PP Country Submission for Liberia. Foreign Carbon Partnership Facility, 53-55. 4 IFAD. Rural Poverty Portal. http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/statistics/tags/liberia (accessed July 23, 2016) 5 World Bank. 2014. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Liberia Readiness Assessment: Mid-Term Report, 8. 6 World Bank, R-PP, 53-55. 7 CIFOR. 2005. “Toward a Shared Vision and Action Frame for Community Forestry in Liberia,” proceedings of the First International Workshop on CF in Liberia, Monrovia 12-15 December 2015, 20. 8 Reports and documents variously refer to the process as “community forest certification,” “forest community recognition,” and “community forest registration.” For simplicity, this report uses the language of the CRL and its regulations: “forest community authorization.” 9 USAID. 2011. Solicitation, Offer, and Award: PROSPER. AID-669-C-12-00004, 8 – 9. 10 Ibid. 15 The overall goal of PROSPER is to introduce, operationalize, and refine appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development in targeted areas of the country. The three primary objectives are: 1) Expand educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance; 2) Improve community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in target areas; and 3) Enhance community￾based livelihoods derived from sustainable forest-based and agriculture-based enterprises in target areas.11 As indicated in the Logical Framework below, PROSPER has three components supporting these three objectives. The goal of Component One is to increase educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, natural resource management (NRM), biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance. Under this component, PROSPER has worked with partners in the GoL, civil society, and private sector to build capacity within those entities and awareness in pilot forest communities on topics of the forest environment, management of forest resources, and threats to biodiversity. 12 PROSPER initially focused its community-level outreach and awareness building in the 11 pilot communities in Nimba and Grand Bassa. In February 2016, USAID approved a plan for extended outreach. In the second quarter of FY16, PROSPER began outreach activities in three additional countries selected by FDA based on the number of applications from forest communities: Gbarpolu, Grand Gedeh, and Sinoe.13 The goal of Component Two is to develop viable models of community-based forest management that lead to more sustainable forest management practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in target areas. Activities under this components seek to build the institutional and human capacity of communities, FDA, and CSOs to implement sustainable forest management while developing an enabling legal framework that is informed by stakeholder experience.14 PROSPER has worked with FDA in eight locations to pilot the nine-step process by which communities apply for and obtain status as Authorized Forest Communities empowered to manage their community forests under Liberia’s 2009 Community Rights Law (CRL). The activity has also supported the establishment of community forest management procedures and mechanisms in three pilot forest communities established under LRCFP in northern Nimba County. 15 As part of the nine-step process, PROSPER helps FDA and communities create the community forest governance bodies responsible for community forest management under the CRL, and the governing agreements: the Community Forest Management Agreement (CFMA) and Community Forest Management Plan (CFMP). 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid; World Bank. 2011. Forest Carbon Partnership facility. R-PP Country Submission for Liberia. Foreign Carbon Partnership Facility, 53-55. 12 IFAD. Rural Poverty Portal. http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/country/statistics/tags/liberia (accessed July 23, 2016) 12 World Bank. 2014. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility. Liberia Readiness Assessment: Mid-Term Report, 8. 12 World Bank, R-PP, 53-55. 12 CIFOR. 2005. “Toward a Shared Vision and Action Frame for Community Forestry in Liberia,” proceedings of the First International Workshop on CF in Liberia, Monrovia 12-15 December 2015, 20. 12 USAID. 2011. Solicitation, Offer, and Award: PROSPER. AID-669-C-12-00004, 8 – 9. 12 Ibid. 12 Ibid, 1 -18; USAID-Liberia. 2015. PROSPER FY 15 Annual Report, 7. 13 Ibid; USAID-Liberia. 2015. PROSPER FY16 Work Plan, vii-viii. 14 Ibid, 19 -26; PROSPER FY15 Annual Report, 7. 15 The eight pilot locations are: Barconnie (Grand Bassa), Kpogblean (Grand Bassa), Gblor (Nimba), Gbeah/Gblor (Nimba), Kparblee (Nimba), Boe Quilla (Nimba), Sehzuplay (Nimba), and Sehyi (Nimba). The three pilot forest communities established under LRCFP in Nimba are: Gba, Zor, and Blei. 16 Component Three focuses on identifying and scaling up sustainable community-based livelihoods and forest-based enterprises in order to support sustainable forest management activities while reducing threats to biodiversity.16 Activities under this component continued initiatives piloted under LRCFP and LFSP, including the development and strengthening of value chains for non-timber forest products (NTFP) through capacity building of collectors’ groups, implementing farmer field schools (FFS) to introduce and expand the use of agricultural best practices and increase farm productivity, and the introduction of processing equipment to add value and decrease labor demands.17 Activities under this component have been adjusted over the term in response to results; in FY16, Component Three activities focus on continued development of oil palm producer groups, cocoa rehabilitation, and crop diversification to increase productivity through more efficient processing and marketing of products. In addition, PROSPER plans to continue to focus on developing bee keeping activities as an alternative income source for bush meat hunters.18 The 11 pilot communities are potential models for community based natural resource management in Liberia. The completion of authorization process in eight communities has faced challenges. In the wake of the 2013 exposure of inappropriate GoL practices regarding the issuance of Private Use Permits (PUPs), FDA placed a moratorium on consideration of applications for authorized forest community status. The Ebola outbreak significantly slowed government operations, and resolution of longstanding boundary disputes required significant time. In addition, community demand for authorization has significantly increased and FDA capacity is limited. For all these reasons, at the time of the evaluation, the eight communities had not yet completed the process of obtaining Authorized Forest Community status. The new USAID activity, FIFES, is coordinating with PROSPER and will take up the monitoring and support all 11 pilot communities as PROSPER winds down. 19 Figure 1: Logical Framework 16 PROSPER FY16 Work Plan, 21. 17 USAID-Liberia. 2013. PROSPER FY13 Annual Work Plan, 21. 18 PROSPER FY16 Work Plan, 25. 19 Ibid, 3. 17 Intermediate Result 1: Increased educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, NRM, biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance Intermediate Result 2: Improved community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in targeted communities Intermediate Result 3: Improved community-based livelihoods derived from sustainable forest and agricultural-based enterprises in targeted communities areas PROSPER Goal: Introduce, operationalize, and refine appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development in targeted areas USAID DO - Intermediate Result 2.2: Natural Resources Managed Sustainably IR 1.2: Improved capacity of CSOs to design and conduct outreach campaigns to increase public awareness of natural resource and environmental management issues IR 1.3: Improved capacity of FTI to develop and deliver a community forestry curriculum IR 1.5: Increased capacity of Community Forest Development Committees to develop effective environmentally sound development programs for the use of social agreement funds IR 2.1: Increased community capacity for forest management IR 1.1: Improved capacity of MOE to deliver formal and non-formal primary and adult education curricula on natural resource management and governance IR 1.4: Improved capacity of civil society and community organizations to contribute to NRM, land and environmental policy development IR 2.2: Strengthened capacity of FDA, EPA and CSOs to support sustainable forest management IR 2.3: Legal framework for community forestry and LTPR improved and simplified on the basis of recommendations from stakeholder consultations IR2.4: Increased use of forest ecosystems data to support the design of community outreach materials and programs IR 3.1: Increased number of sustainable agro/forest - based enterprises IR 3.3: Increased information available to stakeholders concerning best practices, to improve effectiveness of forestry and agricultural enterprises. IR 3.2: Reduced threats to biodiversity linked to livelihood activities IR 3.4: Improved data on greenhouse gas content (especially carbon) present in forest areas under different management regimes 18 EVALUATION METHODS & LIMITATIONS This section provides a summary of the evaluation methods and limitations. A complete description of the approach, methods, and scope of data collection, site selection and sampling, data analysis methods, and limitations on access to data and data quality encountered is set out in Annex II. Annexes III – VII attach lists of documents reviewed, individuals interviewed, focus groups held, and sites visited, with maps. Data collection instruments are attached in Annex VIII. The Liberia Strategic Analysis (LSA) evaluation team used a mixed-methods approach to its data collection, reviewing available quantitative data and collecting qualitative data relevant to the evaluation questions posed. LSA applied utilization-focused methodologies designed to ensure that the information generated by the evaluation is useful to USAID. The approach included several opportunities for discussion between USAID/Liberia and LSA, including an inbrief to review and clarify the evaluation questions, a status meeting, and presentation of preliminary findings and conclusions. The approach comprised:  Review of documents and data in the following categories: 1) PROSPER reports and deliverables, including PMP reports; 2) relevant laws, regulations, and related legal framework materials; 3) Community Forest Management Agreements (CFMAs) and Community Forest Management Plans (CFMPs); 4) documents provided by key informants and focus groups members, including memoranda of understanding (MOUs), enterprise group constitutions, and enterprise group record books; and 5) secondary documents such as background reports and research materials.  Semi-structured key informant interviews (KIIs) and small group interviews of 77 individuals (18 women and 59 men) at national, local, and pilot locations, including national and local GoL officials, traditional and community leaders, PROSPER and PROSPER partner staff, community forest governance body members, general community members, private sector representatives, current and former USAID Mission and PROSPER staff, and other donors.  Forty-one focus group discussions (FGDs) that included participants from PROSPER enterprise groups, traditional leaders, along with general community members. About 288 individuals participated in FGDs (130 women and 158 men).  Direct observation at pilot locations. The LSA evaluation team used a set of data collection instruments to guide the KIIs, FDGs, and Direct Observation (see Annex VIII). The team conducted most interviews and focus group discussions in pairs, led by a Liberian team member with the other team member serving as note taker. In total, the evaluation team collected data from 365 individuals (148 women and 217 men). Site selection and sampling. The LSA evaluation team conducted data collection in Monrovia and at all 11 project locations in Grand Bassa and Nimba counties. At each of the 11 project locations, the team interviewed individuals from three or four towns or villages (see list of locations and related maps in Annex VII). In addition, the team interviewed PROSPER staff, partners, and local government officials at central locations in each county. The team selected interview locations based on the following factors: 1) travel time (the team sought locations that were within three hours or less travel time from the base); 2) project activities (the team sought locations that allowed the team to interview individuals 19 involved in a range of activities in a community forest and county); 3) availability of key informants; and 4) availability of enterprise group members. The LSA team used purposeful and random selection methods for key informants and focus group categories and participants. Data analysis. The LSA team used the following methods and tools to assist in its analysis of the data:  Individual assignments of LSA team members for a set of evaluation questions;  Triangulation of available quantitative data with qualitative data, of qualitative data gathered using different methods, and data gathered at different locations;  Systematic notetaking practices that included contemporaneous notetaking, regular review and recording of notes by note takers and interviewers, and team review of recorded notes; and  Use of a Preliminary Findings Matrix to record preliminary findings and conclusions and encourage information sharing, testing of hypotheses, and challenging findings and conclusions by team members. Limitations on access to data and data quality. Overall, the LSA team had no difficulty accessing desired locations for data gathering and desired individuals and groups of individuals. However, the LSA team noted four circumstances that it recognized could impact the quality of the data collected. A summary of those limitations and mitigation measures is set out in the table below; a complete discussion is contained in Annex II. TABLE I: POTENTIAL LIMITATIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES POTENTIAL LIMITATION MITIGATION MEASURES TAKEN Confidentiality of responses: Respondents may be disinclined to provide candid answers because the team asked for their names Use of introductory explanation regarding how information would be used and protocol followed for information attributed to specific individuals in the report Limited data collection in remote locations: Because of time constraints, the team did not attempt to visit the most remote locations requiring more than three hours (one way) to reach Recognition of limited data from remote locations in findings and conclusions Use of PROSPER vehicle and driver for two days: Weather and road conditions required use of a truck with mud tires and a winch Limited use of vehicle; no impact on selection of data collection sites; no discussion of findings or conclusions in presence of driver Community response bias on restricted forest activities: Respondents may be disinclined to report noncompliance or limited compliance with forest restrictions Consultation with key informants and review of additional background documents prepared by third parties; recognition of potential for biased responses in findings and conclusions 20 FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS This section sets out the findings of the evaluation with relation to each of the evaluation questions. Conclusions based on the findings are reported for each category of question. I. BENEFITS AND BENEFICIARIES Question 1: What is the extent of monetary and non-monetary benefits that have accrued under PROSPER? Who has benefited and who has not? Key informants and participants in focus group discussions reported eight different kinds of benefits received from PROSPER. See Table I1 (Annex IX). Boundary dispute resolution. Community members, traditional leaders, and local government authorities most often cited forest boundary dispute resolution as the primary benefit received from the activity. Community forest boundaries in the pilot areas are largely based on historic clan boundaries, which are often the subject of land-standing disputes or competing claims. The prior USAID activity, LRCFP, included focused attention to building capacity within partners to resolve forest boundary conflicts,20 and PROSPER maintained that focus.21 Both male and female respondents identified boundary dispute resolution as a highly-valued benefit of PROSPER, and they referenced the benefit with equal frequency in Nimba and Grand Bassa counties. Boundary dispute resolution has continuing value to respondents; even where the disputes were settled some time ago, respondents stated that they were happy “to know where their forest is.” In many cases, the respondents combined the benefit of the dispute resolution with demarcation, which provides clarity to everyone regarding the position of the agreed boundary and a sense of security. Awareness of the forest ecosystem and sustainable use. Respondents identified awareness of the value of the forest environment almost as frequently as boundary dispute resolution. In FGDs, community members also reported benefiting from information about the ecological value of forest resources and the adverse impact of their unrestricted use of those resources. The knowledge of community members was quite high both in Authorized Forest Communities and those communities in the authorization process. Almost every respondent asked offered at least two or three examples of a forest resource, such as a source of fresh water, medicinal plants, and fish. All identified multiple threats to the forest (e.g., making new farms, hunting bush meat), and the need for sustainable use (“Eat Some, Leave Some”) to preserve resources for future generations. New technical knowledge supporting agricultural livelihoods. Almost all of the interviewees in enterprise groups also identified new technical knowledge as a project benefit. Frequent examples of useful information included row planting, pruning, and setting selling prices. Some members of crop diversification groups stated that information about soil preparation and plant placement increased the size of their plants and, for those groups that had harvested, their yields. 20 See, e.g., USAID/Liberia. 2008. LRCFP: Conflict Management Capacity Building for Community Forest. 21 See, e.g., discussion of forest boundary dispute resolution in annual reports and emphasis on conflict management in USAID/Liberia. 2016. PROSPER Community Forestry Facilitator’s Manual. 21 Other benefits. The numbers of individuals reporting other benefits drops significantly after these first three categories. As the information in Table II (Annex IX) indicates, the remaining benefits reported were identified by smaller groups of impacted people or those with particular knowledge. For example, members of CFMBs and PROSPER staff and its partners reported the benefits of Authorized Forest Community status, such as community control of the forest and future revenue. Community recognition of the benefits of community forest management appeared dependent on location. In key informant interviews conducted during the evaluation, PROSPER staff and partners estimated that, overall, between 55 – 70 percent of the pilot community members have a reasonable understanding of the control that authorized forest communities have or will have over their forests and some idea of how the community can exercise that control. The data collected by the evaluation team over the 11 pilot locations was consistent with this range. In Authorized Forest Communities with CFMBs implementing CFMAs and CFMPs, basic understanding of the concept of forest management among community members is higher. Community members in locations that are still in the authorization process had basic information on the forest environment but less knowledge on forest management; many stated that the process would allow them “to manage the forest,” but very few could give any details or examples of what that meant. Monetary benefits. Nine of the 14 enterprise groups the evaluation team questioned about income reported earning a range of income from their livelihood activities.22 For example, a women’s group in Zargouee (northern Nimba) reported selling their production from one harvest for $1,375 LRD ($12 USD23) while a palm oil group in Dueyelay reported making $15,500 LRD ($186 USD) net profit in the first nine months. Beekeepers in Korlay reported earning about $100 gross from the sale of their first two harvests. These reports FGDs are consistent with the project’s performance indicators reported for FY15 (301 individuals reported increased economic benefits)24 and Q1-Q2 of FY16, which report that 155 individuals reported increased economic benefits for the period.25 Gender inclusion. Women were as likely as men to report that they benefited from the resolution of boundary disputes and clarification of boundaries. They were also as likely as men to report that they appreciated learning about the value of the forest and the importance of preserving forest resources for future generations. With the exception of women serving on community forest governance bodies or volunteering as activity promoters, women were far less likely to have knowledge of the community forest governance bodies, the forest community authorization process, the objective of the process, or how the community will manage its forest once it is authorized. None of the women’s enterprise groups stated that they were seeking to become a registered enterprise or cooperative in the future. Sustainability of reported benefits. Most respondents expressed some level of optimism and confidence about the sustainability of the benefits they received or that they saw other groups receive. Key informants from the GoL, PROSPER, and community forest governance bodies noted that some benefits, such as Authorized Forest Community status and registration of livelihood enterprises, are 22 The evaluation team interviewed 18 enterprise groups, and recorded asking 14 groups if they earned income from their activities. Of those 14, nine groups reported income and five groups reported no income. 23 1 LRD : 0.012 USD (July 3, 2016) 24 PROSPER Annual Report FY15; USAID/Liberia. 2015. PROSPER Quarterly Report Q1 FY16; USAID/Liberia. 2016. PROSPER Quarterly Report Q2 FY 16. 25 Three of the 14 enterprise groups that had not yet earned income had either begun their income-producing activities (such as beekeeping and raising oil palm seedings) relatively recently and had not yet harvested a crop, or they used initial earnings to pay off a loan used to make the co-payment on equipment and supplies. In northern Nimba groups reported equipment problems: one group said that the costs of repairs of a palm oil press had consumed the group’s earnings and another reported that a cassava mill was not functioning. 22 recognized by the law for established time periods. Respondents in those categories and general community members reported that once boundary disputes were settled, they believed the boundaries would be respected. If a demarcation raised further disputes (which is always anticipated according to PROSPER’s staff and partners), PROSPER staff noted that the same processes for dispute resolution would be utilized. Many respondents stated that they will continue to benefit from the knowledge they received regarding the forest environment, even after PROSPER concludes. Several individuals likened the awareness building process to opening their eyes; once they see an issue they will not forget what they have seen. Perhaps the most unequivocal expressions of sustainability were made by members of enterprise groups that PROSPER linked with local organizations and companies providing technical support, products, and access to markets.26 The group members placed high value on the relationships that they formed with these organizations as a result of PROSPER’s extension agent approach, their proximity, and the quality of technical knowledge available. Non-beneficiaries. Two groups of individuals have benefited less than others or may have been negatively impacted by the project. First, most general community women interviewed had very limited understanding of the community forest governance system, the authorization process, and how a community actually manages a forest. Second, in some areas, individuals who had been farming or hunting extensively in the community forests have been prevented from continuing those activities. In some cases, individuals who are restricted from continuing their forest activities claim that they do not have access to alternate land for livelihoods and allege that community forestry has, therefore, negatively impacted them. Question 2: Has the project positively contributed to forest biodiversity? At this time, there are insufficient data to determine whether there has been any change in forest biodiversity over the term of the activity and whether any change can be attributed to PROSPER. At the initiation of the activity, PROSPER partner, Flora & Fauna International (FFI), collected data regarding the biodiversity of the forests in PROSPER’s pilot communities. 27 During interviews by the evaluation team, the then-COR and PROSPER staff stated that, in hindsight, they recognized that FFI had conducted a rapid assessment that was not sufficiently comprehensive to serve as a baseline. In addition, PROSPER’s activities did not include systematic collection of biodiversity data. Instead, its focus has been on creating appropriate guidelines, protocols, and training for biomonitoring.28 FIFES plans to review and build on PROSPER’s efforts as part its plan to establish long-term biodiversity monitoring in community forests. 29 26 This effort was part of PROSPER’s realignment of its Component Three activities, which included adoption of an extension agent model. PROSPER Annual Report FY14. The three organization most often mentioned by respondents were Kwakerdoe, Universal Outreach, and Wienco Liberia Ltd. 27 USAID/Liberia. 2012. PROSPER Biodiversity Assessment Report, Flora & Fauna International. 28 PROSPER Annual Report FY15. Under Component 2, FFI developed a Biodiversity Monitoring Handbook for Community Forest Managers and protocol. As part of its FY16 activities, FFI is field testing the handbook and conducting Train the Trainers sessions for FDA, partners, and community members of use of the handbook. PROSPER plans to incorporate learning from the field testing and trainings into the handbook and present it to FDA and environmental NGOS for endorsement. 29 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 11-12. In the interim, PROSPER has been collecting some data from some community forest areas that suggest that the forest biodiversity is increasing. In northern Nimba’s Blei community forest, for example, tracking sheets filled in by forest guards show an increase in numbers of animals seen. Likewise, during KIIs and FGDs, community members in various locations where hunting and farming have been restricted reported their perception that forest cover is increasing and there appear to be greater numbers of animals in the forest and the land surrounding the forest. However, as noted in Section 23 Conclusions regarding PROSPER’s Benefits and Beneficiaries  Respondents identified eight separate benefits from PROSPER. Both male and female respondents in every pilot community reported experiencing the top three benefits identified: 1) boundary dispute resolution; 2) knowledge of the forest environment, threats to the forest, and the principle of sustainable use; and 3) technical knowledge of agricultural practices consistent with biodiversity protection. Respondents believed they will continue to experience these benefits into the future, even without continued donor support.  Individuals in community forest governance positions and members of Authorized Forest Communities reported benefiting from knowledge of the forest community processes and systems and the value of community control of its forests. FIFES intends to ground and extend the benefits of this knowledge by continuing to provide the governance bodies with the technical advice necessary for them to function and with activities like the creation of Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues (MSDs) that encourage communication and enterprise development by community forest governance body members, value chain actors, and supporting organizations.  In addition to receipt of technical information, members of many enterprise groups reported benefits of some income and potential for increased future income from the activities, linkages with local organizations for on-going technical support, and potential formalization of the group as a legally-recognized enterprise. Continued development of forest-based and agricultural enterprises under FIFES, LFSP, and other projects will help to ensure that forest-dependent communities do not suffer adverse livelihood impacts from community forestry.  PROSPER has developed a manual for monitoring forest biodiversity and supported biodiversity monitoring training; building on that foundation, in its initial years, FIFES will create a plan for and undertake systematic biomonitoring of community forests. 30 II. COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT Question 3: Do pilot communities/community members supported through PROSPER feel as though the government (at the local and national level) will support them on how they chose to manage their natural resources in the forest areas under their purview? National GoL support. Most pilot community members interviewed identified FDA as the lead government body responsible for the forest and the community’s forest activities. 31 The role of other national agencies with regard to the forest, such as the EPA, was not well known. Members of community forest governance bodies reported the greatest awareness of FDA’s role and confidence in its future support for community forest activities. Most general community members interviewed also reported a belief that FDA will support their right to manage their forest. However, for many, the basis II, there are also reports of continued unauthorized forest activities in those same areas, which could be assumed to have a negative impact on forest biodiversity, or slow or prevent positive impacts. Note that in addition to FIFES’ planned monitoring, LFSP’s Component 3 supports the development of a national Forest Monitoring Information System. Based on the description in the PAD, the system will focus on collecting and reporting carbon emissions and removals. World Bank, PAD LFSP, 12. 30 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 11 -12. 31 Many community members were confused by the difference between FDA and PROSPER and could not distinguish the roles of the two entities in various project activities, including the resolution of conflicts. However, despite that confusion, most recognized that FDA had primary authority over the forest. 24 for their belief is not personal experience with FDA but their understanding that the CRL required FDA to recognize their rights and to assist them.32 Both groups of respondents stated that FDA did not appear to have the financial or human resources to handle all its community forestry functions. Respondents stated that PROSPER provides technical advice, coordinates the boundary dispute resolution process, pays for demarcation, and provides communications and documents. None of the respondents believed that FDA had the resources to provide that level of support. The World Bank’s LFSP plans for FDA to lead 70 forest communities through Step Three of the authorization process (the socio-economic survey) and complete authorization of about 40 forest communities. Pursuant to the project design, FDA will use local and national providers of technical services, including CSOs and private companies, for technical services and support.33 Local GoL support. Community members interviewed also identified local government officials as engaged with community forest issues, including the town chief (who holds both customary and statutory authority), clan and paramount chiefs, and district superintendents and commissioners. Community members referenced a variety of roles played by these local authorities, most prominently enforcement of restrictions regarding forest use through confronting violators and imposing fines. The evaluation team heard two reports of alleged self-dealing by local authorities and at least one in which local authorities failed to enforce forest restrictions. However, a majority of community members interviewed expressed a high level of trust in the local authorities; local authorities have been visible supporters of community forestry, and communities believe they will continue to guide and support the community’s management of its forest. Question 4: Do the communities/community members understand sustainable management concepts and how the concepts would apply in their forest management activities? Under the National Forestry Reform Law of 2006 (NFRL), the GoL committed to sustainable management of Liberia’s forests through an approach integrating principles of conservation, community, and commercial forestry.34 This section reports on community understanding of sustainable management with relation to these concepts. Conservation. The NFRL defines “conservation” as the sustainable management and protection of forest resources to achieve maximum environmental, social, economic, and scientific benefits for present and future generations (Sec. 3.1). An overwhelming majority of community members interviewed could identify valuable forest resources that required protection (e.g., water, trees and tree cover, medicinal plants). Almost every individual asked about the meaning of sustainable practices repeated the phrase, “Eat Some, Leave Some.” They easily provided examples of what that meant in practice (e.g., fishing with mosquito nets does not “leave some” because the small holes trap all the fish and other organisms). They also easily listed reasons why sustainable use matters for the present and 32 Observers suggested that some community members may not trust that FDA would perform absent the legal obligation based on continuing resentment of the agency based on forest management policies imposed during the war, FDA’s past practices of selling forest resources without notice to the community, or the approaches of some FDA officials to enforcing community compliance that community members experienced as intimidating and aggressive. 33 World Bank, PAD LFSP, 57. 34 The Preamble of the NFRL provides: “WHEREAS, we want our forests to provide our People with sustaining and sustainable benefits, based on the integration of community, conservation, and commercial forest management.” See also NFRL, Sec. 10.1 and CRL Sec. 2.1. 25 the future: clean water, more animals available for hunting and possible tourism, and protection from “storms” (i.e., climate change). In addition, during interviews and focus group discussions, community members were quick to identify hunting, shifting cultivation, and upland rice farming as major contributors to forest degradation. The majority of community members recognized that these practices must be reduced and confined to designated areas. They expressed an understanding that they need to learn about and develop alternative sources of food and income. The LSA evaluation team heard a consistent level of conservation awareness expressed among those community members in Authorized Forest Communities and those in communities that are in the authorization process; the knowledge level was likewise consistent between members of governance bodies and the general population. Even in communities where PROSPER has only recently begun awareness building, such as Zeolay in southern Nimba, the community members interviewed were able to identify some of the ecological benefits of the forest and the negative impact of certain forest activities, like farming. Community. The principle of “community” references the institutions and mechanisms that the CRL identifies as the means through which communities exercise their rights and fulfil their responsibilities to management their forests sustainably. In the Authorized Forest Communities in Northern Nimba, the statutory institutions of community forest management—the Community Forest Management Boards (CFMBs), Community Assemblies (CAs), and Executive Committees (ECs) of CAs--are functioning. Most community members in those pilot communities expressed at least basic awareness of the existence of these bodies and understood that they had a role in managing the forest on behalf of the community. Those members with direct experience with the bodies or PROSPER had greater understanding of the structure, function, and operations of the governance bodies. In communities that are in the authorization process, where PROSPER helped establish Community Forest Organizing Committees (CFOCs) to provide a locus for community forest governance until the creation of the CFMB, most general community members had little knowledge of the CFOCs and their role. Commercial. The CRL recognizes that commercial uses of forest resources may be consistent with a community’s obligation to manage forest resources in an environmentally sustainable manner. (Secs. 3.2, 6.1 – 6.7).35 A majority of community members questioned about commercial uses of their forest stated that commercial uses were permitted after they completed the authorization process. Most of those community members interviewed identified FDA as the entity responsible for approving any plan for commercial use of the forest, and some stated that FDA’s approval would be required before the community could consider such a plan. None of the general community members interviewed on the topic knew how FDA would make its decision whether to approve a plan for commercial use.36 35 “Commercial use” is defined as any use of forest products or forest resources, other than direct use for personal purposes or household infrastructure development. CRL, Sec. 1.3. 36 In the eight communities that are still in the authorization process, there were many general community members who appeared confused about what uses of forest resources were possible once they were an Authorized Forest Community; many were unsure whether they or a third party would be able to use any of the forest resources at all—whether in an environmentally sustainable fashion or not. 26 Question 4a: What PROSPER methods have been most successful in helping community members understand these concepts? The methods used by PROSPER were designed: 1) to build collective awareness of the 3C principles and reinforce and increase that knowledge throughout the project; 2) provide technical and logistical support to the community forest governance bodies; and 3) provide technical support for community decision-making on sustainable forest use. 37 Table III (Annex X) provides a visual summary of the methods, the community forestry principles they target, and the reported effectiveness. Community Meetings, Dramas, Small Gatherings, and Personal Conversations. In FGDs, most community members reported that they first learned about the forest environment, threats to the forest, and the principle of sustainable use of forest resources through community meetings, some of which included dramatic productions. Respondents described large community meetings in which PROSPER staff or partners presented the ideas and distributed awareness materials, and local leaders provided translation into the local language. In some cases, community members first learned about conservation principles in small groups, such as from a pastor addressing a women’s church group, or a Community Awareness Team (CAT) member talking with household members. Community members also reported hearing the information by word of mouth from those who attended a community meeting.38 Awareness Materials/Outreach Tools. Community members also mentioned learning about specific issues or facts about conservation principles through PROSPER’s awareness materials and outreach tools such as posters, flyers, and t-shirts. Some community members mentioned the usefulness of flyers and T￾shirts because they are portable; they carried them (or saw them carried) throughout the town and when people saw them they asked questions, initiating conversations about the topics. Others said that the tools gave examples of what they heard at meetings, such as a flyer saying the forest is for the community or a poster showing which animals are protected. Of these methods used, interviewees mentioned posters of forest resources most frequently,39 followed by drama productions. These methods transcend the language barrier--posters through visualization and drama through use of local dialects.40 Numerous key informants (e.g., town chiefs, elders, CFMB/CFOC members) and general community members participating in focus groups also mentioned that that the town crier was an effective way to get relatively short messages to the entire town. 37 USAID-Liberia. 2012. Lessons Learned: Making Community Forest Rights Real. PROSPER’s First Annual Public Awareness Campaign, 4-5; PROSPER SOA, Logical Framework. 38 In the southern Nimba town of Zeolay, at the time of the evaluation team’s visit, PROSPER had held two meetings. The evaluation team walked through the town and randomly selected community members to interview. All reported hearing messages regarding the forest environment and need for sustainable use practices, even though only one of the 11 people interviewed had actually attended a meeting. Respondents explained that they heard the information by word of mouth from friends, neighbors, and family members. Regardless of whether they attended a large or small meeting, or had a personal conversation, as noted in the discussion of Question 4, community members reported that they understood the information regarding the value of the forest resources, and they understood how human actions (including their own) can harm the forest environment. 39 Interviewees mentioned the poster depicting a “healthy forest” compared to a “degraded forest” most frequently in describing what was most effective in awakening their understand the importance of preserving the forest. 40 PROSPER is also using radio programs and messages have been used to spread awareness and reinforce messages.40 In pilot communities visited that had radio reception, community members reported that they often had the radio on, but they tended not to listen to it actively. Several male community members reported hearing messages from FDA and PROSPER about the community forest, but they suggested that the messages told them what they knew as opposed to providing new information. A number of women stated that while they often had the radio on, they were too busy to listen to it, or, as in Baye (Grand Bassa), the programs were not broadcast in their language or dialect and they did not understand the information. 27 Communication through Governance Bodies. The PROSPER approach includes using members of governance bodies—traditional leaders, FDA officials, local GoL authorities, CA/CFMB/CFOC members—to disseminate information about sustainable forest management to communities. During KIIs, members of these bodies reported high levels of understanding of the concepts. Most reported that they delivered most messages to community members regarding the concepts in the context of PROSPER events or supported forums, followed by more general community meetings. Technical Workshops. Several key informants had attended workshops, which they described as devoted to in-depth exploration of a topic, such as beekeeping as an alternative to hunting or principles of community forest management. The chairmen from the beekeeping group in the southern Nimba town of Doeyele, for example, attended a three-day seminar and taught other members in the beekeeping groups, along with general community members and potential groups members, the concepts when he returned. Documents, Handbooks, and Manuals. Over the last four years, PROSPER has produced a substantial number of documents, manuals, and handbooks to support the principle of community forestry. PROSPER and partner staff members reported that tools setting out information such as the nine-step process were quite useful in their communications with communities; an FDA official echoed that opinion: he believed that FDA could lead the authorization process with the written description PROSPER prepared. Most key informants and focus group members the team questioned about various agreements, such as MOUs and CFMAs, disclosed a lack of familiarity with the documents. Some literate members of livelihood/enterprise groups described relatively short documents, such as an MOU or enterprise group constitution, as “very big” and “complicated,” and could not identify the terms in the document. Some members of CFMBs in northern Nimba revealed that they had not read the CFMA. Curricula. The effectiveness the Environmental Education curriculum for primary school students, which was developed with PROSPER’s support in collaboration with MoE, is not yet known because the program has not yet been implemented. Likewise, it is too early to evaluate the impact of FTI’s new community forestry course of study, which was developed with PROSPER’s support. Question 5: Is the PROSPER approach to Community Forestry working? Why or why not? What would make the approach work better? PROSPER’s approach to community forestry is to develop and operationalize models to support the ability of communities to exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to manage their forests in an environmentally sustainable manner.41 This section looks at key elements of the approach and considers the extent to which they are succeeding in creating effective models to support community forest management. Introduce and Expand Knowledge of Forest Environment and Sustainable Use USAID’s Social and Behavioral Change Communication (SBCC) approach recognizes that knowledge is essential to behavioral change.42 PROSPER adopted the SBCC approach in the design and implementation of its awareness building and educational activities; from the first year, PROSPER’s 41 USAID. PROSPER SOA (Statement of Objectives), 8- 31; see also overview in Background Section of this report. 42 USAID/Liberia. 2015. PROSPER Outreach Manual. 28 awareness building approach materials reflected a model that recognized that knowledge of the forest environment (including community ownership) and the impact of forests uses is essential foundation for management of community forest resources in an environmentally sustainable manner, as required by the CRL (Sec. 3.2). 43 As noted above, almost every community member and many GoL officials and partners reported that, prior to PROSPER (and in some cases, its predecessor, LRCFP), they had little or no environmental awareness. They also had not previously considered themselves owners of the forest who can control its use, or how some forest uses, such as shifting cultivation and hunting bush meat, were destroying the quality and quantity of their forest resources. Community members interviewed in every location identified themselves as owners of the community forest and understood the need to use the forest in a manner that would preserve it for future generations. During interviews, PROSPER staff and partners estimated that 75 to 80 percent of community members expressed this kind of buy-in with the principle of sustainable use. The information collected through KIIs and FGDs was consistent with that percentage; almost all community members expressed a sense of empowerment as a result of the knowledge they have gained through PROSPER, stating that the law provides that “the forest is ours,” and, as a member of a CFOC interviewed in Zeongehn said, “we [the community] are the ones who say the rules about the forest.” They attribute their new knowledge of the value of their forest, the damage done by some forest uses, and the principle of sustainable use (“Eat Some, Leave Some”) to PROSPER’s activities. PROSPER’s approach also recognizes that even broad-based community knowledge (which will be enhanced by elementary school curricula44) is inadequate in itself to provide the GoL, communities, and community supporters with the technical information needed to perform tasks such as landscape assessments, resource inventories, offtake assessment, and biomonitoring. PROSPER has worked with the Forestry Training Institute (FTI) to provide curricula and related support, such as equipment and access to an electronic platform of research, for professional training and development.45 PROSPER’s staff and other key informants reported a continuing, significant need for increased professional-level expertise in Liberia. Donors and other stakeholders, especially the EU-funded Voluntary Partnership Agreement – Support Unit, recognize USAID’s expertise in the area and during KIIs expressed the hope that the agency will continue to support building professional technical capacity in forestry specialties. FIFES plans to assess PROSPER’s experience with the Community Forest Curriculum developed for FTI and lead appropriate follow-on efforts to further develop, disseminate, and support effective use of the curricula.46 Support Forest Community Authorization Process/ Nine Steps PROSPER’s approach supports forest communities through the legislated process of forest community authorization. Consistent with the CRL and regulations, in PROSPER’s model, once FDA receives an application, the agency is the lead actor responsible for the community notifications, socio-economic and resource reconnaissance survey, demarcation (including conflict resolution), and negotiation of the 43 USAID/Liberia. 2014. PROSPER: Lessons Learned: Making Forest Rights Real. 44 According to key informants from PROSPER and the MoE, PROSPER has completed its support for the collaborative development of environmental curricula for elementary school children, and the program awaits rollout. 45 PROSPER FY15 Annual Report, 7 – 9. 46 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 17. 29 CFMA with the community. 47 As noted in response to Question 3, most community members interviewed recognize FDA’s authority and role in the authorization process. PROSPER’s model uses PROSPER staff and partners to make initial contact with local leaders and authorities in selected forest areas regarding community forestry and to conduct initial awareness building. Key informants described the process: PROSPER staff suggested that the traditional leaders identify prospective community members who might be interested and able to help support the effort. In every location visited, traditional leaders identified individuals who by appointment or election served in those positions. PROSPER staff, local authorities, and traditional leaders reported that the community volunteers play critical roles in building community awareness and support for the application for Forest Community Authorization in the PROSPER model. In between visits by PROSPER staff, the community volunteers repeated messages regarding the forest biodiversity, damaging forest practices, and sustainable use. Many of the individuals interviewed who held these positons became members of a community forest governance body or stated that they hoped to in the near future. The eight pilot communities that PROSPER has supported have not yet completed the process of becoming Authorized Forest Communities; at the time of the evaluation, PROSPER staff and CFOC members reported that all were either in the demarcation notification process or establishing governance bodies. A PROSPER staff member with experience working with communities through the nine steps, estimated that at least another four to five months would be required to establish the CFMBs, draft and negotiate the CFMA, and allow time for the validation and signing processes; other PROSPER said agreed with that estimate. All PROSPER staff, partners, and other stakeholders interviewed regarding the pending applications noted that FDA controlled the actual time required. All (including FDA officials interviewed) agree that the process has been delayed by a number of factors, including delays with in FDA following the issues relating to Public Use Permits, lack of a clear internal procedure in FDA for processing applications, the significant volume of applications, and a lack of human and financial resources within FDA, which the Ebola crisis strained even further. Most members of the CFOC, community members in the eight communities, and PROSPER staff and partners expressed a belief that, with FDA’s support, the communities can complete the nine steps. However, they need continued technical assistance to establish the CFMB and CFMA and money to cover expenses for traveling to Monrovia for documents and holding required meetings. According to PROSPER staff, USAID plans to support any PROSPER pilot communities that are still in the nine-step process at the time the activity ends—either through FIFES or another USAID activity. FIFES plans to conduct an analysis of FDA’s capacity in supporting community forestry. According to its initial work plan, one focus of the assessment will be FDA’s role in facilitating the certification of community forests and Authorized Forest Communities.48 FIFES will also review and assess the model for Forest Community Authorization to determine if the processes can be refined to increase cost-effectiveness and efficiency.49 Support Development and Operation of Community Forest Governance Bodies PROSPER’s model supports the development of CAs, ECs, CFOCs, and CFMBs to manage the community forests on behalf of the forest communities. The CRL and regulations identify the CA, EC 47 USAID/Liberia. 2016. PROSPER: The Nine Steps Handbook: A Checklist for Establishing a Forest Community (Draft-NOT APPROVED). 48 FIFES Work Plan FY2016, 14. 49 Ibid, 19. 30 and CFMB; PROSPER’s model also uses the CFOC, a body of community members, to manage the authorization process on behalf of the community until the CFMB is established. Members of the CFOC, traditional leaders, and PROSPER staff and partners interviewed reported that CFOCs have been essential to the authorization process, especially given the delays faced. The World Bank’s LFSP envisions using a similar model in which FDA asks local community leaders to create or identify an existing community body to assist FDA in the authorization process.50 Almost every member of a CFMB, CA, and CFOC interviewed reported a good understanding of the role of the various governance bodies, his or her particular role within the body, and how the body supports management of its forest. CFMB members reported understanding how their decisions allow them to manage the forest in an environmentally sustainable manner, such as through enforcing limits on hunting with permits and creating zones for collecting certain NTFPs. KIIs confirmed that the bodies are functioning as the regulations envision: they are meeting at appropriate intervals, exercising their decision-making authority, communicating with the communities, and, to varying extents, collaborating with FDA and local authorities on forest management issues. Members of the Joint CFMB reported effectively enforcing their boundary against encroaching farmers from Guinea, and even the members of interim bodies, the CFOCs, are helping enforce forest restrictions in some areas.51 The model for these governance bodies envisions that they will eventually support themselves with revenue from the community forest uses. At the time of the evaluation, none of the CFMBs had a continuing source of revenue. In the interim, PROSPER has continued to provide support for transportation costs in order to allow governance body members to conduct their duties. FIFES activities include supporting development of revenue streams to assist the community forestry governance bodies. 52 Enhance Community-Based Livelihoods PROSPER’s approach to community forestry recognizes the need for development of community-based livelihoods consistent with sustainable use of the forest and protection of forest biodiversity. 53 Nearly all key informants and focus group members reinforced the importance of this component: communities must have livelihood options that allow them to replace the food, forest products, and income they have been obtaining from the forest using environmentally-harmful practices. PROSPER’s approach to livelihood support has concentrated on: 1) identifying and supporting sustainable forest- and agriculture-based enterprises; and 2) reducing threats to biodiversity linked to livelihood activities, including shifting cultivation and reliance on bush meat for protein.54 Initially, PROSPER continued activities of LRCFP and LFSP, which included developing and strengthening NTFP value chains (especially Griffonia), supporting existing cassava processing and oil palm producer groups, and provided technical support for farmers on crops such as rice and cassava through Farmer Field Schools. PROSPER also supported a number of studies to help inform and direct its plans, including an 50 World Bank PAD, 57. 51 In all areas respondents agreed that there were some violators, the most egregious of which were reportedly outsiders like the pit saw operators from Nigeria and Monrovia who arrived in Behwalay (southern Nimba) in May 2016 and claimed a local connection to gain permission to take a truck load of lumber to build a house. Community members witnessed them cutting multiple truck loads, required them to attend a community meeting, and forced them to leave the forest. 52 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 19. 53 PROSPER Statement of Objectives, 28-29. 54 Ibid. 31 ethno-botanical survey and market analysis for select NTFPs, a study of tree crops, and options for Payment for Environmental Services (PES). 55 Over the last four years, PROSPER has revised its approach based on results. The Griffonia market proved too tenuous, its production inconsistent with forest biodiversity, and the supporting organization, Botanical Products Association of Liberia (BOTPAL), too dependent on PROSPER. Most subsistence farmers were not adopting methods introduced through the costly Farmer Field School because they did not have the extra labor inputs required. PROSPER did not have the resources to support credit and input supply systems and subsidies for land preparation and environmental mitigation necessary for higher yields.56 Based on analysis of these results, a comprehensive 2014 value chain assessment, 57 and assessment of partner performance, some of the adjustments PROSPER made were:  Began supporting the rehabilitation of existing tree crops (oil palm and cocoa) on farmers’ land;  Initiated a crop diversification activity to create an additional income source for households;  Targeted boundary areas where people engaged in priority threats to the forest to learn more about how livelihood activities impacted threat behaviors;  Introduced beekeeping to provide hunters with an alternative source of income; and  With appropriate environmental safeguards, began working with CFMBs with CFMAs to determine sustainable off-take for timber harvesting within their community forests.58 PROSPER has continued to focus on these activities into its final year. The LSA evaluation team interviewed members of oil palm, cocoa rehabilitation, beekeeping, and crop diversification groups in several communities. The members of groups interviewed were generally positive about the potential of these activities, especially those supported by a local organization such as Universal Outreach (bees), Kwakardoe (oil palm), and Wienco (cocoa). To date, however, none appear sufficient, either alone or in combination, to replace income and production from unsustainable forest activities. Most community members asked reported that they had “left the forest” (e.g., stopped farming in the forest, hunting, etc.) for two reasons: the process of demarcation established clear boundaries for forest use by community members, and they wanted to ensure there will be trees and animals for the future. They did not mention any of the enterprise activities as influencing their decision. Many expressed the fear that livelihood needs would ultimately prove stronger than these reasons for leaving the forest; absent adequate economic opportunities, some unsustainable use of forest resources was likely. Almost uniformly, key informants and observers, especially those with international experience in community forestry, identified the issue of forest-dependent community livelihoods is perhaps the greatest challenge to community forestry, in Liberia and in other low- and middle-income countries. They noted that the challenge is especially intractable in countries like Liberia, which despite gains has high poverty, low literacy and employment, and very limited infrastructure. Key informants stated, however, that FIFES had a number of advantages that create a basis for optimism: its design reflects the 55 USAID/Liberia. 2012. PROSPER Payment for Environmental Services Assessment; USAID/Liberia. 2014. PROSPER Value Chain Assessment; USAID-Liberia. 2012. PROSPER FY13 Annual Work Plan. 21 - 27. 56 USAID/Liberia. 2013. FY14 Annual Work Plan, 25 - 28. 57 PROSPER Value Chain Assessment. 58 PROSPER’s reports note that while it anticipates that in the future communities will be able to harvest timber consistent with their CFMAs and CFMPs and regulatory requirements, USAID funds cannot be used to support commercial harvesting in primary tropical forests. FY 2016 Annual Work Plan, 31. 32 learning from PROSPER, its predecessors, and other activities59 and includes a commitment to studying the results of other activities; the staff are experienced in activity implementation, rural enterprise development, and Liberia. 60 Despite the challenges PROSPER faced in its livelihood component, key informants consistently stated that, in their opinion and in general, PROSPER’s approach was well conceived, that it helped ensure that communities and stakeholders understood the value of the forest environment and benefits of sustainable management practices, and they were fully advised their rights under the CRL, and had an opportunity to exercise them. No one suggested another approach that he or she believed would better help establish, support, and advance community forestry in Liberia. Conclusions Regarding Forest Management  While most community members expect FDA to fulfill its responsibilities under the law and generally express a high level of trust in their local county-level authorities, they recognize that FDA and local authorities do not currently have the financial or human resources, or the technical expertise, to support the authorization process and community forestry governance bodies.  PROSPER’s model for community outreach has effectively raised awareness of community ownership of forests, the value of forest resources, damaging forest practices, and the principle of sustainable use across all stakeholder groups. The model should provide a solid foundation on which FIFES can build its community outreach on forest-based economic opportunities.  PROSPER’s model for forest community authorization is an inclusive, participatory process that is building local experience with community forest governance. PROSPER’s model for the establishment of governance bodies has created community-based bodies that are exercising their rights and meeting their responsibilities under the CRL--both during the authorization process and as Authorized Forest Communities. The model contemplates financial support of the bodies through revenue sources, which FIFES plans to help develop as part of its review, extension, and refinement of the PROSPER models.  PROSPER has piloted a number of forest community enterprise activities but has not yet created a model that replaces the income, food, and products communities obtained from unsustainable forest practices in pilot locations. The current work plans and activities of both PROSPER and FIFES are capturing the value of PROSPER’s experience with its livelihoods component by coordinating studies into forest-based enterprises using NTFPs in a manner consistent with forest biodiversity, assessing existing value chains and markets, revisiting various PES options in some locations, and providing continued support for tree crops and agriculture-based enterprises. 59 In addition to USAID activities such as Food and Enterprise Development (FED) and EHELD (agricultural education) key informants referenced WORLD Bank REDD+ projects, and initiatives such as GROW (agricultural market development initiative funded by Government of Sweden). 60 See FIFES, FY16 Work Plan, 3. The World Bank’s LFSP has a livelihood component to support and improve forest community subsistence and commercial activities, including forestry, agroforestry, agriculture, artisanal mining, sustainable logging, and tourism. The project also plans to support partnerships between private sector interest sand communities to development community forest enterprises. World Bank PAD, 59 – 60. 33 III. ENGAGEMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUTH Question 6a: To what extent have women and youth participated in the community forestry project implementation, especially in relation to livelihood options? A. Women’s participation Community forest governance and project positions In 2015 PROSPER reported that women held about 25 percent of community forest governance positions. 61 During her interview, PROSPER’s Gender Integration Officer reported that percentage has remained relatively constant. The findings of the LSA evaluation team are consistent with that estimate. Most CFMBs and CFOCs encountered by the team included the minimum required number of women, or slightly more. The team’s interviews with PROSPER and partner staff, traditional leaders, women, and the reports of gender consultants62 identified several barriers to increased participation: low literacy; significant, multiple demands on women’s time; requirement of permission from husbands and fathers; and an apparent misunderstanding of the statutory requirement of “at least one women” on a governance body to mean “only one woman.” A 2015 PROSPER policy brief63 cautions against increasing pressure on women to serve in governance positions or other roles, especially when the time spent is uncompensated. PROSPER and partner staff and women confirmed that potential in a number of locations during data collection. For example, a female member of the Joint CFMB (Blei) was absent from the focus group discussion reportedly because her husband objected to the time she spent with the CFMB. In some cases, where husbands opposed their wives’ participation in PROSPER, local leaders, PROSPER staff, and the staff of partners such as ACDI/VOCA reported some success convincing husbands to allow their wives to participate. PROSPER’s FY16 Work Plan sets out a number of alternate methods to increase women’s participation that the policy brief recommended, such as recruiting women for alternate positions that may not be as affected by the barriers noted above. The evaluation team heard of some examples of those efforts, such as engagement of women on demarcation teams in the southern Nimba towns of Fahnlay and Bitter Ball. PROSPER’s staff reported that women have been difficult to recruit for positions in PROSPER because fewer women than men have university degrees and those who do often seek higher salaried positions. In addition, many educated women are unenthusiastic about spending significant time in remote rural areas. Partners such as CJPS and NAEAL have female staff members, but organizations providing support in traditionally male professions such as farming (ACDI/VOCA, Kwakerdoe) have fewer women. The Gender Inclusion Officer and Forest Training Institute (FTI) spokespeople noted PROSPER-supported efforts to recruit and retain more female students to FTI. Enterprise group membership The project policy brief reports a higher percentage of women (about 66 percent) participating in livelihood activities or enterprise groups. That percentage appears, however, to reflect the almost 100 percent female membership in crop diversification groups and far lower percentages in other enterprise groups, as opposed to a more uniform percentage of participation across all groups. 61 USAID/Liberia. 2015. PROSPER Policy Brief #3. Participation of Women in Community Forestry (June 2015, dTS). 62 USAID/Liberia. 2012. PROSPER Gender Assessment (July 12, 2012, dTS); USAID/Liberia. 2012. PROSPER Gender Integration Plan (December 2012, dTS); PROSPER Policy Brief #3. 63 PROSPER Policy Brief #3. 34 Where there was no co-pay requirement imposed (as is now required), no monetary investment (such as for oil palm seedlings), and no requirement of access to individual land, the percentage of women participating in livelihood/enterprise groups appears to be higher. Most crop diversification groups, which operate on borrowed or town land and do not require a cash investment for participation, are primarily women. The groups that have potentially higher earning possibilities, such as oil palm seedlings and beekeeping and are also more likely to have co-pay or investment requirements, appear to have a lower percentage of women. While there were exceptions,64 in most cases women accounted for about 20 percent of the members in these latter groups. None of those groups interviewed in the latter category had a female chairperson. B. Youth participation PROSPER has not collected data on the participation of youth in project implementation, and the Gender Integration Officer reported that, while there were no specific goals for the inclusion of youth in governance or PROSPER positions, youth are represented in all aspects of the activity’s implementation. The evaluation team’s observations were consistent with that assessment.65 Applying a generally accepted definition of youth as men and women between the age of 15 – 35, primarily single but including individuals who have been recently married or are without a settled residence, 66 the team encountered youth serving in a variety of positions in both counties, including as members of the Joint CFMB (Blei), CAT members, and oil palm groups. The team also interviewed members of youth crop diversification groups in Zortapa and Korlay. The team also heard suggestions that in failing to target youth specifically, PROSPER may be missing an opportunity to address a population that the process of forest community authorization may place at risk. A commissioner interviewed in northern Nimba suggested that youth are often a high percentage of those who have been farming in the forest. When communities restrict those activities, the youth in particular may not have access to alternate land. The commissioner suggested that youth who perceive (whether real or not) increased barriers to their livelihood efforts may be at risk of anti-social or criminal behavior; he recommended that the project target the group for support. In its first year, FIFES plans to identify the barriers to the participation of women and youth and the particular opportunities available to increase participation. As part of its value chain assessment (Component One) FIFES plans to carry out a Gap Analysis of the value chains for all PROSPER locations to identify missing information, including participation of youth and women. In selecting value chains for support, the FIFES activity will design and implement specific activities to address those barriers, such as supporting functional literacy and enterprise management skills, and strengthening social support networks through development of savings programs.67 LFSP also plans to support creation of small-scale 64 In Kpolay, for example, a cassava group that operated a mill had an equal number of men and women. 65 An estimate of the number of youth interviewed by the evaluation team is nine (of 77) key informants and 31 of 288 focus group participants. The team did not obtain an accurate count of the number of youth interviewed overall because some participants in focus groups did not identify themselves as youth even though they appeared to meet the age criteria. In many communities, individuals who are married or are employed are not considered youth. While the Federation of Liberian Youth defines “youth” as between 15 to 35 years old, it recognizes that identification as ‘youth” is a social and cultural construct and supports flexible definitions. Youthpolicy.org. Liberia: Factsheet. 2014. http://www.youthpolicy.org/pdfs/factsheets/liberia.pdf, accessed July 2, 2016. 66 Ibid; see also Federation of Liberian Youth. Revised National Youth Policy 2012 – 2017 (2014). 67 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 8 and 18. 35 and community based production and processing enterprises that are natural resources based and employ women and youth.68 Question 6b-c: Have women and youth been empowered as a result of their participation with PROSPER? If so, what is the nature of the empowerment they have experienced? In responding to this question, the evaluators defined empowerment as the capacity of an individual or group to make effective choices and to use those choices to create desired outcomes.69 PROSPER has supported the empowerment outcomes and process of empowerment for selected community members with assets such as technical knowledge and awareness of rights under the CRL, and opportunities such as positions in community forest governance and enterprise group participation. A number of women and youth identified various elements of empowerment and the empowerment process, which they attributed to their engagement with the project. See Table IV, Annex XII. Most commonly, women and youth identified the knowledge that they gained from involvement with PROSPER, including awareness of the forest ecosystem and the impact of some practices on that ecosystem, community forest rights under the CRL, and technical knowledge gained through enterprise group trainings. In a few areas, both women and youth carried knowledge learned through PROSPER to influence other aspects of their lives positively. Many of the women who hold community forest governance body positions held social service or leadership positions in their communities prior to their engagement with community forestry and the project. Some reported that they had prior experience with participating in social or economic realms, public speaking, and independent decision-making. However, most nonetheless stated that their engagement in the governance positions had increased their experience participating in social and political activities in the community and their self-confidence in those settings.70 Table IV (Annex XII) sets out various elements of empowerment and the empowerment process as identified by different categories of interviewees. As the information in the table indicates, PROSPER has been most consistently successful at providing women and youth with additional assets in the form of increased knowledge and technical information. For those women in governance and project positions, most who were asked reported additional assets of self-confidence and leadership skills. Most also reported some experience of agency, such as using their increased confidence to express their opinions in mixed groups and to make and stand by their decisions. The empowerment gains made by some women and youth do not appear to be transferring easily to others in the community or to other realms, such as political action within the communities. A female CA reported that she now feels comfortable sitting with men in public meetings (as opposed to with the women, who usually sit separately). However, she said none of her female friends have joined her to sit in the mixed group. Members of a women’s group in the southern Nimba town of Zeongehn stated that 68 PAD LFSP, 8. 69 Nicholas Stern, Jean-Jacques Dither, and F. Halsey Rogers, Growth and Empowerment: Making Development Happen (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 99. Empowerment may be both an outcome and a process--a development objective or a means by which other development objectives are achieved. In either case, empowerment initiatives tend to support the interaction of: assets; agency; and an opportunity structure. Ruth Alsop, Mette Bertelsen, and Jeremy Holland, Empowerment in Practice: From Analysis to Implementation (Washington D.C.: The World Bank, 2006), 3; 9-18; 70 For example, a female CA member in Kialay (northern Nimba) reported that she felt more comfortable spending time in mixed groups of men and women and she no longer felt shy or uncertain joining men in traditionally male-dominated spaces in the town. A female CA member in Vanyanpa reported that she felt more capable of voicing her opinion to men and bringing issues to the town chief for resolution. 36 they could not effectively influence decision-making by community men and leaders. The women had very little understanding of the methods available to try to have their voices heard and cause change. Conclusions regarding PROSPER’s engagement of women and youth  Women have participated in all aspects of the implementation of the PROSPER activity, community forest governance positions, PROSPER activity positions, and enterprise groups. Rates of participation vary by position, reflecting ongoing challenges to recruit and retain women in the more selective positions with potentially higher status and benefits and for opportunities that require and significant time commitments and literacy. Activities planned under FIFES will address some of these barriers with support for fundamental literacy and strengthening existing social networks.  PROSPER has created opportunities for women and youth in community governance and outreach positions to extend their use of new assets, such as knowledge and confidence, to additional and multiple realms, such as civic action (political realm), enterprise development (economic realm), and within their households (social realm). Those who are not in governance and outreach positions have gained some assets (primarily knowledge of forest rights and environment) but are less likely to take advantage of opportunities.  Youth appear to be participating in community forest-related activities, but the extent to the participation is unknown. Youth may be more vulnerable than other groups to restrictions on livelihood activities in community forests and be less likely than other groups to access land for alternate livelihoods easily. FIFES’ plan to identify and prioritize opportunities for youth in forest enterprise value chains is well-placed. V. INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY, OWNERSHIP, AND SUSTAINABILITY Question 7: To what extent has PROSPER worked with and strengthened local partners in the Liberian government, private sector, and civil society? Question 8: What are the results in terms of strengthening local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability, especially within the GoL institutions? What additional actions are necessary to assure momentum for community forestry in Liberia as a result? PROSPER’s reports and deliverables identify at least 16 separate local partners, including eight in the GoL (with additional partners in county and district-level offices) and six civil society organizations. In addition, PROSPER has coordinated with private sector actors, supported multi-stakeholder entities such as the Community Forest Working Group (CFWG), which it helped reconvene, and has worked with other USAID projects, especially in developing its livelihoods activities. See Table V, Annex XIII. PROSPER has engaged with local partners in activities in furtherance of its objectives under all three components. During KIIs, partners identified Component One activities as particularly useful. Under that component, PROSPER has provided partners with ongoing (and in some cases increasingly advanced) capacity building to improve environmental awareness and natural resource management knowledge. PROSPER has also supported its partners in their delivery of outreach, training, and educational programs to targeted groups. Key informants from the GoL, civil society, other donors, and private interests were unequivocal in their description of the impact of PROSPER’s initiatives to build awareness on the forest ecosystem and the threats to biodiversity within the GoL and other partners. Officials and staff at the Ministry of Education (MoE) reported a strong sense of ownership of the educational materials prepared with 37 support from PROSPER—a consequence that may be due in part to the highly collaborative process used in the development of the materials. A number of key informants from the GoL, CSOs, and private interests also credited PROSPER with introducing the Community Rights Law (CRL) and implementing regulations, the process for authorizing a Forest Community, and the role of community forest governance bodies to partners, especially in the GoL. FDA Almost all key informants noted the progress FDA has made in the last decade and recognized the number of staff at all levels of the agency who are highly capable and committed. FDA staff members interviewed noted the value of PROSPER’s extensive capacity building activities (including support for seconded staff in county offices) and expressed confidence in their understanding of the Forest Community authorization process and experience with different steps, such as conducting a socio￾economic survey and leading a demarcation.71 However, even those individuals expressed concern about the overall functioning of the agency. A majority of key informants with experience with FDA stated that although the agency has made significant strides, FDA still lacks capacity in the areas of organizational structure and operations, human resources (including technical knowledge essential to sustainable forest management), funding, and infrastructure and equipment sufficient to perform its role and obligations in the area of community forestry. Some raised concerns that FDA has not appeared to take ownership of the community forestry processes and tools, or to be using those that have been piloted by the project in leading the authorization process. A few key informants expressed concern that FDA may not yet have the capacity to guide communities in community-based forest management and sustainable forest use, leaving the process and communities vulnerable to control by private interests. In considering future interventions, several key informants noted that prior capacity building efforts have been largely activity-based and donor-driven—short term efforts to build FDA’s capacity in areas needed to implement projects or meet donor objectives.72 Many key informants (including some within the GoL and USAID) cautioned that continuing those kinds of limited, short-term interventions led by multiple donors is both an inefficient use of donor resources and highly unlikely to bring the needed extent of organizational, operational, and human resources development. Many also noted that with the advent of LFSP, which has an aggressive timeline and work plan, 73 FDA is under pressure to authorize forest communities very rapidly. Key informants expressed concern that the combination of demand and lack of capacity may cause implementers to take short cuts on inherently time-intensive processes such as community awareness and capacity-building, the identification and meaningful inclusion of women and marginalized community members, the collection and analysis of forest data, and development of governing documents—ultimately undermining the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) goals of the process and community control of their forests. 71 PROSPER recently added an FDA Advisor to its staff, which increased the activity’s collaboration with FDA on development community forest management tools and harmonization of legislation, and its available for general technical support. 72 Many recalled, for example, that USAID selected the counties for PROSPER’s pilot communities, a selection that was not supported by FDA. As such, some of the efforts have been lacking ownership by FDA and inherently limited in impact. 73 World Bank. PAD LFSP, 55. 38 Local GoL Authorities PROSPER has worked through county and district level authorities, targeted them for workshops and trainings, and supported local forums, such as the County Development Steering Committee in Grand Bassa and the Nimba County Forestry Forum. PROSPER staff and partners reported that these officials have almost uniformly responded quite positively to the concept of community forest management and the role of community forest governance bodies. They participated in resolution of forest boundaries disputes and demarcation, and they have enforced community restrictions on forest use. As noted in Section I, communities express a high degree of trust in their local authorities. The local authorities interviewed recognize that they had a continuing role to play in helping guide and enforce communities with regard to management of their forests. Local authorities are often charged with local development planning, are the contact point for identification of potential investment, and a conduit for communication between communities and private sector interests. Most believe they have the knowledge necessary to carry out their responsibilities and express a commitment to serving in a leadership position on community forest issues in their counties, in coordination with FDA. They identified two barriers: 1) inadequate access to information from other agencies, including FDA and the Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy (MLME); and 2) lack of financial resources to support their role. 74 Two of the local officials interviewed and one observer suggested development of a decentralized, multi￾agency government body that would serve as a county-level locus for land and natural resource management (including land use and zoning, community forestry, agricultural land, etc.). They suggested that a multi-agency sectoral body could help with much-needed integration of issues affecting different types of land, coordination with the new land agency, and management of land-related local development concerns. The envisioned body could also coordinate GoL engagement with and oversight of implementation of various projects like LFSP. 75 Community Forest Governance Structures As noted in prior sections, members of the CFMBs, CFOC, and CAs reported solid levels of knowledge about the community forest governance systems, their roles, and principles of sustainable forest management. These individuals are confident of their knowledge and their authority, but they recognize that PROSPER staff have been available for technical advice and coaching, and PROSPER has supported their ability to attend meetings, events, and exercise their duties by providing reimbursement for transportation costs and in some cases, food. Many stated they recognized FDA’s leadership position and would be pleased to see FDA take over all of PROSPER’s functions, but they expressed concern about FDA’s technical and financial capacity to enlarge its role at this time. Respondents identified two other threats to the continued effectiveness and sustainability of the governance bodies: 1) there is no system for independent oversight of the actions of the governance bodies; and 2) the CFMB and CFOC positions unpaid. The design contemplates development of revenue 74 As noted above, like other key informants, the local authorities also stated that their offices, FDA, and the CFMBs, CAs, and CFOCs will continue to need ongoing technical and financial support. At the county and community levels, PROSPER has been funding participation of their offices in community forestry related activities, including meetings, boundary dispute resolution, socio-economic surveys, demarcation, and reports to communities. PROSPER staff have also been available for technical advice and coaching on a wide range of community forest related issues. Local authorities do not believe that FDA (or, more generally, the GoL) currently has the capacity to fill those functions. 75 The new LFSP plans to implement the project through regional task teams. The task teams will be composed of deconcentrated agency bodies with shifting membership relevant to particular tasks (e.g., FDA/FPA, FDA/MoA/new land agency) and will report to the National Climate Change Secretariat, regional coordination bodies, and the CFWG. Ibid, 45 - 46. 39 sources but they have yet to be realized, creating a risk of self-dealing or loss of good members. Citing one or more of these reasons, several PROSPER staff members interviewed believe that only one or two of the current CFMBs are likely to survive without continued support. FIFES plans to provide continuing support for the PROSPER pilot communities, including the community forest governance bodies, and the work plan notes that there may be opportunities to create revenue for appropriate positions may be created through development of value chains and forest enterprises. 76 Civil Society Organizations Almost every PROSPER partner interviewed reported gaining significant, valuable knowledge and experience as a result of their engagement with the activity. The extent of their sense of ownership varied: some partner staff members, such as those delivering outreach activities, reported that they collaborated with PROSPER in the development of the materials and techniques used, and they expressed a high level of ownership in the process and outcomes. Others, such as field staff working with conflict resolution, do not believe they have had sufficient input into the content of the materials they presented to community members. Some partner staff members reported that, especially as time passed, they were not strengthening their skills and experience as much as they would like. In some cases, they noted that PROSPER’s Monrovia staff led trainings and large community events, relegating them to mobilize people and handle logistics. They suggested that PROSPER could help build their capacity and sense of ownership of the processes and outcomes by supporting their facilitation of trainings and substantive participation in community events. Conclusions regarding Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability  Key informants from the GoL, USAID, PROSPER staff, civil society, and the private sector believe that the future of community forestry in Liberia will be supported by: 1) a substantial, comprehensive, and a long-term commitment to strengthening FDA’s capacity; 2) some level of continued financial and technical support for the institutions implementing community forestry, until the time planned sources of revenue are functional and local technical capacity develops further; and 3) development or strengthening of systems for oversight and accountability of community forestry governance bodies. FIFES’ engagement with and support of PROSPER’s pilot communities and seven additional communities will refine, extend, and build on PROSPER’s models for forest community authorization, the establishment of governance bodies, and plans for sustainable forest management.  Local government authorities are generally trusted by communities to support and enforce of their forest management plans. Most county officials express high degrees of interest in and responsibility for community forestry, and some suggest taking the PROSPER-supported county forestry forums to another level by creating a county-level multi-agency sectoral body that would help integrate community forestry management and attendant livelihoods management of other land, natural resources, and local development issues.  PROSPER’s partners report gaining significant capacity from their engagement with the activity, and ownership is high among partners with whom PROSPER collaborated in the development of materials and approaches. Some partners are eager for increased opportunities to take leadership roles in the community activities, further build their capacity and ownership of processes and outcomes. 76 FIFES FY16 Work Plan, 3 and 6 - 11. 40 RECOMMENDATIONS There are two categories of recommendations: those suggested for PROSPER and those suggested for other USAID activities and donors. The recommendations do not include the following activities because they are included in FIFES’ FY 2016 Work Plan: 1) support for PROSPER’s pilot forest communities and community forest governance bodies, including refinement of the authorization processes; and 2) assessment and development of forest-based enterprises focused on NTFPs and other selected forest and agricultural value chains. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROSPER 1. Capture lessons learned and practical tips from experience with boundary dispute resolution. The high value communities place on boundary dispute resolution is a reminder of the negative impact of even relatively small disputes or boundary ambiguities on daily lives and livelihoods. PROSPER’s staff and partners may have more experience than anyone in Liberia at successfully resolving forest boundary disputes. PROSPER has developed a number of manuals that include the topics of conflict resolution and boundary demarcation. These tools will be quite useful but perhaps because they are intended for use in many different circumstances, they are also quite general. PROSPER could make a valuable addition to the activity’s tools (and to the work of future activities and donors) through the production and dissemination of a document presenting practical tips for boundary dispute resolution (e.g., selection of mediators and other actors in various locations, ensuring women and youth are engaged in the process), setting and adhering to a reasonable timeframe (e.g., what can be fast tracked and what cannot, handling the impact of seasons on staff and access), influencing bargaining power, and lessons learned. 2. Create brief coversheets or content guides for PROSPER-created documents, manuals, and templates to help strengthen user comprehension and usability. PROSPER has produced a substantial number of documents, manuals, and other tools to support community forest management. However, many intended users perceive the documents as lengthy and complicated and they are not getting as much value from them as might be possible. Activities such as FIFES, which will be reviewing manuals and handbooks as part of its Component Three, may wish to explore how some of PROSPER’s highly successful outreach methods might be employed to increase accessibility of the information in various documents and manuals. In the meantime, as PROSPER finalizes its manuals, templates, and other documents, it might consider drafting and attaching very brief coversheets or content guides to the front to help improve user comprehension and enhance usability. 3. Support increased opportunities for local partner staff, including women. Some of PROSPER’s local partner staff members have had limited opportunities to facilitate meetings and trainings in their focus communities and to participate meaningfully in larger community events. As an additional method of building capacity and ownership among partner staff, in the last year of its activities, PROSPER’s Monrovia-based staff might look for opportunities to step back and allow partners, including their female staff members, to lead events under their guidance. 41 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR USAID AND OTHER DONORS 4. Provide coordinated, long-term support for comprehensive organizational development and capacity building for FDA, driven by FDA. The pressure on FDA to manage a growing number of community forest applications, to provide technical support for the development of CFMAs and CFMPs, and to evaluate potential commercial uses of community forests is substantial. Key informants are concerned that the combination of increasing demand and lack of capacity may short-circuit the inherently time-intensive procedures required by the CRL and ultimately undermine the principles of FPIC in the authorization process and endanger the possibility actual community control of their forests. Key informants identified long-term, coordinated support for comprehensive organizational development and capacity building for FDA, which is driven by FDA and not inherently-limited limited projects, as the single most important action needed to help ensure the future of community forestry in Liberia. 5. Support research and information gathering regarding development of a decentralized multi-agency body to manage land and natural resources, including support for community forestry, at the county level. Local government authorities are strong proponents of community forestry and are perceived by local community members to play critical roles in supporting their management of community forests going forward. Several stakeholders suggested taking the concept of county forest forums to the next level and creating a decentralized, multi-agency (e.g., FDA, MIA, MoA, MLME, the interim land agency, etc.) county-level body focused on the management of land and natural resources, including community forestry. The potential role and benefits of such a decentralized body—such as helping coordinate efforts on matters of land access, preventing and addressing land and natural resources-based conflict, identifying and supporting harmonization of competing mandates, and coordinating donor engagement— justify an investment in further research into the possibility. 6. Support the development of outreach programs that build community awareness of citizen rights and responsibilities in democratic community forest governance systems, strengthen the accountability of local governance bodies, and create opportunities for women to further their process of empowerment. USAID and other donors could extend PROSPER’s highly successful outreach and public awareness building methods to increase community awareness of how to participate in effectively in their democratic community forest governance systems. The program could help community members identify opportunities to extend the knowledge and experience gained from PROSPER to other realms, such as civic life. In particular, women gaining confidence, skills, and experience with collective action in enterprise groups could be supported in their use those assets in the political realm, gaining experience in how to make their voices heard, use their right to vote meaningfully, and hold elected and appointed members of governance bodies accountable to the communities they serve. 42 ANNEXES 43 Annex I: Evaluation Statement of Work Final Evaluation STATEMENT OF WORK PEOPLES, RULES, AND ORGANIZATIONS SUPPORTING THE PROTECTION OF ECOSYSTEM RESOURCES (PROSPER) 1. BACKGROUND To build on previous United States Government investments in the forestry and agricultural sectors, particularly the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (2007–2011) and the Liberia Forestry Support Program (2011– 2012), USAID contracted Tetra Tech ARD in May 2012 to implement a new, five-year program (2012–2017) entitled People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER). The overall goal of the program is to introduce, operationalize, and refine appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development in targeted areas of the country. The three primary objectives of the program are: 4. Expand educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance; 5. Improve community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in target areas; and 6. Enhance community-based livelihoods derived from sustainable forest-based and agriculture-based enterprises in target areas. PROSPER activities have been largely focused on communities in Grand Bassa and Nimba counties (detailed in the map below). The project has supported the piloting of the community forestry registration process with 11 communities in these two counties in collaboration with the Forestry Development Authority (FDA). The project has faced challenges in implementation with supporting communities through an application process that was at first not yet well articulated or transparent. PROSPER helped to articulate the process in collaboration with the FDA and create manuals to guide communities, civil society and government agencies interested in community forestry to better understand the process and goals of such management. While the PROSPER pilot communities have yet to complete the full cycle of registration, the program has already created great interest with the number of applications requesting community forest recognition submitted to the FDA now at more than 80. Thus, PROSPER and the community forestry pilot communities being supported could be a model for the future of community based natural resource management in Liberia. Strong community interest combined with limited government resources to manage the demand has proven to be a challenge in bringing the model to complete fruition. Another USAID project focused on enterprise development for some of these community forests aims to ensure sustainable livelihoods are a key component of the system to ensure greater sustainability. Lessons learned from this evaluation can help inform this and other projects supporting community forestry in Liberia. Activity: People, Rules, and Organizations Supporting the Protection of Ecosystem Resources (PROSPER) Activity Number: Contract Number AID-669-C-12-00004 Activity Dates: May 2012- May 2017 Funding: $21.5 Million Implementing Partner: Tetra Tech ARD COR: Alexander Kingston A/COR: Jackollie Mulbah 44 Logical Framework: See Figure 1 below. Figure 1. PROSPER Logical Framework 2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION This performance evaluation is intended to provide an independent and in-depth examination of the overall progress and achievements of the PROSPER activity in Liberia. The evaluation will identify achievements, performance issues, and constraints related to activity implementation and effectiveness. The evaluation shall also identify results and lessons learned from implementation and will provide succinct, actionable recommendations to determine which component(s) of PROSPER to scale up, modify, or re-design in other ongoing related programs or future procurements in order to improve overall activity performance. Evaluation findings and recommendations will be shared and discussed with USAID/Liberia, USAID/E3/FAB, USAID/AFR, US Forest Service, implementing partners, and relevant GOL partners. 3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS This draft matrix has been developed by USAID/Liberia but we kindly request review and feedback on the methodology, per the implementing partner’s technical expertise. Intermediate Result 1: Increased educational and institutional capacity to improve environmental awareness, NRM, biodiversity conservation, and environmental compliance Intermediate Result 2: Improved community-based forest management leading to more sustainable practices and reduced threats to biodiversity in targeted communities Intermediate Result 3: Improved community-based livelihoods derived from sustainable forest and agricultural-based enterprises in targeted communities areas PROSPER Goal: Introduce, operationalize, and refine appropriate models for community management of forest resources for local self-governance and enterprise development in targeted areas USAID DO - Intermediate Result 2.2: Natural Resources Managed Sustainably IR 1.2: Improved capacity of CSOs to design and conduct outreach campaigns to increase public awareness of natural resource and environmental management issues IR 1.3: Improved capacity of FTI to develop and deliver a community forestry curriculum IR 1.5: Increased capacity of Community Forest Development Committees to develop effective environmentally sound development programs for the use of social agreement funds IR 2.1: Increased community capacity for forest management IR 1.1: Improved capacity of MOE to deliver formal and non-formal primary and adult education curricula on natural resource management and governance IR 1.4: Improved capacity of civil society and community organizations to contribute to NRM, land and environmental policy development IR 2.2: Strengthened capacity of FDA, EPA and CSOs to support sustainable forest management IR 2.3: Legal framework for community forestry and LTPR improved and simplified on the basis of recommendations from stakeholder consultations IR2.4: Increased use of forest ecosystems data to support the design of community outreach materials and programs IR 3.1: Increased number of sustainable agro/forest - based enterprises IR 3.3: Increased information available to stakeholders concerning best practices, to improve effectiveness of forestry and agricultural enterprises. IR 3.2: Reduced threats to biodiversity linked to livelihood activities IR 3.4: Improved data on greenhouse gas content (especially carbon) present in forest areas under different management regimes 45 Question Level of Effort Data Collection Method Data Source Selection Criteria Data Analysis Method What is the extent of monetary and non￾monetary benefits that have accrued from Community Forestry under PROSPER versus other land and resource uses? Who has benefited and who has not? Was poverty reduced as a result of project interventions? Has the project positively impacted forest biodiversity? 30% Key informant interviews, document reviews Interviews, project reports, financial records of management committees, biodiversity assessments Geographic location Community, gender, size of community forest Do pilot communities/community members supported through PROSPER feel as though the government (at the local and national level) will support them on how they choose to manage their natural resources in the forest areas under their purview? Do they understand sustainable management concepts and how this would apply in their forest management activities? Do they feel this is a more sustainable method of management than previous mechanisms? 20% Individual interviews, key informant interviews, focus group discussions Interviews Communities actively engaged with the project to include some more newly established community forests and others that have been involved for longer periods; ensure women and youth are surveyed Community, location To what extent have women and youth been involved in the community forestry project implementation, especially in relation to livelihood options? 20% Key informant interviews, focus group discussions, document review Interviews, training records, other reports/records from the project Sampling to include those households engaged in community forestry activities Gender, community location To what extent has PROSPER worked with and strengthened local partners in the Liberian government, private sector, and civil society? What are the results in terms of strengthening 30% Key informant interviews, focus group discussions GOL agencies, civil society organizations, community members, private enterprises, Key partners, organization type Organization, type of organization 46 local institutional capacity, ownership, and the likelihood of long-term sustainability especially within Government of Liberia institutions? What additional actions are necessary to assure momentum for community forestry in Liberia as a result? implementing partners The analysis and findings regarding each of the evaluation questions should be followed by specific, tailored, realistic and actionable recommendations aimed at improving outcomes for USG investments in the natural resource sector especially in related projects like that of the Forest Incomes for Environmental Sustainability (FIFES) project. 4. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The evaluation is expected to apply both quantitative and qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. The evaluation team will conduct a desk review of available literature including project documents, quarterly and annual reports. Site visits in the field to the two target counties (Grand Bassa and Nimba Counties) will provide qualitative data for analysis through methods such as in-depth and key informant interviews, focus groups, and direct observation. The evaluation team is expected to meet with farmers, local government officials, community forestry work groups, community forestry management boards (CFMBs), subcontractors, and other beneficiaries, partners and stakeholders in order to acquire the data needed to respond to the evaluation questions. In-depth key informant interviews, conducted face to face and based on a semi-structured questionnaire, will provide much of the necessary qualitative data. For farmer and other community groups, focus group discussions are recommended as an efficient way to collect information. Primary collection of quantitative data and large-scale structured surveys are beyond the scope of this evaluation. It is expected that the evaluation team will use data provided by the implementing partner in regular quarterly and annual reports, performance reporting, and special purpose publications for most of the quantitative data required. PROSPER has a dedicated team of M&E personnel and a mature IT system for ongoing data collection and analysis. Figure 2. List of PROSPER Supported Communities/Community Forests County Town Community Hectares (Approx) Comments 1 Grand Bassa Buchanan Barconnie 240 Pilot Community 2 Grand Bassa District 4 Kpogblean 11,903 Pilot Community 3 Nimba Tappita Gblor 8,176 Pilot Community 4 Nimba Tappita Gbeah/Gblor 8,834 Pilot Community 5 Nimba Tappita Kparblee 10,707 Pilot Community 6 Nimba Tappita Boe Quilla 7,675 Pilot Community 7 Nimba Tappita Sehzuplay 9,410 Pilot Community 8 Nimba Sannequellie Sehyi 667 Pilot Community 9 Nimba Sannequellie Gba 10,939 Established CF under LRCFP 47 10 Nimba Sannequellie Zor 1,112 Established CF under LRCFP 11 Nimba Sannequellie Blei 614 Established CF under LRCFP TOTAL 70,277 approximate hectares Figure 3. PROSPER Focus Areas—as indicated by stars. 5. DATA SOURCES The USAID/Liberia Economic Growth team will provide documents for the desk review, as well as contact information for prospective interviewees. The evaluation team will be responsible for identifying and reviewing additional materials relevant to the evaluation, as well as additional contacts. Illustrative data sources include but are not limited to: 1. PROSPER statement of work and annual work-plans 2. PROSPER activity monitoring and evaluation plan 3. Quarterly and annual reports 4. Data quality assessment reports 5. ETOA 6. USAID/Liberia CDCS and draft PMP 7. Gender Assessment for the USAID/Liberia CDCS 5. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES Evaluation deliverables include: a. Evaluation Team Planning Meeting (s) – essential in organizing the team’s efforts. During the meeting(s), the team should review and discuss the SOW in its entirety , clarify team members’ 48 role and responsibilities, discuss the process for devising a work plan, develop data collection methods, review and clarify any logistical and administrative procedures for the assignment and instruments, and prepare for the in-brief with USAID/Liberia b. Inception Plan. This will include: a. Work Plan - Detailed draft work plan including task timeline, methodology outlining approach to be used in answering each evaluation question and methodological strengths and weaknesses, team roles and responsibilities, data analysis plan, and report writing tasks and timeline; b. Data Collection Instruments–Development and submission of data collection instruments to USAID/Liberia during the design phase; c. c. Debriefing with USAID/Liberia and Implementing Partners – The evaluation team will present the major findings from the evaluation to USAID/Liberia and partners through a PowerPoint (or similar) presentation. The debriefing will cover initial findings, conclusions and preliminary recommendations to USAID/Liberia; d. Original data and data sets -- Copies of secondary quantitative data sets, transcripts of interviews and focus groups, and notes from direct observations. Quantitative data sets should be submitted to the DDL, per Agency policy e. Draft Evaluation Report - A draft report on the findings and recommendations should be submitted to USAID/Liberia within two weeks after the evaluation is conducted. The written report should clearly describe findings, conclusions, and recommendations. USAID will provide comments on the draft report within ten working days of submission; f. Final Report - The Team will submit a final report that incorporates the Mission’s comments and suggestions no later than five days after USAID/Liberia provides written comments on the team’s draft report. The final evaluation report should meet the following criteria: i. The report should be in line with USAID Evaluation Policy (see Appendix I – Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report) and USAID Secretariat Style guide ii. The report should be no longer than 30 pages, excluding one page summary, executive summary, table of contents, and annexes. iii. The report should include a one page summary of high level findings in a visual and easily digestible format iv. The report should include a 3-5 page Executive Summary highlighting findings and recommendations. v. The report should represent a thoughtful and well organized effort to objectively respond to the evaluation questions. vi. The report shall address all evaluation questions included in the SOW. vii. Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides shall be included in an Annex in the final report. viii. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, etc.). ix. Evaluation findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence. x. Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical, specific, and evidence-based. xi. The final report should be edited and formatted. xii. The final report should be submitted electronically along with 2 printed and bound copies. xiii. The evaluation team must submit the final evaluation to the Development Experience Clearinghouse. 49 The following content should be included in the final report: Executive Summary - concisely state the evaluation purpose, methodology, key evaluation questions, key findings and recommendations; Introduction – Evaluation context, including a summary of any relevant history of PROSPER program, demography, socio-economic status etc.; PROSPER Program description - brief overview of the PROSPER program including the development hypothesis, key intervention areas and implementation arrangement/approach (may rely heavily on existing documents); Purpose of the Evaluation - purpose, audience, and synopsis of task; Evaluation design and Methodology - describe evaluation design and methods, including sampling procedure; Findings/Conclusions - describe and analyze findings for the project using graphs, figures and tables, as applicable supported with concise narratives; Lessons Learned - provide a brief of key technical and/or administrative lessons on what has worked, not worked, and why for immediate corrective measures and future project or relevant program designs; Recommendations – prioritized for each key question; should be separate from conclusions and be supported by clearly defined set of findings and conclusions. Include recommendations for future project implementation or relevant program designs and synergies with other USAID-Liberia biodiversity projects and other donor interventions as appropriate; Annexes – to include statement of work, list of documents reviewed, tools used, interview lists, meetings, and data tables. Annexes should be pertinent and readable. The report will be submitted electronically. The final report will be edited/formatted by the contractor and provided to USAID/Liberia 7 working days after the Mission has reviewed the content and approved the final revised version of the report. The final evaluation report must be 508 compliant and comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy as it relates to performance evaluations, and should use the criteria for quality evaluation reports listed in Appendix I of the Evaluation Policy http://www.usaid.gov/ sites/default/files/documents/1868/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf 6. Team Composition/Technical Qualifications and Experience USAID/Liberia recommends the following staffing structure for the evaluation: i. An international or local senior evaluation specialist team leader with extensive experience in evaluating forestry/community-based natural resource management activities in developing countries. At least five (5) years of experience in evaluation management, and qualitative data collection and analysis; experience in conducting evaluations and designing performance evaluations. Ability to produce high quality evaluation reports in English is essential. Strong interpersonal skills are required. ii. A senior forest economist/land tenure expert (national), with experience in evaluation of forest-based research and/or land tenure in developing countries; at least five (5) years of experience in forestry program management and some experience managing or implementing research programs. Ability to conduct interviews and discussions and at least one local Liberian language. Strong English language writing skills. 50 iii. A host country or international senior or mid-level social scientist with strong analytical skills and gender expertise. The incumbent must be able to conduct interviews and focus group discussion, analyze the resulting data, and be familiar with qualitative and quantitative data collection methods. Strong English language speaking and writing skills essential. iv. A national evaluation specialist with at least five years relevant experience and strong logistics and planning skills. USAID leaves to the offeror’s discretion other necessary team members/staff for the evaluation (e.g. Logistics, scheduling, translation, data analysis). Aside from the above mentioned key personnel, the offeror must decide how the evaluation team should be structured in order to successfully address the evaluation questions. All attempts should be made for the team to be gender balanced and to include local (Liberian) experts. A statement of potential bias or conflict of interest (or lack thereof) is required from each team member. USAID may propose internal staff from USAID/Liberia or from Washington to accompany the team in this evaluation as observers. As observers, their role will be to provide, when asked, background information and to reply to the external evaluators’ questions. They will review and comment on the report for accuracy, but evaluators may accept or reject comments. The final report should reflect the opinions of the external evaluators and is the sole responsibility of the selected evaluation team. The contractors will officially report to the Mission’s M&E Officer and technical guidance/leadership will be provided by the COR and A/COR. 7. SCHEDULING AND LOGISTICS Funding and Logistical Support The contractor will be responsible for all international and in-country administrative and logistical support, including identifying and fielding appropriate consultants (International and local). The evaluation team should be able to make all logistical arrangements including vehicle rental for travel within and outside Monrovia and should not expect any logistical support from the Mission. The team should also make their own arrangements for venues for team meetings, and equipment support for producing the report. Schedule Evaluation team members are authorized and expected to work a six-day week. Travel over weekends may be necessary. Work should commence as soon as practicable, but no later than ---. For planning purposes, contractors should be aware of Liberian and US holidays during the evaluation time frame. The evaluation should follow the illustrative timeline and level of effort given below. Task/Deliverable Estimated time (Days) Review background documents & preparatory work (offshore): Draft work plan submitted to USAID/Liberia 6 Travel to Liberia-expatriate team members 2 Team Planning Meetings in Monrovia with implementing partners and USAID 2 In-brief with USAID/Liberia and prepare for field work 2 Field work- Data collection and On-Going Data Analysis 20 (including field travel) Analysis and report drafting 18 51 Evaluation Team submits annotated report outline and draft presentation to USAID/Liberia for Comments 1 USAID/Liberia provides comments (as needed) on report outline and draft presentation, during which time team continues to draft report 5 Presentation and debrief with USAID/Liberia and IPs by Evaluation Team 1 Submit draft report to USAID/Liberia; 1 USAID and partners provide comments on draft report 5 Evaluation Team leader revises draft report to incorporate comments and submit final report 5 Total time required 68 Working days team leader (including international travel) 53 Working days expat team members (including international travel) 48 Working days local team members 46 52 Annex II: Evaluation Methods and Limitations APPROACH LSA used a mixed-methods approach to its data collection. The approach included: 1) desk review of available primary and secondary documents generated by and relating to PROSPER and community forestry issues; 2) desk review of quantitative data collected and reported by PROSPER; 3) semi￾structured key informant and small group interviews at national, local, and project locations; 4) focus group discussions at project locations; and 4) direct observation at project locations. LSA’s approach drew on utilization-focused methodologies designed to ensure that the information generated by the evaluation is useful to USAID. The approach included several opportunities for discussion between USAID/Liberia and LSA:  An inbrief meeting held on May 16, 2016 to confirm USAID/Liberia’s objectives set forth in the SOW and clarify the evaluation questions;  An informational meeting was held with PROSPER staff on May 17, 2016;  A status meeting with USAID/Liberia was held between periods of data collection in Nimba and Grand Bassam counties on June 7, 2016; and  The LSA evaluation team presented its preliminary findings and preliminary recommendations to USAID/Liberia on June 15, 2016 and to PROSPER on June 16, 2016. DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND SCOPE Document Review The LSA evaluation team conducted a desk review of documents in the following categories: 1) PROSPER reports and deliverables, including PMP reports; 2) relevant laws, regulations, and related legal framework materials; 3) Community Forest Management Agreements and Community Forest Management Plan; 4) documents provided by key informants and focus groups members, including MOUs, enterprise group constitutions, and enterprise group record books; 5) documents governing enterprise group equipment; and 6) secondary documents such as background and research materials. A complete list of documents reviewed is provided at the end of this Annex. Key Informant Interviews (individual and small group) The evaluation team conducted 57 interviews of individual key informants and 9 small group interviews of an additional 20 key informants (77 total individual interviewed, 18 women and 59 men). Key informants fell into the following broad categories:  Government of Liberia (national and local)  USAID (former and current)  PROSPER Staff  PROSPER Partners  Traditional and Community leaders  Community Forest Governance Body Members  Project Promoters (Community Mobilizers, CAT Members)  Community Members of Livelihood Groups  Community Members  Private Sector Representatives 53  Other Donors and Entities  Random Community members A list of key informants interviewed is included at the end of this Annex. Focus Group Discussions The evaluation team conducted 41 focus group discussions, which included a total of about 288 individuals (about 130 women and 158 men). The focus groups fells into the following categories:  Traditional Leaders  Community Forest Governance Body Members and Project Promoters  Women’s Crop Diversification Groups  Oil Palm Groups  Cassava Processing Groups  Beekeeping Groups  Youth Groups  Community members (non-project participants) In total, the evaluation team collected data from 365 individuals, 148 women and 217 men. Direct Observation During visits to site locations to conduct KIIs or FDGs, the team will consult with project staff regarding any project activities. At sites where activities have occurred or are occurring, the team will use direct observation to note the state of livelihood activities, such as beehives, oil palm nurseries, and Freedom Mills used to process oil. The team used this information to supplement and triangulate with information obtained from performance records, other quantitative data, KIIs, and FGDs. Data Collection Instruments and Process The LSA evaluation team used a set of data collection instruments to guide the KIIs, FDGs, and Direct Observation. The instruments are appended to this Annex. The team conducted most interviews and focus group discussions in pairs, led by a Liberian team member with the other team member serving as note taker. Notes were typed up, reviewed and revised, and stored on LSA’s electronic database. SITE SELECTION AND SAMPLING The LSA evaluation team conducted data collection in Monrovia and at all 11 project locations in Grand Bassa and Nimba counties. At each of the 11 project locations, the team interviewed individuals from three or four towns or villages. In addition, the team interviewed PROSPER staff, partners, and local government officials at central locations in each county. The team worked from three base locations: Sannequellie, Tappita, and Buchanan. The team selected interview locations based on the following factors:  Travel time (the team sought locations that were within three hours or less travel time from the base);  Project activities (the team sought locations that allowed the team to interview individuals involved in a range of activities in a community forest and county); 54  Availability of key informants;  Availability of enterprise group members. A list of the locations visited is appended to this Annex. The LSA team selected key informants using the following purposeful and random selection methods, which included:  Creating categories of individuals likely to have information relevant to the evaluation questions;  Consulting with USAID/Liberia regarding particular categories and individuals with relevant knowledge;  Selecting key representatives from project partners, such as FDA and MoE, based on project documents and discussion with USAID/Liberia and PROSPER staff;  Selecting key PROSPER staff members and partners based on review of reports, organizational charts, and discussions with staff;  Identifying one or more local GoL authorities in each community forest location visited;  Identifying one or more traditional leaders in each community forest location visited;  Selecting one or more members of community forest governance bodies in each community visited;  Selecting one or more individual engaged in project promotion in each community forest location visited; and  Selecting general community individuals. The team selected these individuals through the following methods: 1) random encounters in a town or village; 2) identification by key informants or focus group members as possible interview subjects; and 3) selection of a spouse or other family member of a key informant or focus group member. The team selected focus group categories and participants using the following method:  Reviewed PROSPER’s list of locations and project activities;  Discussed distances and factors such as market days and community events with PROSPER staff, partners, and mobilizers;  Created a tentative location list;  Confirmed the list with PROSPER staff;  Used community mobilizers and if unavailable, project partners to arrange for members of planned focus groups to be available;  Adjusted plans based on unforeseen issues, such as miscommunications;  Evaluated participants as they arrived for the discussion and made adjustments (such as asking to meet separately with governance body members and traditional leaders, as appropriate, and confining participants to those who appeared to be actually part of a designated group). A list of focus group discussions conducted is attached to the end of this Annex. DATA ANALYSIS The LSA team used the following methods and tools to assist in its analysis of the data. Individual assignments. Each member of the LSA evaluation team was responsible for a set of evaluation questions and had primary responsibility for ensuring that the team gathered the information necessary to respond to the questions. The team member was responsible for presenting the 55 preliminary findings and recommendations related to his or her section and for drafting the sections of the report relative to the section. Triangulation. The LSA team referred to the background documents and quantitative data during the data gathering and discussed areas where quantitative and qualitative data overlapped and allowed for triangulation. The team also used the different qualitative methods of data collection and the data collected at the multiple sites in the separate community forest areas and counties to triangulate findings. Contemporaneous notes, review, and revision. The team recorded the results of KIIs, FDGs, and Direct Observation as the interviews progressed, and reviewed and finalized notes and stored them on the electronic database regularly. Team members reviewed all the recorded notes in the process of preparing the preliminary findings and conclusions. Development and use of Preliminary Findings Matrix. The evaluation team used SI’s Preliminary Findings Matrix tool to record their preliminary findings and analysis. The team reviewed the draft Matrix at the conclusion of the data gathering each day to check their findings and conclusions with each other and with relation to findings and conclusions responsive to each question and category of questions. LIMITATIONS IN ACCESS TO DATA AND DATA QUALITY Overall, the LSA team had no difficulty accessing desired locations for data gathering and desired individuals and groups of individuals. In each location, the LSA team was able to interview individuals and groups of individuals in every category identified. Interviews lasted an average of 45 – 60 minutes, and the team did not encounter situations where respondents tried to end the interview before the team had concluded its questions. However, the LSA team noted four circumstances that it recognized could impact the quality of the data collected: 1. Potential bias based on confidentiality concerns The LSA evaluation team recognized that some respondents might be reluctant to provide honest and forthcoming responses to some inquiries because of concerns that they would suffer adverse consequences, such as loss of PROSPER benefits or creation of a perception of disloyalty. In order to mitigate the impact of such potential, the LSA evaluation team discussed how the team would record and use the information the respondents provided, and reviewed the protocol it would follow if it wanted to attribute any information to any individual. A copy of the information provided to respondents is provided in Annex III. 2. Limited data collection at very remote locations As noted above, the evaluation team was able to interview representatives from at least three different towns in each of the 11 community forests. However, in some locations distances were significant, the roads were rough, and interior towns and villages could only be reached on foot. The schedule did not permit visits to more than a few of the more remote locations, and the information gathered at those sites suggested that the project had more limited impact in those locations. For example, two LSA team members conducted interviews in Baye. Reaching the town required a 2.5- hour drive from Buchanan and a 25-minute walk from the road. In general, the individuals interviewed in Baye showed a less developed understanding of the project’s messages regarding the forest ecosystem and more resistance to restrictions on forest use that interviewees in less remote locations. Although 56 members of a women’s crop diversification group had received Farming as a Business training, they were less able than members of other groups to identify what they had learned and how the training had changed their farming techniques, if at all. The group members had not considered what they would plant in the coming seasons or what they hoped to earn from their crops. Project partner staff and PROSPER staff noted that working in these remote locations was one of their greatest challenges: reaching the locations required significantly more time and transportation costs. They found that they usually had to make multiple trips to accomplish what could usually be done in one trip in other locations. It was difficult to gather groups for discussions and training, and they often ended up conducting individual sessions. Effectively transferring technical information about the use of equipment or a planting technique often requires multiple sessions. Illiteracy is extremely high and as a result they could not rely on supplementary materials to reinforce training. The data the LSA team collected at the few remote locations it was able to visit and the interviews with the staff working there suggest that if the team had visited more very remote locations the overall findings would have reflected less depth in understanding of PROSPER’s messages and training. The report makes note of this potential limitation in its findings and includes a recommendation for any follow-on projects to the potential that a different schedule may be needed for activities in remote locations. 3. Use of PROSPER vehicle and driver in Grand Bassa In Grand Bassa, heavy rainfall proceeded the team’s visit and more rain was predicted. Recognizing the limitations of its vehicle, the poor conditions of some roads, and the lack of knowledge of the location of towns and villages, LSA asked USAID for permission to borrow a Buchanan-based PROSPER vehicle and driver in order to ensure access to the selected locations. The team and USAID staff discussed the potential for bias resulting from the use of the project’s vehicle and driver. USAID’s M&E Specialist reviewed the situation and recognized that the nature of the terrain and local circumstances often resulted in the need to rely on project equipment. She sanctioned the LSA team’s use of the truck and driver, with the understanding that the report would identify the use and the team would take all reasonable steps to mitigate any bias or perception of bias. The use of the PROSPER vehicle was limited to two days of interviews (out of a total of 12 data collection days in Nimba and Grand Bassa). Two members of the team traveled in the PROSPER truck during two days of data collection in Grand Bassa. The team members were not accompanied by any other project staff and made their own selections of sites for interviews. The team did not discuss their findings or conclusions in the presence of the PROSPER driver. 4. Likelihood of biased responses by community members regarding forest activities In almost all community forest locations visited, communities had restricted access to the forest for a variety of activities, most commonly farming, hunting, fishing, and collection of some forest products. In some areas, CFMAs and CFMPs governed forest use and a permit system was in place. In other areas, the community had a resolution or other instrument setting restrictions while it sought status as an Authorized Forest Community. In still other locations, the restrictions were well publicized among community members but not yet in writing. In a few locations, community leaders stated that they had not yet restricted use of the forest. During interviews, the team was careful to explain that it was not gathering information regarding compliance with forest rules, and that it had no role in the project or providing project benefits, and it was keeping all details of the information it collected confidential with respect to individual identity and activities. See information given respondents in Annex III. 57 In locations where the community had restricted forest use, a significant majority of key informants and focus group members stated that they believed the community was adhering to the rules, with only very limited violators. The bases for their statements included:  Personal knowledge (e.g., statements that they were no longer hunting, and family members were no longer making farms in the forest);  Personal observation (e.g., a lack of bush meat in the town and by the roads, presence of more animals in the forest and border areas); and  Third party observations (e.g., statements by demarcation teams and forest guards). The team received some verification of the community representations from reports of forest guards and other sources. However, the team also heard from some community members in some locations that there were more than a few violators. These sources reported that some activities, such as hunting, were continuing but bush meat was no longer openly sold. Some reported that community members were traveling farther into the forest or to less accessible locations to hunt and gather forest resources. Project and partner staff members who work in the areas on a regular basis confirmed that in some locations, community members were continuing to use the forests, although in a less visible manner. During interviews with one group of randomly selected individuals in Nimba, the interviewees stated that they had stopped hunting in the forest. After the conclusion of the interview a child inadvertently pulled on a cloth, exposing a pair of recently killed ground hogs that a hunter had hastily pushed under a chair when the group saw the team approaching. The team recognized that the significant number of unequivocal responses from community members regarding adherence to restrictions on forest use were likely in at least some cases influenced by concerns about violating the restrictions or acting contrary to project goals. The report notes this possibility in reporting on community adherence to restrictions on forest use. 58 ANNEX III: PROSPER DATA COLLECTION SCHEDULE May 2016 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Review of background document and preparatory work 7 8 9 Desk review 10 Desk review 11 Desk review 12 Submit draft Work Plan to LSA Continue desk review 13 LSA to submit updated draft Inception Report to USAID Continue desk review Travel to Liberia 14 Liberian Holiday: National Unification Day Travel to Liberia 15 Travel to Liberia 16 Evaluation Team Planning Meeting 17 Planning Meeting with USAID Planning Meeting with PROSPER 18 Inbrief with USAID Inbrief with PROSPER and FDA 19 Prepare for field work 20 KIIs in Monrovia 21 22 23 Travel to Sannequellie, Nimba 24 KIIs and FGDs in Sannequellie area 25 KIIs and FGDs in Sannequellie area 26 KIIs and FGDs in Sannequellie area 27 KIIs and FGDs in Sannequellie area *consider travel to Ganta/Saclepea 28 Travel to Tappita, Nimba 29 30 KIIs and FGDs in Tappita area 31 KIIs and FGDs in Tappita area 59 June 2016 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 KIIs and FGDs in Tappita area 2 KIIs and FGDs in Tappita area 3 KIIs and FGDs in Tappita area 4 Travel to Monrovia 5 6 Eval team meeting: review findings and id info gaps 7 Follow-up KIIs in Monrovia 8 Follow-up KIIs in Monrovia 9 Travel to Buchanan KIIs and FGDs in Grand Bassa 10 KIIs and FGDs in Grand Bassa 11 KIIs and FGDs in Grand Bassa Drive to Monrovia 12 13 Follow-up KIIs in Monrovia 14 Follow-up KIIs in Monrovia 15 Debrief to USAID 16 Debrief to PROSPER/FDA 17 Analysis & report drafting Travel from Liberia 18 Travel form Liberia 19 20 Analysis & report drafting 21 Analysis & report drafting 22 Analysis & report drafting 23 Analysis & report drafting 24 Analysis & report drafting Submit draft to LSA 25 26 27 LSA quality control 28 LSA quality control 29 LSA quality control 30 International team revises draft final report July 2016 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 International team revises draft final report 2 3 4 International team revises draft final report 5 LSA submits draft report to USAID 6 USAID reviews draft report 7 USAID reviews draft report 8 USAID reviews draft report 9 10 11 USAID reviews draft report 12 USAID reviews draft report 13 Team Leader revises report 14 Team Leader revises report 15 Team Leader revises report 16 60 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday COB: USAID provides comments on draft report 17 18 Team Leader revises report 19 Team Leader revises report COB: Submit report to LSA 20 LSA quality control 21 LSA quality control 22 LSA quality control 23 24 25 LSA quality control 26 COB: LSA submits Final Report to USAID 27 28 29 30 61 ANNEX IV: List of Documents Reviewed 1. Scope of Work 2. PROSPER Quarterly and Annual Reports 3. PROSPER Deliverables 4. PROSPER Contract 5. PROSPER Organizational Chart 6. PROSPER statement of work and annual work plans 7. PROSPER M&E plan/PMP 8. PROSPER quarterly and annual reports 9. PROSPER environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP) 10. PROSPER research and survey reports 11. PROSPER site listings and maps 12. Nimba Blei CFMA 10/11 13. Nimba Gba CFMA 10/11 14. Nimba Zor CFMA 10/11 15. Nimba Blei CFMP 16. Nimba Gba CFMP 17. Nimba Zor CFMP 18. Nimba Blei Approved Rules 19. Nimba Gba Approved Rules 20. Nimba Zor Approved Rules 21. Nimba Blei Financial Policies & Procedures 22. Nimba Gba Financial Policies & Procedures 23. Nimba Zor Financial Policies & Procedures 24. List of PROSPER partners and short description of their scope 25. Policy Briefs 26. Forest-Based Enterprises Business Development and Training Manual 10/15 27. Management Plan and Rules Templates 1/16 28. Guide and Templates for Management Agreements, Constitutions and By-Laws 1/16 29. Success Stories and other relevant communication materials 30. List of PROSPER partners and short description of their scope 31. Studies conducted by other organization focused on forestry and NRM in Liberia 32. Liberia Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (L-EITI) 33. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) strategy 34. Relevant reports from other donor agencies 35. Relevant GoL policy documents and technical reports 36. USAID/Liberia CDCS and draft PMP for EG 37. USAID field visit reports 38. USAID Final Report of LRCF program 39. USAID Final Report of ETOA program 40. Gender Assessment for the USAID/Liberia CDCS 41. Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA) 42. MOUs of stakeholder partnerships 43. PIDS data 44. USAID/ACDI-VOCA FIFES Agreement, AID669-A-16-0002 45. USAID-Liberia. FIFES FY 2016 Work Plan 46. Arcelor Mittal. Nimba Western Range Iron Ore Project, Environmental and Social Studies, 2008 – 2015 62 47. World Bank. 2014. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: Readiness Assessment: Mid-Term Report for Liberia 48. World Bank. 2011. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility: R-PP Country Submission for Liberia 49. World Bank. 2016. Project Appraisal Document. Report No. PAD1492. Liberia Forest Sector Project. PROSPER Deliverables 50. Deliverable 1 - Baseline surveys, Gender Integration plan, ME systems 51. Deliverable 2 - Sector Surveys and analyses, value chains 52. Deliverable 3 - Environmental Curriculum Field Tested 53. Deliverable 4 - Formal Primary EE Curriculum Materials 54. Deliverable 5 - Outreach and Awareness Building Approaches 55. Deliverable 6 - Outreach and Awareness Manuals 56. Deliverable 7 - CF Curriculum Elements identified 57. Deliverable 8 - CF Curriculum Training Guide 58. Deliverable 9 - CF Issuance Handbook 59. Deliverable 10 - National Level Forum - Community Rights 60. Deliverable 11 - Series of brochures, radio to support CF 61. Deliverable 12 - CF Management Handbook 62. Deliverable 13 - Biodiversity Monitoring Handbook 63. Deliverable 14 - Draft of Laws, Regulations 64. Deliverable 15 - Series of Brochures, Radio Programs to Support CF Mgmt 65. Deliverable 16 - Agribusiness and CF Trainers Manual 66. Deliverable 17 - Materials for 3rd Annual Outreach 67. Deliverable 18 - Report on Proposed Best Practices Low Impact Harvesting 68. Deliverable 19 - Gender Assessment Identifying Challenges 69. Deliverable 20 - Site Selection Report 70. Deliverable 21 - Biodiversity Assessments for new sites 71. Deliverable 22 - Curriculum Development WG creation 72. Deliverable 23 - Report Summarizing Primary School Curriculum 73. Deliverable 24 - Year 1 Education Review Workshop 74. Deliverable 25 - First Outreach Campaign Launch 75. Deliverable 26 - Policy Briefs 76. Deliverable 27 - - PES Report 63 ANNEX V: List of Key Informant Interviews Conducted Name Title/Organization Date Jennifer Talbot Former COR May 13, 2016 Darlington S. Tuagben Deputy Managing Director, FDA May 21, 2016 Gertrude W.K. Nyaley Technical Manager, CF Dept., FDA May 21, 2016 Neeta Hooda Team Leader, LFSP, Senior Carbon Finance Specialist, World Bank FCPF May 22, 2016 Kerwin Zargbay Clan Chief, Gbobayee, Nimba May 24, 2016 Eric Z. Togbaye Youth Leader, Gbobayee, Nimba May 24, 2016 John P. Quato County Commissioner, Nimba May 24, 2016 Alphonso Garteh & Sannie Weianquoi CAs, Baintowin May 25, 2016 William Paypay Head of Office, PROSPER, Sanniquelli May 25, 2016 Marvin Larpote Farmer, Gbapa May 25, 2016 Johnny Garteh Oil Palm farmer, Gbapa May 25, 2016 Alfred Kartoe Youth Leader, Gbapa May 25, 2016 Cooper Walaka and Matthew Dolo Paramount and Clan Chiefs, Gbapa May 25, 2016 Ruth Saye Organizational Development Officer of Center for Justice and Peace Studies (CJPS) May 25, 2016 Thomas Mahn Town Chief, Kpolay, Nimba May 26, 2016 Joe Manlor Chair, Cassava Processing Group (CPG), Kpolay, Nimba May 26, 2016 Celestine Joe Member CPG, wife of Joe Manlor May 26, 2016 Elenah Ben Community member, Kpolay, Nimba May 26, 2016 John G. Karnue Town Chief & Chair of Community Palm Oil Project, Kialay, Nimba May 26, 2016 Kou Saye CA, Kialay, Nimba May 26, 2016 Thomas Kerkula ACDI/VOCA, Livelihood Coordinator, PROSPER May 26, 2016 John Nyumah Coordinator, PROSPER Partner, NAEAL May 26, 2016 Joseph Y. Yormie Chief Parliament Zor May 26, 2016 Junior Whaway Youth Troop Member May 26, 2016 Alicia Community member/mother/part-time farmer May 26, 2016 Joseph Zayzay FDA, Extension Officer May 26, 2016 Rufus Fluomo & Quoidah Fluomo Town Chief and CA (his brother), Vanyanpa, Nimba May 27, 2016 Kuo Dolo CA, Vanyanpa, Nimba May 27, 2016 Harrison Zuatou and Oliver Dweh CA and Community Mobilizer, Zuatuo, Nimba May 30, 2016 Daniel Yoko CJPS, Toweh Town, Nimba May 30, 2016 Elizabeth Towel Member Palm Oil Group, Toweh Town, Nimba May 30, 2016 64 Name Title/Organization Date Joseph Giyflor, Samuel Dennis, and Kwoti Daniel Behwalay, Nimba May 31, 2016 Dahn Mongrue CFOC member, Beatou, Nimba May 31, 2016 Irene Gbyeh and Victoria Sonya Lararah Women’s Group, Beatou, Nimba May 31, 2016 Ojuku Quiepoe and Beatrice Wodo Chair and member of Oil Palm Group May 31, 2016 Wilfred Tarlay CAT Moses Town May 31, 2016 J. Felton Korso & Garrison Siatay CFOC and CAT of Old Yourpea May 31, 2016 Noah Brah PROSPER HHO, Tappita, Nimba June 1, 2016 Patrick Wehye ACDI/VOCA Facilitator June 1, 2016 Patrick David CFOC Co-chair, Yrikor June 1, 2016 Violate Younquoi CJPS Organizational Development Officer, Tappita, Nimba June 1, 2016 Allen Duo and Eramus Harmon Kwakerdoe Cooperative June 2, 2016 Peter Yleah Town Chief, Zuolay June 3, 2016 Richard Yleah CFOC, Zuolay June 3, 2016 P. Moses Wobuah, Otto Dahn, and Samuel Gboah CFOC and CAT, Zeongehn June 3, 2016 Eugene Cole PROSPER DCOP June 6, 2016 Peter Aldinger PROSPER, FDA Advisor June 7, 2016 Paul Meadows PROSPER COP June 7, 2016 Maurice Ogutu USAID EG Ag Officer June 8, 2016 Peter De Waard ACDI/VOCA-FIFES DCOP June 8, 2016 Mary Molokwu Country and Operations Manager, FFI June 8, 2016 Advertus Roberts Head Instructor, FTI June 8, 2016 District Commissioner, Nkrken, Grand Bassa June 9, 2016 Eugene Gibson HOO, PROSPER Grand Bassa June 9, 2016 Hon. Adonie Z. Greaves Ass’t Superintendent, Development, Grand Bassa June 9, 2016 James S. Harris County Land Commissioner, Grand Bassa June 9, 2016 Isaac S. Foley Field Coordinator, CJPS June 9, 2016 Esthella W. Miller PROSPER, Gender Integration Specialist June 9, 2016 Morris Sherman Gbarogaro Clan Chief, Bold Dollar June 10, 2016 Rep. Robertson Siaway Representative June 10, 2016 Rebecca CFOC, Bacconi CF, Grand Bassa June 10, 2016 Mark Quintol Peace Committee Member, Bacconi CF, Grand Bassa June 10, 2016 Emmanuel Milton Curriculum Development Officer, Ministry of Education, Monrovia June 13, 2016 65 Name Title/Organization Date Wing Cowley Arcelor Mittal Liberia June 15, 2016 Abraham Guillen Team Leader, VPA-SU June 16, 2016 Wolfgang Thoma Forestry Advisor, VPA-SU June 16, 2016 Adam Welti USFS-International Programs June 22, 2016 Diane Russell USAID-Senior Social Scientist, Forestry and Biodiversity July 1, 2016 66 ANNEX VI: List of Focus Group Discussions* Conducted Group Name Location Date Joint Community Forest Management Board-Blei Zargouee, Nimba May 24, 2016 Zargouee Livelihood Group Zargouee, Nimba May 24, 2016 Women’s group and youth group leader Zortapa, Nimba May 24, 2016 Random Women focus group Gbobayee, Nimba May 24, 2016 ENMR Zortapa, Nimba May 24, 2016 Kokeh Livelihoods Group Lugbayee, Nimba May 25, 2016 Gba CFMB Gbapa, Nimba May 25, 2016 Zor CFMB Zor CFMB office, Nimba May 26, 2016 Zor CF forest guards Dualuay, Nimba May 26, 2016 Sehyigeh Chiefs and Elders Sehyigeh, Nimba May 27, 2016 Sekenphey CFOC Sekenphey, Nimba May 27, 2016 Sekenphey 3 Chiefs Sekenphey, Nimba May 27, 2016 Zuatuo Women’s’ Farming Groups (Bear Kwadoe and Luakerdo) Zuatuo, Nimba May 30, 2016 Yeteepa CFOC Yeteepa, Nimba May 30, 2016 Toweh Town Farmers’ Association Toweh Town, Nimba May 30, 2016 Marlay Women’s Group Marlay, Nimba May 30, 2016 Marlay Crop Diversification Group Marlay, Nimba May 30, 2016 Marlay Cocoa Group Marlay, Nimba May 30, 2016 Old Yourpea oil palm group Old Yourpea, Nimba May 31, 2016 Old Yourpea Gardening Group Old Yourpea, Nimba May 31, 2016 Moses Town Amenu Moses Town, Nimba May 31, 2016 Yeekera Palm Oil Group Kwipea, Nimba June 1, 2016 Women’s Focus Group (random selection) Fahnlay, Nimba June 1, 2016 Kwipea CFOC/CAT Kwipea, Nimba June 1, 2016 Random Men Focus group Fahnlay, Nimba June 1, 2016 Bitterball Camp community Bitterball Camp, Nimba June 2, 2016 Diallah Mixed Livelihood Group Diallah, Nimba June 2, 2016 Dueyelay Mixed enterprise group Dueyelay June 2, 2016 Loukouwoo Palm Oil Ass’n Dueyelay June 2, 2016 Doeyele Bee Group Doeyelay June 2, 2016 Yarmie group near road Yarmie June 2, 2016 Korlay Beekeepers Korlay, Nimba June 3, 2016 Random male farmers focus group Zeogehn, Nimba June 3, 2016 Korkerkoah Women’s Group Zeongehn June 3, 2016 Kwarseh Youth Group Korlay June 3, 2016 Zoelay Walk Around Zeolay June 3, 2016 Farmers in town Zordah, Grand Bassa June 9, 2016 Random Women Doewein, Grand Bassa June 10, 2016 Chief, CFOC, UTC groups Benzohn, Kehyare, Korjuah June 10, 2016 CFOC members Bold Dollar, Sammie, Jammah June 10, 2016 Mudeabehkpo Women’s Group Baye June 10, 2016 * List contains some three-person small group interviews 67 ANNEX VII: List of Data Collection Locations County Community Town/Village Nimba (northern) Blei Gbogbayee Zortapa Zorgowee Zor Dualay Kpolay Zualay Gba Gbapa Lugbeyee Baintowein Seihyi Sehyikempa Sehyigeh Vanyapa District-level Saniquellie Nimba (southern) Boe Quilla Yeteepea Toweh Town Zuatuo Marlay Kparblee/Beatuo Clan Behwalay Old Yourpea Beatuo Town Moses Town Gbar/Doe District Yarmie Bitterball Camp Yrikor Gblor Clan/Doe District Fahnlay Doeylay Diallah Kwipea Tappita Sehzuplay Clan Korlay Zeongehn Zeolay Grand Bassa Barconnie Doewein Penneh Town Zordah Barconnie District-level Buchanan District 4 Bold Dollar Benzohn Kehyar (met at Benzohn) Korjuah (met at Benzohn) 68 County Community Town/Village Baye Sammie (met representatives at Bold Dollar) Jammah (met representatives at Bold Dollar) 69 Annex VIII: Data Collection Instruments USAID/PROSPER Performance Evaluation Coversheet for KIIs and FGDs Introduction: Good morning/afternoon and thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. As mentioned during our interview request, we are working with USAID to conduct a performance evaluation of the Liberian community forestry project known as PROSPER. The evaluation is intended to provide an independent examination of the project’s achievements, performance issues and constraints. The evaluation is also identifying lessons learned from implementation and will provide recommendations to help inform the design and components of ongoing or future related programs. We would like to speak with you today to hear about your experience with the project and opinions on future community forestry projects. Confidentiality Protocol  We will collect information on individuals’ names, organizations, and positions. A list of key informants will be made available as an annex to the final evaluation report, but those names and positions will not be associated to any particular findings or statements in the report.  We may include quotes from respondents in the evaluation report, but will not link individual names, organizations, or personally identifiable information to those quotes, unless express written consent is granted by the respondent. Should the team desire to use a particular quote, photograph, or identifiable information in the report, the evaluators will contact the respondent(s) for permission to do so.  All data gathered will be used for the sole purposes of this evaluation, and will not be shared with other audiences or used for any other purpose.  Your participation in this interview is voluntary and if you do not feel comfortable answering a particular question please let us know and we will simply go on to the next question. Once again, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today. Do you have any questions for us before we get started? TERMINOLOGY Community Forestry In the instruments and for purposes of the discussions with respondents, “community forestry” is as defined by the Community Rights Law with Respect to Forest Lands (2009). PROSPER project/PROSPER approach In the instruments, references to the PROSPER approach to community forestry is defined by the project documents and means the actions and activities planned or undertaken by the project under the three project components. 70 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS USAID/USFS OFFICIALS Introduction 1. What is/was your role with regard to PROSPER? I. Benefits and Beneficiaries/Gender & Youth 2. From your perspective, what have been the most important positive outcomes or benefits of the project? 3. Are there positive outcomes/benefits that you expected/hoped for from the project that you have not yet seen? II. Community Forest Management 4. Does the GoL (FDA, MoE, MIA/supervisors/commissioners) currently support CF in Liberia? a. If so, how so? b. If not, does the lack of support affect the achievement of expected results? 5. Do you believe that in the future the GoL will support community forestry? a. Probe for why the respondent believes the GoL will support or not b. Probe also for what kind of support will the GoL provide/not provide III. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability 6. What do you believe is the future of CF management in Liberia? 7. What do you believe will be the most useful activities to support in future CF projects in Liberia? 8. What are the actions that should be taken to help ensure that CF survives and thrives in the years ahead? a. For each action identified, ask who is the best actor? What resources will be necessary? 9. From your perspective, what have been the biggest challenges and constraints faced by the project? Were they addressed in the way you thought best? 10. In your opinion, what has been the most important lessons learned from PROSPER by USAID/USFS? 11. Knowing what you know now, is there anything that you would do differently in the project design or implementation of PROSPER? 12. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know about PROSPER, and your experience with the project? 71 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS GoL OFFICIAL Introduction 1. What is/was your/your dept.’s involvement with PROSPER? I. Benefits and Beneficiaries/Gender & Youth 2. From your perspective, what have been the most important benefits of the project? 3. Who/what groups have benefited from the project? Who has not benefited and why? a. Probe for different groups – national/local government agencies/depts., government employees, farmers/nonfarmers, women/men, enterprise groups, youth, forest workers (chain sawers, forest product users, etc.), project staff, students, etc. b. Which group has benefited the most? 4. What institutions have benefited? Have any institutions been left out? a. Probe for the interviewee’s agency/dept., local government, local NGOs and CSOs, community forest committees and groups, enterprise groups, FDA, FTI, etc. 5. Do you believe there been any positive or negative changes to biodiversity as a result of the project? a. Probe for changes: more/less forest land, more/less trees, increased/decreased forest cover, sustainable charcoal, available animals for hunting, other NTFPs. 6. Do you think the lives of project communities/households/individuals have improved as a result of PROSPER? Why and why not? 7. Are there benefits that you expected/hoped for from the project that you have not yet seen? 8. From your perspective, what have been the biggest challenges and constraints faced by the project? How were they addressed? II. Community Forest Management 9. Do you think CF is sustainable model for forest management in Liberia? Is the way PROSPER implementing CF supporting the government’s agenda for CF? Is there a better model? 10. Do you think that the project communities understand community forestry? Why do you think so/not? Example? 11. In what ways is the GoL supporting community forestry? What is the relationship between the different agencies involved in community forestry? (FDA, FTI, EPA, MIA, local v. national) 12. In what ways does GoL need to continue to support community forest communities? Do you believe that in the future the GoL will support the pilot communities in practicing community forestry CF as they see fit? How does GoL plan to support community forestry in the future? a. Probe for why the respondent believes the GoL will support or not 72 b. Probe also for what kind of support will the GoL provide/not provide III. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability 1. What kind of support did PROSPER provide your department/ministry/agency? What was the process for deciding what support would be provided? 2. What positive outcome/benefit did your dept/agency experience as a result of PROSPER? Do you believe that those positive outcomes will last? a. Which benefits do you believe will last over time? b. Which benefits are unlikely to last? c. What could be done to make the benefits more sustainable? d. Has your dept/agency used what you have learned through PROSPER in other settings or circumstances? 3. Do you think that communities are strong enough to manage their forests without FDA or PROSPER? Why do you believe they are strong enough or not? 4. What do you believe is the future of community forest management in Liberia? 5. What do you believe will be the most useful activities to support in future CF projects in Liberia? a. Probe for activities related to: CF education and capacity building, preservation of forest biodiversity, improvement of local livelihoods, and any other activities 6. What are the actions that should be taken to help ensure that community forestry survives and thrives in the years ahead? For each action identified, ask who is the best actor? What resources will be necessary? 7. In your opinion, what has been the most important lesson learned from PROSPER by your agency/dept? 8. Knowing what you know now, is there anything that you/your dept. or agency would do differently in working with PROSPER and with the project? 9. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know about PROSPER, and your experience with the project? 73 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS (can also use for Focus Group) MEMBERS OF COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE BODIES (CFMB, COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY, EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF COMMUNITY ASSEMBLY, COMMUNITY FORESTRY ORGANIZING COMMITTEE) IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability (+ some Benefits/Beneficiaries & Gender/Youth) 1. What community forestry body (ies) are you a member of? a. Community Forestry Organizing Committee (CFOC) b. Community Assembly (CA) c. Executive Committee of Community Assembly d. Community Forestry Management Body (CFMB) 2. Are you a member of other community bodies or structures (other than for community forestry)? 3. How did you become a member of the governance body/ies? 4. What are the qualifications required for the [governance body]? (age, Liberian, local community member, etc.?) 5. Do the members of the [governance body] have greater financial resources than most in the community, about the same resources, or fewer resources than average? Can a poorer person in the community be on the [governance body]? 6. How many women are on the [governance body]? Youth? Elderly? 7. Do you believe that anyone with the basic qualifications can become a member of the [governance body]? If not, what else does a person need to be elected? a. Have you heard anyone complain that he/she wanted to be on the [governance body] but was denied a chance? 8. How often does the [governance body] meet? Is everyone required to be there? Do members receive reimbursement for travel costs to get to meetings? 9. Are the meetings open to the public/community? How does the community know when the meetings are? How many community members usually come to the meetings? 10. Does someone take notes of the meetings? If so, where are the notes kept? 11. Do the meetings have written agendas? If so, who prepares them? 12. Do community members have the right to address the [governance body] during meetings? If so, are there requirements a person must meet before he/she can address the body? 13. How do you/[governance body] ensure that all community members have the ability to make their views known to you/[governing body]? 74 14. How does the [governance body] make decisions (majority vote? 2/3 vote? Unanimous?) 15. Do you think the [governance body] is operating (give options): Perfectly? Very well? Pretty well? Poorly? Not at all? 16. What changes would you make to how the [governance body] operates if you could make them? 17. Have you had anything positive happen to you because you have been a member of the [governance body]? Anything negative? 18. Has the community experienced any positive outcomes because of the [governance body]? Any negative outcomes? Do you believe the positive (or negative) outcomes will last after the project ends? Which ones? Why/why not? 19. Where would you go if you had a question about how your [governance body] should operate? 20. Does the community understand the role that your [governance body] plays with regarding to the community forest? How do you know? II. Community Forest Management 21. Do you believe that the communities understand the concept of community forestry? If so, how do you know? 22. Does the GoL currently support [governance body]? [Ask for both local government and national government bodies: FDA, MoE, MIA, EPA] a. If so, how so? If not, how does the lack of support manifest itself? 23. Do you believe that in the future the GoL will support the [governance body] in practicing CF as they see fit? a. Probe for why the respondent believes the GoL will support or not b. Probe also for what kind of support will the GoL provide/not provide IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability 24. What do you believe will be the most useful activities to support in future CF projects in Liberia? a. Probe for activities related to: CF education and capacity building, preservation of forest biodiversity, improvement of local livelihoods, and any other activities 25. What are the actions that should be taken to help ensure that CF survives and thrives in the years ahead? For each action identified, ask who is the best actor? What resources will be necessary? 26. What have been the biggest challenges and constraints faced by the [governance body]? 75 27. In your opinion, what has been the most important lesson learned from PROSPER by the [governance body}? 28. Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would have done differently regarding the [governance body], how it operates, etc? 29. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know about PROSPER, and your experience with the project? 76 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS PROSPER STAFF Introduction 30. What is/was your role with PROSPER? I. Benefits and Beneficiaries/Gender & Youth 31. From your perspective, what have been the most important benefits/positive outcomes of the project? 32. Who has benefited from the project? Who has not benefited? a. Probe for different groups – farmers/nonfarmers, women/men, enterprise groups, youth, forest workers (chain sawers, forest product users, etc.), project staff, CSO partners, CFMBs, students, FDA, local government employees, etc. b. Which group has benefited the most? c. Probe for the kinds of benefits (monetary, nonmonetary) d. If you believe women benefited, describe the benefits (probe for signs of empowerment, such as women’s participation in groups, election of positions, increased confidence, etc.). e. Have you seen any signs that the benefits are transferring to other situations (e.g., women are using skills learned in joining other groups, men taking on new roles, etc.) f. Ask same questions about youth 33. [If not answered above] What institutions have benefited from PROSPER? Have any institutions been left out that might have been included? a. Probe for local government, local NGOs and CSOs, CF committees and groups, enterprise groups, FTI, FDA, legislative bodies, etc. 34. What role did the communities play in setting up the Community Forest Management Bodies? The Community Forestry Organizing Committees? What role did women play? Youth? Are you happy with the way the CFMBs is operating? Why or why not? Are there aspects of the way the CFMBs are operating that should be changed or refined? a. Probe for other examples of how the CFMBs and CFOCs are operating – transparent? Accountable? Participatory? 35. Have there been any positive or negative changes to forest biodiversity as a result of the project? a. Probe for changes: more/less forest land, more/less trees, increased/decreased forest cover, sustainable charcoal, available animals for hunting, water sources, etc. 36. Are there positive outcomes/benefits that you expected/hoped for from the project that you have not yet seen? 37. Do you believe that the lives of communities have improved as a result of the project? If yes, can you give some examples? II. Community Forest Management 77 38. Is the PROSPER approach to community forestry working? Why or why not? Is there anything that would work better? 39. Do you believe that the communities understand the concept of community forestry? If so, how do you know? 40. Do you believe that communities have embraced community forestry? What actions have they taken/not taken that show they have embraced/not embraced the concept? a. Which PROSPER methods have been the most effective in helping communities accept/adopt/embrace community forestry? 41. Does the GoL currently support CF? [Ask for both local government and national government bodies: FDA, MoE, MIA, EPA] a. If so, how so? If not, how does the lack of support manifest itself? 42. Do you believe that in the future the GoL will support the pilot communities in practicing CF as they see fit? a. Probe for why the respondent believes the GoL will support or not b. Probe also for what kind of support will the GoL provide/not provide III. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability 43. What kinds of support did PROSPER provide to government institutions and local community structures? What difference has the support made in the operations of these institutions? Probe for some concrete examples. 44. Will the positive outcomes and benefits that the various institutions have received from PROSPER last? Which are most likely to last? Which are unlikely to last? a. What could be done to make the positive outcomes/benefits more sustainable? 45. What do you believe is the future of CF management in Liberia? 46. What do you believe will be the most useful activities to support in future CF projects in Liberia? a. Probe for activities related to: CF education and capacity building, preservation of forest biodiversity, improvement of local livelihoods, and any other activities 47. What are the actions that should be taken to help ensure that CF survives and thrives in the years ahead? For each action identified, ask who is the best actor? What resources will be necessary? 48. What have been the biggest challenges and constraints faced by the project? 49. In your opinion, what has been the most important lesson learned from PROSPER by the project staff? 50. Knowing what you know now, is there anything you would have done differently in the project design or implementation? Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know about PROSPER, and your experience with the project? 78 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS PROJECT PARTNER Introduction 1. What is/was your organization’s role with PROSPER? How was this role defined? Have you been happy with your organization’s role? I. Benefits and Beneficiaries/Gender & Youth 2. From your perspective, what have been the most important positive outcomes from the project? 3. Who has benefited from the project? Who has not benefited? a. Probe for different groups – farmers/nonfarmers, women/men, enterprise groups, youth, forest workers (chain sawers, forest product users, etc.), project staff, CSO partners, CFMBs, students, FDA, local government employees, etc. b. Which group has benefited the most? c. Probe for the kinds of benefits. 4. If you believe women benefited, describe the benefits (probe for signs of empowerment, such as women’s participation in groups, election of positions, increased confidence, etc.). a. Have you seen any signs that the benefits are transferring to other situations (e.g., women are using skills learned in joining other groups, men taking on new roles, etc.) b. As same questions of youth 5. [If not answered above] What institutions have benefited from PROSPER? Have any institutions been left out that might have been included? a. Probe for local government, local NGOs and CSOs, CF committees and groups, enterprise groups, FTI, FDA, legislative bodies, etc. 6. What role did the communities play in setting up the Community Forest Management Bodies (or Community Forestry Organizing Committees)? What role did women play? Youth? Are you happy with the way the CFMBs/CFOCs are operating? Why or why not? Are there aspects of the way the CFMBs/CFOCs are operating that should be changed or refined? a. Probe for other examples of how the CFMBs/CFOCs are operating – transparent? Accountable? Participatory? 7. Have there been any positive or negative changes to forest biodiversity as a result of the project? a. Probe for changes: more/less forest land, more/less trees, increased/decreased forest cover, sustainable charcoal, available animals for hunting, water sources, etc. 8. Do you believe that the lives of communities have improved as a result of the project? If yes, can you give some examples? 9. Are there positive outcomes that you expected/hoped for from the project that you have not yet seen? II. Community Forest Management 79 10. Do you think CF as introduced by PROSPER is good approach for forest management? Why? Do you think the approach is better or worse than other approaches to forest management? Why? 11. Does the GoL (FDA, EPA, MIA/superintendent/commissioner) support community forestry? a. If so, how so? b. If not, what does the GoL do/not do that undermines the ability of communities to manage their forests? 12. Do you believe that in the future the GoL (FDA, MIA/superintendent/commissioner, national legislature) will support the pilot communities to practice community forestry as they wish? a. Probe for why the respondent believes the GoL will support or not b. Probe also for what kind of support will the GoL provide/not provide c. How else could GoL support CF in the future? IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, and Sustainability 13. What has your organization learned from PROSPER in the implementation of this project? Has your organization used anything learned from PROSPER in other settings/circumstances? How can what you learned from PROSPER be applied by your organization in other settings? 14. Have institutions like FDA, community groups, other NGOs and other institutions experienced positive outcomes from PROSPER? a. If so, which positive outcomes do you believe will last over time? b. Which positive outcomes are unlikely to last? c. What could be done to make the positive outcomes last for your organization? 15. Do you think communities can effectively manage their forest in the absence of PROSPER? Why and why not? 16. What do you believe will be the most useful activities to support in future CF projects in Liberia? a. Probe for activities related to: CF education and capacity building, preservation of forest biodiversity, improvement of local livelihoods, and any other activities 17. In your opinion, what is the greatest success of PROSPER? Why? 18. What are the actions that should be taken to help ensure that CF survives and thrives in the years ahead? a. For each action identified, ask who is the best actor? What resources will be necessary? 19. What did you/your organization learn in implementing PROSPER? What would you propose for future programs? Changes in design? 20. In your opinion, what has been the most important lesson learned from PROSPER by your organization? Has your organization been able to use lessons from PROSPER in other settings/circumstances? 21. Knowing what you know now, is there anything you/your organization would do differently in working with PROSPER and implementing the project? 22. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know about PROSPER, and your experience with the project? 80 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS COMMUNITY LEADER Introduction 1. What do you know about the community forestry project known as PROSPER? a. Probe for how the community leader was involved in the project, if at all I. Benefits and Beneficiaries 1. From your perspective, what have been the most important positive outcomes from the project for your community? 2. Who has benefited from the positive outcomes from the project? Who’s been left out? Who has benefited the most? (Probe for elites, men, women, youth, NGOs, etc.) 3. What community structures have benefited from the project? Any left out? (Community structure examples: committees, management groups, enterprise groups? women’s groups, etc.) 4. Have there been any positive or negative changes to forest biodiversity as a result of the project? a. Probe for changes: more/less trees, increased/decreased forest cover, sustainable charcoal, available animals for hunting. 5. Are there benefits that you expected/hoped for from the project that have not been seen? 6. What have been the biggest challenges faced by the project in your opinion? Have there been negative outcomes? 7. Has the project included you in its activities? If so, have you been happy with your role? Do you wish you had a different role? III. Community Forestry Management 8. What do you know about community forestry? How did you learn that? 9. How did your community manage the forest/forest resources before the PROSPER project? How are is the community managing it now? Are they managing it differently as a result of PROSPER? Probe for concrete examples. a. What do you believe is the best method of managing the forest? Why? 10. Do you believe that the GoL will support your community’s forest management plans? (FDA, superintendent, commissioner, MIA, EPA, etc.) a. What about when the project ends? What kind of support would you like from GoL? IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, Sustainability 11. What did PROSPER do in this community? Did PROSPER help the community to manage its community forest? If so, how did it help? 81 12. Do you think the community can manage its forest well without the support of PROSPER? Why and why not? 13. What kinds of community forest-related activities should be supported in the future? a. Probe for: income generation projects, education, support for local/community governance, preservation of forest biodiversity, etc. 14. Is there anything you think PROSPER could have done differently in implementing the project that would have made a better project? 15. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know? 82 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS COMMUNITY MEMBER Introduction 1. What do you know about the PROSPER project? I. Benefits and Beneficiaries 2. From your perspective, what have been the most important positive outcomes from the project? To you and your family? To the community? To forest health? 3. Who has benefited from the positive outcomes from the project? Who’s been left out? Who has benefited the most? (Probe for women, youth, men, elites, etc.) 4. What community structures have benefited from the project? Any left out? (Community structure examples: committees, management groups, enterprise groups? women’s groups, etc.) How have they benefited? Are there any that were left out that should have been included? 5. Have there been any positive or negative changes to forest biodiversity as a result of the project? a. Probe for changes: more/less trees, increased/decreased forest cover, sustainable charcoal, available animals for hunting. 6. Are there benefits that you expected/hoped for from the project that have not been seen? 7. What have been the biggest challenges faced by the project in your opinion? Have there been negative outcomes? 8. Has the project included you in its activities? If so, have you been happy with your role? Do you wish you had a different role? III. Community Forestry Management 9. What do you know about community forestry? How did you learn that? 10. How did you/your community manage the forest/forest resources before the PROSPER project? How are you managing now? Are you managing it differently as a result of PROSPER? Probe for concrete examples. a. What do you believe is the best method of managing the forest? Why? 11. Do you believe that the GoL will support your community’s forest management plans? (FDA, superintendent, commissioner, MIA, EPA, etc.) a. What about when the project ends? What kind of support would you like from GoL? IV. Institutional Capacity, Ownership, Sustainability 12. What did PROSPER do in this community? Did PROSPER help the community to manage its community forest? If so, how did it help? 83 13. Do you think the community can manage its forest well without the support of PROSPER? Why and why not? 14. What kinds of community forest-related activities should be supported in the future? a. Probe for: income generation projects, education, support for local/community governance, preservation of forest biodiversity, etc. 15. Is there anything you think PROSPER could have done differently in implementing the project that would have made a better project? 16. Is there anything else you would like the evaluation team to know? 84 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (Beneficiaries, General Community Members, Women’s Groups, Youth Groups, Community Org members) INTRODUCTION  Introduction of all evaluation team members present.  From Social Impact, based in Monrovia  Helping GOL and USAID learn about your experience with the local Community Forestry/PROSPER project  Describe PROSPER (and ensure group members know which project we are asking about)  Project had various activities [examples from area].  We are here to find out what you thought about the project. We will be asking questions about whether you were involved with the project and if you and your family were affected by the project—positively or negatively  We also want to hear your ideas on what you thought was good, what was not so good about the project Are there any questions? Mini-Survey Questions: 1. In my opinion, strong and healthy forests are ________ to Liberia’s future. Very important Somewhat Important Not at all important No opinion 2. In my opinion, a strong and healthy forest is ________ to this community. Very important Somewhat Important Not at all important No opinion 3. Does someone have a small story about the forest that they would like to tell? Specific Questions 1. What is community forestry in Liberia? 2. Can you tell us something about the work of PROSPER in this community? What do you know about the PROSPER project? What was the role of community members in the implementation of this project? 3. Did this community experience any positive outcomes from the project? a. If so, how? b. If not, why not? 4. Did women in the community experience any positive outcomes from the project? a. If so, how? b. If not, why not? (Probe for examples of empowerment, participation, any transfer of learning, etc.) 5. Did men in the community experience any positive outcomes from the project? 85 a. If so, how? b. If not, why not? 6. Did youth in the community experience any positive outcomes from the project? a. If so, how? (Probe for examples of empowerment, participation, any transfer of learning, etc.) b. If not, why not? 7. What group benefited the most and why? 8. What group benefited the least and why? 9. Did this community experience any negative impacts from the project? a. If so, what? 10. Do you believe that the forest land/forest flora & fauna in this area changed as a result of the project? a. If so, what changed and how did it change? 11. Did you learn anything about community forest management from the project? a. If so, what? How are you applying what you learned? b. If not, why not? 12. What was the role of the community in setting up the community forest management body/organizing committee? a. What role do women and youth play in terms of decision making? b. What has been some of the achievements of this body? c. Are you happy with the manner in which this body is operating? If yes, why and if no why not? d. Are there aspects of the practices of this body that need to be changed? If yes, which ones and why? e. Other questions to probe extent to which the forest community management body operating in a transparent, participatory and accountable manner? 13. Do you believe that the local government will support how you choose to manage the forest in the future? [superintendent/commissioner/seconded FDA, chiefs] 14. Do you believe that the national government will support how you choose to manage the forest in the future? [provide examples of national GoL support] a. What sort of support do you feel you need to be successful? 15. Do you think the community is strong enough to manage its forest without PROSPER? If yes, why? If no, why not? 16. Do you have any recommendations for how community forestry projects can be improved in the future? 17. Is there anything else that you would like the GOL and USAID to know about the project? 86 USAID/PROSPER PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DIRECT OBSERVATION Date of Observation: Evaluation team member observer: County: District: Village: ITEM/ACTIVITY OBSERVED (Y/N) Comments Compost/ Manure Tree Crops Oil palm, cocoa, rubber, other Goats Agro-forestry NTFP production Lowland rice Vegetable production Additional Comments: 87 ANNEX IX: TABLE I1: PROJECT BENEFITS REPORTED IN KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS (in order of frequency)77 NO. BENEFIT REPORTED BENEFICIARY(IES) & RESPONDENTS 1 Boundary dispute resolution Community members; traditional leaders; local authorities 2 Awareness building on environmental principles of forest management Community members; traditional leaders; PROSPER partners; FTI students 3 Technical knowledge for livelihood activities Livelihood group members; general community members 4 Community control over forest resources through establishment of Authorized Forest Community CFMB/CFOC members; PROSPER staff; Authorized Forest Community members 5 Linkages between enterprise groups and local organizations providing technical support and markets Livelihood group members; local organizations 6 Awareness building on new community forest governance structures, nine step Process for Forest Community authorization, forest management tools and procedures CFMB/CFOC members; local authorities; traditional leaders; PROSPER partners 7 Income earned by livelihood projects Members of enterprise groups 8 Formalization of enterprise groups Livelihood groups seeking registered status 77 The frequency of reports of various groups regarding various benefits is described in the text of this section. 88 ANNEX X: TABLE III: METHODS USED TO SUPPORT COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDING OF SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT METHOD 3Cs USE AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE COMMUNITY & PERSONAL MEETINGS   Community meetings held to introduce conservation principles and community governance of forest, report to community on community forestry events and progress; small face-to-face meetings conducted by formally by CAT members and community leaders such as pastors, informally among general community members. Awareness building/outreach tools often introduced or used to initiate meetings. Highly effective method. AWARENESS/OUTREACH TOOLS   The tools include drama, flyers, posters, T-shirts, and radio programs. Highly effective, especially in combination with or following meetings. MEMBERS OF GOVERNANCE BODIES   © Including GoL, traditional leaders, CAs, ECs, CFMBs, and CFOCs. Members reported high levels of knowledge of sustainable management concepts; most communication to communities through formal events and forums. WORKSHOPS   © Used primarily with selected community members to introduce new technical information for livelihood/enterprise groups, to introduce and reinforce concepts with GoL and community forest governance body members, and to build shared knowledge and capacity to disseminate information. Effective. MANUALS   © Intended mainly for governance members, partners, and GoL, some intended users reported that the material appears to lengthy and complicated for easy use HANDBOOKS   © Intended for use at the community level, mainly for the CFMB, some intended users reported that the material appears too lengthy and complicated for easy use TEMPLATES  Forms for enterprise group MOUs and constitutions, CFMAs, and CFMPs. Some intended users reported that they found the documents difficult to understand. TOWN CRIER   Method of disseminating information to the entire community. Effective. CURRICULA  © Developed in conjunction with MoE and FTI, two programs targeting primary students and forestry students, respectively. Not yet rolled out. Conservation  Community  Commercial: © 89 ANNEX XI: TABLE IV: ASPECTS OF EMPOWERMENT PROCESS REPORTED CATEGORY OF INDIVIDUAL ASPECTS OF EMPOWERMENT PROCESS REPORTED (by one or more individuals) Increased knowledge (e.g., CF rights, environmental knowledge, choices) Use of knowledge in another context Increased participation in social, political, or economic realms Increased confidence in self (e.g., assertion of rights, exercise choice) Increased decision-making (independent or group) Female CFMB/CFOC member      Female CA member      Female CAT member  None reported  None reported None reported Female Livelihood group officer Primarily environmental knowledge  None reported None reported  (group) Female Livelihood group member Primarily environmental knowledge  None reported   (group) Female community member (where PROSPER held awareness events) Primarily environmental knowledge None reported None reported None reported None reported Youth CFMB/CFOC member   None reported None reported None reported Youth CA member None reported None reported None reported None reported None reported Youth CAT member  None reported None reported None reported None reported Youth Livelihood group officer Primarily environmental knowledge None reported None reported None reported None reported Youth Livelihood group member Primarily environmental knowledge None reported None reported None reported None reported Youth community member Primarily environmental knowledge None reported None reported None reported None reported 90 (where PROSPER held awareness events) 91 ANNEX XII: TABLE VI: PROSPER PARTNERS Partner Nature of PROSPER Engagement and Support Government of Liberia Forest Development Authority (FDA) Workshops and trainings, technical advice and tools development, logistics support; support for county and district-level forestry and steering committees/information sharing and coordination Ministry of Education (MoE) Workshops and trainings, Collaborative tools development, production of tools Ministry of Internal Affairs (MIA) – County and District level commissioners, superintendents Workshops and trainings; support for county and district-level forestry and steering committees/information sharing and coordination Ministry of Lands, Mines, and Energy (MLME) Workshops and trainings; support for county and district-level forestry and steering committees/information sharing and coordination Land Commission/Interim Land Authority Workshops and trainings; support for county and district-level forestry and steering committees/information sharing and coordination Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Workshops and trainings, technical advice and tools; support for county and district-level forestry and steering committees/information sharing and coordination Forestry Training Institute (FTI) Workshops and trainings, collaborative curricula development, technical advice, tools and equipment, logistical support for gender inclusion efforts and events Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) Workshops and trainings Community Forestry Governance Bodies CFMB/CFOC Training and workshops, technical advice, logistical support for attendance at meetings and forums, coaching, development of tools and materials Private Sector Wienco Liberia Ltd Link to provide community groups with technical advice, inputs, and a market for cocoa production Arcelor Mittal Limited/Liberia (AML) Support for productive relationships between private interests and CF governance bodies and development of possible conservation funding mechanisms Civil Society National Adult Education Association of Liberia (NAEAL) Support for delivery of outreach and awareness building materials Center for Justice & Peace Studies (CJPS) Support for delivery of conflict resolution training and support ACDI/VOCA* Support for delivery of technical advice, equipment, and linkages for local advice and markets to enterprise groups; support for enterprise group registration Conservation International* Collaboration and information sharing on CF experience and conservation funding mechanisms 92 Universal Outreach Foundation (in partnership with the Liberia Beekeepers Association) Link and support to provide communities with introduction to beekeeping, support for technical advice and inputs, and market Kwarkerdoe Farmers Multipurpose Cooperative Link and support to provide enterprise groups with technical advice and inputs for oil palm activities Flora & Fauna International (FFI) Support for biodiversity assessment, biodiversity monitoring manual Society for Conservation of Nature in Liberia (SCNL) Women Non￾Governmental Organizations Association of Liberia (WONGOSAL) Attempted collaboration for meeting on women’s roles in community forestry Other Community Forest Working Group (CWFG) Support for re-establishment of group and meetings Voluntary Partnership Agreement-Support Unit (VPA-SU) Collaboration in capacity building for GoL, technical support for legislative review; information sharing; collaborative creation of bodies for legislative review National Forest and Landscape Forum Participation USAID SHOPS II and USDA LIFE III Collaboration to create platform for development of price dissemination service for farmers and traders * Identified as an international partner, but included because of substantial local office and engagement 93 ANNEX XIII: DISCLOSURE OF ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND CODE OF ETHICS STATEMENTS OF PROSPER EVALUATION TEAM MEMBERS 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20523