January 2015 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by David Callihan, Karen Menczer, and Elizabeth Freudenberger under the Management Support and Technical Analy￾sis Services Project, implemented by the Pragma Corporation and Management Systems International. AFRICA BIODIVERSITY COLLABORATIVE GROUP (ABCG) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Order #AID-OAA-M-13- 00012 USAID Africa Bureau Office of Sustainable Development—Management Support and Technical Analy￾sis Services (MSTAS) Project The Pragma Corporation Principal Contact: Charles Richter 116 East Broad Street Falls Church, Virginia 22046 Cover Photographs: David Bonnardeaux/All rights reserved; Jane Goodall Institute/All rights reserved AFRICA BIODIVERSITY COLLABORATIVE GROUP (ABCG) PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT DISCLAIMER The author’s 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 ........................................................................................................................................................................... iii Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Overview......................................................................................................................................................................... 1 ABCG’s Performance: Conclusions......................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation Purpose ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 Scope of Work and Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4 Project Background........................................................................................................................................................... 6 ABCG Structure and Operations............................................................................................................................... 9 ABCG Activities.........................................................................................................................................................10 Evaluation Findings and Conclusions.........................................................................................................................12 Question 1: Vision ......................................................................................................................................................12 Question 2: Ideas.........................................................................................................................................................14 Questions 3 and 4: Influence and Institutions.......................................................................................................17 Question 5: Business Model.....................................................................................................................................24 Evaluation Conclusions and Recomendations..........................................................................................................26 Evaluation Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................26 Question 1: The ABCG Vision............................................................................................................................26 Question 2: Ideas Dissemination.........................................................................................................................27 Question 3: The Adoption of ABCG Knowledge, Tools, and Practices....................................................28 Question 4: ABCG’s Ability to Build Conservation Partnerships..............................................................29 Question 5: ABCG’s Business Model ...............................................................................................................30 Evaluation Recommendations..................................................................................................................................30 Annex 1: Evaluation Statement of Work....................................................................................................................35 Annex 2: Case Studies....................................................................................................................................................44 ABCG Case Study: Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) Law Enforcement......................44 ABCG Case Study: Faith and Conservation in Africa........................................................................................51 ABCG Case Study: Large-Scale Land Acquisition.............................................................................................54 ABCG Case Study: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon.............................................................................57 ABCG Case Study: Bushmeat Crisis......................................................................................................................61 Annex 3: Evaluation Methods and Limitations........................................................................................................64 Annex 4: List of Interviews...........................................................................................................................................67 Annex 5: Data Collection Tools...................................................................................................................................68 Steering Committee Interview Guide.....................................................................................................................68 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 i Listserve Survey..........................................................................................................................................................69 Activity Managers Survey.........................................................................................................................................80 Figures Figure 3: Ideas to Adoption: Emerging and High Priority Conservation Issues..........................................12 Figure 4: ABCG Listserve Subscribers….…………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Figure 5: ABCG Listserve Open Rates……..………………………………………………………………………………………………14 Figure 6: Usefulness of ABCG Dissemination Methods............................................................................15 Figure 7: Usefulness of ABCG Functions ..................................................................................................15 Figure 8: Application of Knowledge, Practices, and Approaches ...............................................................18 Tables Table 1: ABCG Funded Activities (as per estimated planned expenditures) .............................................10 Table 2: Products Produced by ABCG Activity .........................................................................................17 Table 3: Adoption of New Practices or Policies as a Result of an ABGC Activity....................................19 Table 4: How useful is ABCG in building organizational partnerships?....................................................21 Table 5: Formation of New Partnerships....................................................................................................22 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 ii ACRONYMS ABCG African Biodiversity Collaborative ADS Automated Directive System AFR/SD Bureau for Africa, Office of Sustainable Development ARC Alliance of Religions and Conservation AWF African Wildlife Foundation BATS Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support BCTF Bushmeat Crisis Task Force BEAN Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network CAFEC Central Africa Forest Ecosystems Conservation, USAID CARPE Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment, USAID CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CEDAMM Complexe Éducatif Dr Alphonse Mackanga Missandzou CI Conservation International CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna CRS Catholic Relief Services DAI Development Alternatives, Inc. DC District of Colombia DO Development Objective E3 USAID Bureau for Economic Growth, Education and Environment ELI Environmental Law Institute ESD Education for Sustainable Development F&ES Forestry and Environmental Studies FAB USAID Office of Forest and Biodiversity FS/IP USDA Forest Service/International Programs FY Financial Year GCP Global Conservation Program GETF Global Environment and Technology Fund GPS Global Positioning System HCV High Conservation Value ICDP Integrated Conservation & Development Project IR Intermediate Result IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IRG International Resources Group ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 iii IUCN The International Union for the Conservation of Nature JGI The Jane Goodall Institute LSLA Large Scale Land Acquisitions M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MENTOR Mentoring for Environmental Training in Outreach and Resource Conservation -FOREST MIKE Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants MSSP Maasai Stoves and Solar Project MSTAS Management Support and Technical Analysis Services NEPAD New Partnership for Africa’s Development NFA National Forest Authority NGO Non-Governmental Organization NRT Northern Rangelands Trust ODK Open Data Kit RAIN The Replenish Africa Initiative, Coca Cola Foundation in Africa RM Portal USAID Natural Resources Management & Development Portal SC Steering Committee (of ABCG) SD Sustainable Development SMART Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool SOW Statement of Work TIST The International Small Group and Tree-Planting Program, hosted by WWF TNC The Nature Conservancy ToT Training of Trainers UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID U.S. Agency for International Development USFS US Forest Service USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WRI World Resources Institute WWF-US World Wildlife Fund-United States ZSL Zoological Society of London, Living Conservation ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Overview The Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) is a coalition of the major US-based international conservation organizations that operate field programs in Africa. The collaborative is composed of the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Conservation International (CI), the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Wildlife Fund-United States (WWF-US). USAID provided support to ABCG through a coop￾erative agreement from 2007 to 2014 under the Africa Bureau’s Office of Sustainable Development (SD) Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support (BATS) program. ABCG was created to enable its members to identify and address high priority and emerging conservation issues, and also to combine resources and effort in order to achieve a greater impact on the ground than the members acting individually could. The collaborative serves as an ideas laboratory and provides a mechanism to bring emerging issues to the attention of its members and other interested parties. Ideas are generated by the members themselves, through input from members’ field programs, and through the in￾volvement of the larger conservation community, including USAID/AFR/SD and other BATS partners such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service and consulting organizations. Once issues and approaches are identified ABCG works to disseminate the information for the benefit of the broader conservation community. Information dissemination is done through presentations, creating presentation webinars, e-mail listserv distributions, social media, publishing reports and journal articles, and hosting a website where relevant information can be found. In some cases, ABCG has also provided training and capacity building for partner organizations in Africa. ABCG’s activities are guided by the Dar Vision 2025 – A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Africa, which it created in 2008. Using the Vision as a point of departure, ABCG developed a number of broad focus themes, which serve as the basis for its work. These themes at present include, for example, Gov￾ernance and Land, Global Health and Biodiversity (with two sub themes), Global Climate Change (four sub-themes), Faith and Conservation, and an additional nine topics. In late 2014, the USAID Africa Bureau’s Office of Sustainable Development requested that Pragma Cor￾poration, under its Management Support and Technical Analysis Services contract, conduct a perfor￾mance evaluation of the USAID ABCG Cooperative Agreement in order to understand ABCG’s progress to date and inform the direction of a follow-on activity. The cooperative agreement, which is managed by WWF-US, provided ABCG $6,863,831 in funding and covered a seven-year period (2007-2015). The evaluation examined the following key questions: • Has progress been made toward achieving the ABCG A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Afri￾ca? Does the ABCG Results Framework within the Vision remain valid or should it be adjusted for a potential follow-on to the agreement or future similar programs? • Ideas: How has ABCG moved to understand and disseminate new advances and approaches? • Influence: How has ABCG influenced conservation practice, approaches and linkages among its member institutions, the rest of the U.S. conservation community and in Africa (governments, aca￾demic institutions, NGOs and the private commercial sector)? • Institutions: How has ABCG contributed to the improved capacity, alliances, activities and impacts of the conservation community from both the US and Africa base? • Business model: How have the ABCG organizational structure, internal and external relationships, and methods of operation and collaboration facilitated or frustrated accomplishment of ABCG objec￾tives? ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 1 The evaluation team employed multiple data methods and sources including document review, conduct￾ing Web-based surveys, and conducting semi-structured interviews with ABCG Steering Committee members, USAID staff and other key informants. ABCG has used the majority of its funding to support activities within its priority theme areas. Over the course of the Cooperative Agreement, ABCG expended somewhat over $6.7 million to fund 17 distinct activities. Activity approval is the responsibility of the ABCG Steering Committee with concurrence an￾nually by the USAID/SD/EGEA AOR. For an activity proposal to be approved it must address one of ABCG’s themes and involve two or more ABCG core members in its implementation. A list of funded tasks is presented in the adjacent text box. Activity funding most often supports basic research, field-testing of new technologies and conservation approaches and, in some cases, provides training and capacity-building in Africa. An example of a funded activity is that of the West Indian Ocean activity, which received about $230,000 and is being implement￾ed jointly by WCS, WWF-US and TNC. This activity has resulted in the creation of a conservation trust fund and a steering committee for spatial planning for the West Indian Ocean proposed conservation management area. The governments of Zanzibar, the Seychelles, and Mauritius have recently agreed to join with Comoros, Reunion, Kenya, Tanzania, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique supporting the West Indian Ocean Coordination Committee. ABCG’s Performance: Conclusions The evaluation found that ABCG has been highly effective in meeting the purpose for which it was created. However, the evaluation also found that there tends to be a fair amount of misunderstanding surrounding ABCG. There is a high degree of agreement and consistency within ABCG as to its purpose – which is primarily to act as an ideas generation and dissemination mechanism on high priority and emerging conservation issues for the institutions involved. Outside of the immediate membership, however, and including within USAID, the purpose of ABCG is often not clearly understood and it is frequently perceived as having a broader mandate than is actually the case. For example, several interviewees expressed the opin￾ion that ABCG should be providing an increased level as assistance to USAID missions, or to Afri￾can institutions, but this is not the primary purpose for which the organizations involved created the collaborative. Direct mission services has been part of the larger BATS program provided by the USDA Forest Service and Foreign Agricultural Service (118/119 Assessments) and, to an extent, consulting firms. USAID staff, with the rest of the conservation community, have benefited from ABCG knowledge products. ABCG-funded Tasks: Task A: Dar Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Africa Task B: Managing Extractive Industries to Pro￾tect Biodiversity - B.1 Mining and Biodiversity in DRC - B.2 High Conservation Value Forest Assess￾ments Task C: Land Use Management Tools for Con￾servation Task D: Support for Country 118/119 Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Assessments Task E: Food Security Task F: Addressing Global Climate Change through Adaptation and Actions in Woodlands, Grasslands and other Ecosystems - F.1 Climate Change Adaptation - F.2 Climate Mitigation—REDD workshops - F.3 Woodlands and Tradeoffs - F.4 Clean Energy and eco-charcoal - F.5 Grazing Management and Soil Carbon Task G: Bridging the Gap between Global Health and Biodiversity - G.1 HIV/AIDS and Conservation - G.2 Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation Task H: Forecasting and Analyzing Conservation Needs and Building Capacity on Critical Issues - H.1 Large Scale Land Acquisition - H.2 SMART Law Enforcement - H.3 Western Indian Ocean - H.4 Faith & Conservation ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 2 It is worth noting that together ABCG organizations annually implement about $1.9 billion in field activi￾ties worldwide and $250 million in Africa. Thus, by using ABCG to identify emerging and high priority issues, and developing approaches to address the issues, the collaborative serves as a conduit for integrat￾ing new conservation approaches into the field programs of its own organizations as well as pushing-out the ideas into the broader conservation community. This nesting has resulted in substantial success by ABCG in influencing the conservation practices of a broad array of African organizations. Specific conclusions are as presented below, as per the focus areas of the evaluation. ● Generation and Dissemination of New Ideas that are Useful and Can Be Professionally Ap￾plied Those accessing ABCG-generated information find ABCG’s knowledge dissemination practices to be effective. Ninety-five percent of those surveyed who attended ABCG presentations indicated they found the presentations to be somewhat or very useful in acquiring new knowledge or tools on emerging con￾servation issues and practices. Furthermore, survey respondents have indicated that ABCG is either very or somewhat useful for the following: • 93% - for the exchange of professional knowledge; • 93% - for building a professional network around topics of professional interest; • 90% - for understanding emerging and high priority conservation issues; and • 82% - for improving their professional skills. ● Influencing the Conservation Practices of Key Conservation Organizations ABCG has been highly effective in promoting the adoption of new conservation practices within its member organizations. Each core organization has adopted new conservation practices as a result of ABCG. Of the eleven ABCG-funded activities studied by the evaluation, all led to the adoption of new conservation practices by an African NGO, an African government, or by the private sector. Eighty-two percent of survey respondents indicated that they have applied knowledge gained from ABCG in their professional work. Furthermore, all of ABCG’s institutional members said that ABCG has posi￾tively influenced the work of their organizations. ● Building Partnerships The evaluation concludes that ABCG has been highly effective in creating new conservation partnerships. All eleven ABCG-funded activities that were reviewed in detail under the evaluation resulted in a new conservation partnership being created. These new partnerships involved African NGOs, private sector companies, and African governments. As a direct result of ABCG’s involvement, many partnerships have been formed, most of which would probably not have materialized without ABCG engagement. One of ABCG’s most significant achievements is that it has successfully integrated conservation issues into a wide variety of non-conservation development sectors. Examples of such partnerships include the work on faith and conservation between WWF-US and the Alliance of Religions and Conservation; an partnership in Uganda between an oil company and WCS; integration of HIV/AIDs issues into conserva￾tion programming; and a partnership between the water, sanitation and health community and conserva￾tion NGOs. ● ABCG’s Business Model ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 3 ABCG’s business model is generally sound, and has worked well in identifying, guiding and managing activities under the cooperative agreement. The current business model encourages strong collaboration, and cooperation and consensus is the primary basis for decision making. ABCG’s performance has bene￾fited from a great deal of consistency among Steering Committee members as there has been very little turn-over in membership during the cooperative agreement’s implementation period. It should be noted that SC members’ time to steer the ABCG program is covered by non-USAID funds (and could be con￾sidered match but is not currently). The main text of this evaluation provides detailed findings and examples to support the above conclu￾sions. The report’s final section provides detailed conclusions along with recommendations for an ABCG follow-on project. The Inception Report, the Steering Committee Interview Report, and the Tabulation Report are published as separate documents. INTRODUCTION Evaluation Purpose USAID’s Bureau for Africa/Office of Sustainable Development (AFR/SD) requested the Pragma Corpo￾ration, under the Management Support and Technical Analysis Services (MSTAS) contract, to evaluate the performance of USAID Bureau for Africa’s Cooperative Agreement with the World Wildlife Fund￾US (WWF-US) in support of the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG). The purpose of the evaluation is to: • Determine the extent to which the Cooperative Agreement achieved its intended original and amended objectives; • Assess the technical, program management, and financial performance of WWF-US/ABCG; • Provide recommendations on how ABCG might further its institutional objectives; • Increase understanding of USAID’s role in furthering shared objectives; • Highlight lessons for USAID in facilitating associations of implementing partners. Primary users of the evaluation will be: 1) USAID/AFR/SD both in strengthening USAID-supported biodiversity conservation practice in Africa and understanding sectoral knowledge management for the larger SD portfolio; and 2) ABCG member institutions and the larger conservation community active in Africa and worldwide. Scope of Work and Methodology Based on the ABCG evaluation Scope of Work (see Annex 1), the key evaluation questions, which align with the AFR/SD development objectives (ideas, influence, institutions), are: 1) Has progress been made toward achieving ABCG’s A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Africa? Does the ABCG Results Framework within the Vision remain valid or should it be ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 4 adjusted for a potential follow-on to the agreement or future similar programs? 2) Ideas: How has ABCG moved to identify and disseminate new advances and approaches? 1 3) Influence: How has ABCG influenced conservation practice, approaches and linkages among its member institutions, the U.S. conservation community, and in Africa (governments, aca￾demic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and the private commercial sec￾tor)? 4) Institutions: How has ABCG contributed to the improved capacity, alliances, activities, and impacts of the conservation community from both the US and Africa? 5) Business model: How have the ABCG organizational structure, internal and external relation￾ships, and methods of operation and collaboration facilitated or frustrated accomplishment of ABCG objectives? This performance evaluation of ABCG is based mainly on an analysis of qualitative information, support￾ed by quantitative survey data. The evaluation team’s approach to data collection employed multiple methods and sources in order to triangulate findings. Relevant data collection methods included document review, such as analyzing annual workplans, annual progress reports, and other ABCG documentation (including website resources); conducting web-based surveys; and conducting semi-structured interviews with ABCG Steering Committee members, USAID staff and other key informants. In addition, the evalu￾ation team produced case studies that provide details on six ABCG activities (included as Annex 2). The sum of data on these various points was analyzed to determine ABCG’s overall effectiveness as a con￾vener of ideas and a platform for forming and enhancing knowledge-based professional relationships and institutional alliances. Ultimately, these are the issues that will most impact ABCG’s accomplishment of its purpose, and confirm its value to African biodiversity conservation professionals. The ABCG evaluation team designed three survey instruments (Annex 3) to enable us to respond to the five key evaluation questions: • Interview Guide for structured interviews of the ABCG Steering Committee; • E-survey of ABCG Listserve members (approximately 1,400); • E-survey of ABCG Activity Managers In addition, the evaluation team produced six short cases studies as a way to better understand the details of a select set of ABCG activities. These case studies are presented in Annex 2. A brief overview of our data collection and analysis methods are included as Annex 5 and a detailed dis￾cussion of our methodology is available in a separate document, the Inception Report. There are two limi￾tations to note regarding the survey data: 1. There is likely a non-response bias in the listserve survey data. The listserve survey was dis￾tributed through the ABCG listserve. This listserve has approximately 1,400 subscribers, of which 72 completed the questionnaire. Fifty eight (80.6%) of the respondents identified their country of nationality the United States, with 5 (6.9%) identifying as African. Fifty two (70.8%) of respondents are currently located in the US with 16 (22%) of respondents current￾ly located in Africa. Demographic information on ABGC listserve subscribers was not avail￾able to the evaluation team to compare between all subscribers and the survey respondents. 1 Note that this question has been slightly adjusted from the original SOW. This change was approved by USAID through the Inception Report. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 5 While the insights gained from this survey are still valuable, it is important to stress that they may not be representative of the ABCG listserve community as a whole. 2. For the Activity Managers Survey, ABCG provided the contact information of 84 Activity Managers of both ABCG member organizations and any subcontractors, of which 38 (45%) responded. As detailed in Annex 5, contacts were provided for some, but not all, ABCG tasks. Additionally, 35 of 38 respondents (92%) indicated that their organization was actively implementing the task, so current activities are more heavily represented than historical activ￾ities. The complete results of data collection were provided to USAID/SD in the Survey and Steering Commit￾tee Interview Report (December 2014). The raw survey data was transferred to USAID/SD with the submission of this report. Evaluation team members signed forms indicating that they had no conflicts of interested related to the evaluation; these forms are on file with the Pragma Corporation and are available upon request. PROJECT BACKGROUND The new (December 2013) USAID/AFR/SD Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RDCS) pro￾poses that AFR/SD can achieve its goal through three mutually reinforcing development objectives that together will bring effective ideas to policies, programs, and projects being implemented by a variety of partners in sub-Saharan Africa, including USAID Missions and Offices, other USG agencies, African governments, other donors, and a broad diversity of private sector actors who have a strong influence on the intellectual environment in which African development is occurring. AFR/SD’s goal of ”improved impact of the policies and programs of AFR/SD and its partners on Africa's poor” is intended to be achieved by focusing on three separate development objectives (DO): DO 1) Capacity of AFR/SD to develop more effective ideas strengthened; DO 2) Policies and programs of key partners influenced; and DO 3) Capacity of key African institutions and networks to influence the policies and programs of development partners strengthened. These DOs and their respective intermediate results (IRs) provide the framework which guides the design of AFR/SD projects, enabling the attainment of the overarching goal. Support to ABCG is one of the activities that form USAID/SD’s Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support (BATS) program, a multi-partner USAID Bureau for Africa effort that has also included consult￾ing firms such as Chemonics, International Resources Group (IRG), Development Alternatives Incorpo￾rated (DAI), under the Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities (CK2C) project and Cadmus; the USDA Forest Service Office of International Programs; and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Environmental Law Institute (ELI), and the ABCG. While all institutions had separate fund￾ing and work plans, the implementing entities met regularly with USAID/AFR to coordinate activities. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 6 The BATS program develops practical documentation of USAID’s and partners’ biodiversity conserva￾tion experience and resulting best practices and policy considerations; describes extractive industries partnerships with conservation initiatives; provides technical assistance for biodiversity conservation pro￾grams in countries in crisis, in conflict, and post-conflict situations and highlights governance issues; conducts biodiversity and tropical forestry country level assessments; and identifies and conducts analysis and outreach on emerging African conservation issues. Several of the U.S-based conservation NGOs with field programs in Africa began meeting in 1999 to dis￾cuss the value of focused collaboration as a way to increase conservation impact on the ground. They agreed that a number of priority biodiversity issues were not being adequately addressed by any one insti￾tution or the development assistance community at large. In addition, the complexities of many of these issues require a range of expertise and experience that no one institution possessed. From these discussions there emerged a clear need to go beyond what any U.S-based NGO was doing or could possibly do on its own. Growing out of this need, representatives from the African Wildlife Foun￾dation (AWF), Biodiversity Support Program (BSP)2 , Conservation International (CI), Jane Goodall Insti￾tute (JGI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Resources Institute (WRI), and World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US) met regularly to review opportunities for collaboration, and formed the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) to ad￾dress these issues. In 2000, a Program Coordinator was hired to formalize activities, plan meetings around specific themes, and help disseminate information to African partners and others. ABCG was first supported through a grant from the MacArthur Foundation and member contributions. Through the USAID BATS program, WWF-US/ABCG received a two-year $500,000 grant in 2007 for the period 10/2007 to 9/2009 to provide technical support and share lessons learned to assist USAID/AFR/SD, Africa Missions, and local and national organizations in Africa increase their effective￾ness to tackle major existing and emerging threats to Africa’s biodiversity and contribute to sound devel￾opment based on wise use of natural resources and maintenance of ecosystem services. As follow-on to the initial two-year cooperative agreement, ABCG proposed and was awarded a five-year $2,500,000 amendment to the agreement for the period 2009–2014. Then, in 2011, USAID/AFR invited ABCG to submit a $4,700,000 amendment to the BATS agreement, which was approved by USAID for a life of agreement total of $7,203,923.95 and an obligation to date of $6,863,831. A no-cost extension request extended the end-of-agreement to March 31, 2015. ABCG is a voluntary partnership of the major US-based international conservation NGOs with field￾based activities in Africa. At present the coalition is currently made up of AWF, CI, JGI, TNC, WCS, WRI and WWF-US. ABCG’s composition has changed slightly over time as JGI was not an original member and IUCN participated in the early years of the CA. The ABCG is not a legal entity but a volun￾tary partnership of conservation organizations, and includes a designated Coordinator and other staff, whose salaries are paid by one of the ABCG members. The BATS program and the ABCG component serve as a support facility that provides services to meet USAID Mission and partner needs in: • Reviewing USAID/Africa’s conservation history, lessons learned, and way forward. (Task A) 2 The Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) operated from 1989-2001 as a consortium of World Wildlife Fund (WWF), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and World Resources Institute (WRI) and was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 7 • Managing extractive industry alliances for environmental gain. (Task B) • Addressing biodiversity conservation in states vulnerable to crisis, in crisis, or recovering from crisis. (Task C) • Supporting country-level 118/119 biodiversity and tropical forestry assessments, including threats, analysis, and actions necessary for biodiversity conservation. (Task D): This task is primarily implemented by other BATS partners. • Supporting scaling up integration in land use planning as a means to ensure more comprehen￾sive farming systems approaches linked to natural resources management with a focus on eco-agriculture, including bushmeat as an important element of incorporating protein into food security. (Task E) • Investigating multiple approaches to global climate change, including scaling up climate change adaptation, evaluating tradeoffs in climate planning in woodlands ecosystems, im￾proving grazing practices linked to carbon sequestration in grasslands, and scaling up clean energy practices. (Task F) • Equipping governments, NGOs, and partners to better address the intersections of global health challenges and biodiversity. (Task G) • Forecasting future conservation needs and opportunities in Africa by identifying selected crit￾ical and/or emerging conservation issues and linkages in Africa as priorities for future USAID and donor support in order to better prepare the conservation sector, and in some cas￾es follow up directly or catalyze actions by others. (Task H) • Conducting continued outreach on BATS products. As one mechanism of several under BATS, ABCG provides support to a much larger USAID biodiversity program for Africa; and conversely, ABCG is supported by other BATS initiatives. For example, USAID/AFR/SD has commissioned firms under BATS to undertake studies on particular topics (e.g., Faith and Conservation, diaspora, Madagascar 25 years, Namibia 15 years) that ABCG is then able to as￾sume and provide support for further analysis and dissemination. Other implementing partners under BATS have used ABCG (listserve, Website, brownbags) to disseminate their work. In this way, the BATS program encourages collaboration and coordination of all USAID/AFR/SD biodiversity initiatives. ABCG’s vision was developed using an intensive collaborative process, and builds on USAID Bureau for Africa biodiversity conservation experience as articulated in the document The Future of Biodiversity in Africa: Report of Consultation 2007-2009 and A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Africa. The ABCG vision is “By 2025, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in Africa have been signifi￾cantly slowed, people and nature are adapting to climate change, and species and ecosystem services are providing a foundation for human welfare in a society committed to sustainable economic development and equitable sharing of natural resource benefits.” This will be achieved if the community can: A) Main￾stream biodiversity in human well-being and development agendas, B) Promote good conservation prac￾tices, and C) Strengthen the role of social and development institutions in biodiversity conservation and human well-being. ABCG’s mission is to tackle complex and changing conservation challenges by catalyzing and strength￾ening collaboration, and bringing the best resources from across a collaborative of conservation organiza￾tions to effectively and efficiently work towards a vision of an African continent where natural resources and biodiversity are securely conserved in balance with sustained human livelihoods. Through long-term collaboration with its members, ABCG plays a role in identifying emerging and high￾priority threats facing biodiversity in Africa. ABCG aims to generate knowledge, foster communities of practice, connect across sectors, and share best practices with a range of stakeholders, from local commu￾nities to conservation professionals around the world, including policy and decision makers in Africa and the U.S. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 8 ABCG members collectively implement more than half of the USAID Bureau for Africa portfolio of bio￾diversity conservation efforts ($91 million in FY14) and, with additional resources, manage annually an estimated $250 million of conservation funding in Africa. The global conservation portfolio of these same institutions is approximately $1.9 billion annually. One of the key roles of ABCG is to identify emerging biodiversity issues in Africa. The ABCG Steering Committee relies on their field offices in Africa to identify emerging and other high priority issues and bring them to the attention of Washington-based ABCG members. With their strong field presence, the seven ABCG members are well-positioned to play this role. ABCG Structure and Operations WWF-US, the signatory to the USAID Cooperative Agreement, currently hosts the ABCG Coordinator and serves as fiduciary agent for the Cooperative Agreement. Based in Washington, DC at the WWF-US office, the ABCG Project Coordinator’s role is to convene ABCG meetings and manage the Cooperative Agreement. A Program Officer, whose role is communications, outreach, and Website maintenance, is now based in Nairobi, Kenya at AWF headquarters. ABCG is overseen and coordinated by a Steering Committee. The Steering Committee meets about every three months and officially includes one representative from each of the seven member organizations. In practice, more than one person from a member organization may participate if that person has a special interest in a topic under discussion or to provide coverage when a member is travelling. The Steering Committee’s role is to generate and approve annual workplans and activity grants. The approval of grants is technically done by vote, although in practice this seldom happens. Grant activities are developed col￾laboratively and decisions to fund activities are generally reached by consensus. In response to a Request for Application (RFA) for a follow-on agreement, the coalition chose WCS to host and manage the next phase of ABCG (2014-2019). A proposal for the renewal of USAID/AFR sup￾port to ABCG was recently submitted to USAID, and a decision on follow-on funding and scope is pend￾ing the outcome and USAID’s review of this evaluation. ABCG manages a number of different activities outlined below: • Outreach and communications: This includes managing a Website; sending out listserve announcements on events and publications; arranging presentation events, which are some￾times about ABCG activities, and are sometimes general issues of interest presented by other organizations to further the exchange of information relevant to the broader conservation community; and producing reports and other publications. • Management of activity grants: ABCG has implemented approximately $6.7 million in ac￾tivities over the life of the Cooperative Agreement. Guided by the Dar 2025 Vision and ABCG’s themes, ABCG member organizations propose and develop the activities. Each ac￾tivity must have a minimum of two ABCG members as sponsors and implementers. As men￾tioned above, the ABCG Steering Committee reviews and must approve an activity before it receives funding. • Management and coordination: The management structure currently includes two full-time employees, a Coordinator and a Program Officer; both are employed by WWF-US. The man￾agement role involves scheduling and coordinating events; coordination and oversight of funded activities; and project reporting, which requires submission of annual workplans and annual progress reports to USAID. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 9 ABCG Activities Table 1 provides an overview of activities, organized by ABCG themes, funded by ABCG over the life of the Cooperative Agreement. Some themes have a single funded activity, whereas other themes have mul￾tiple activities under sub-themes. An ABCG coordinator oversees each theme, with the support of a Pro￾gram Officer, as needed; and each activity has a designated lead, who may or may not be from an ABCG member organization. The information in the table was developed from planned expenditures in annual work plans. Table 1: ABCG Funded Activities (as per estimated planned expenditures)3 Activity Funding ($) Fiscal Years By Theme Total USAID ABCG A: 25 Year Biodiversity Assessment & Path Forward 207,756 207,756 199,756 8,000 2009 - 2011 B: Managing Extractive Industries to Protect Biodiversity - B.1: Mining and Biodiversity in DRC 381,878 53,575 42,131 11,444 2012 - B.2: High Conservation Value Forest Assessments 328,304 310,131 18,173 2012 - 2014 C: Analyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Governance to Prevent Conflict and Crisis, or Land Use Management Tools for Conservation 849,758 849,758 766,133 83,625 2009 - 2014 D: Support for Country 118/119 Tropical Forestry and Biodiversity Assessments 2,259 2,259 859 1,400 2009 - 2010 E: Food Security 512,174 512,174 448,923 63,251 2011 - 2013 F: Addressing Global Climate Change through Adaptation and Actions in Woodlands, Grasslands and other Ecosystems - F.1: Climate Change Adaptation 2,362,416 763,774 723,580 40,194 2010 - 2014 - F.2: Climate Mitigation—REDD workshops 157,417 120,696 36,721 2010 - 2011 - F.3: Woodlands and Tradeoffs 685,570 661,734 23,836 2012 - 2014 - F.4: Clean Energy and eco-charcoal 351,470 327,634 23,836 2012 - 2014 - F.5: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon 404,185 380,349 23,836 2012 - 2014 G: Global Health and Biodiversity - G.1: HIV/AIDS and Conservation 378,939 193,369 193,369 0 2010 - 2014 - G.2: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene & Conservation 185,570 184,099 1,471 2012 - 2014 H: Forecasting and Analyzing Conservation Needs and Building Capacity on Critical Issues - H.1: Large Scale Land Acquisition 2,067,300 429,631 429,631 0 2012 - 2014 - H.2: SMART Law Enforcement 464,527 464,527 0 2013 - 2014 3 Figures are based on annual workplan planned expenditures, and do not represent actual expenditures. This table is for illustrative purposes only. ABCG was not required to track expenditure by activity and actual numbers are not available. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 10 Activity Funding ($) Fiscal Years By Theme Total USAID ABCG - H.3: Western Indian Ocean 229,200 229,200 0 2013 - 2014 - H.4: Faith & Conservation 226,492 226,492 0 2012 - 2014 - H.5: Emerging Issues 717,450 709,450 8,000 2010 - 2014 Total of Planned Expenditures 6,762,480 6,762,480 6,418,694 343,786 2009-2014 95% 5% Source: ABCG Workplans ABCG Influence Figure 3 below outlines the process of information flow for ABCG themes and activities. Ideas on high priority and emerging conservation issues are generated through the ABCG member insti￾tutions and their field programs, through other partners in the BATS program, by USAID/AFR/SD, and through other USG agencies. Ideas dissemination occurs as a result of the various ABCG activities. The activities and the dissemina￾tion are directly supported by the USAID cooperative agreement. Dissemination is sometimes as simple as hosting a presentation, but in other cases research, field testing and outreach may be conducted Adoption of new practices occurs within the ABCG members, the wider conservation community, and within host governments as a result of the ideas dissemination, but is not directly financed by the USAID cooperative agreement. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 11 Figure 1: Ideas to Adoption: Emerging and High Priority Conservation Issues EVALUATION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Question 1: Vision Has progress been made toward achieving the ABCG A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Af￾rica? Does the ABCG Results Framework within the Vision remain valid or should it be adjusted for a potential follow-on to the agreement or future similar programs? Background USAID commissioned ABCG, through the BATS Program, to consult with experts in Africa and the US on the future of biodiversity in Africa over a ten to thirty year time horizon and to identify issues and op￾tions for possible consideration by USAID. Building on this process, ABCG and other stakeholders de￾veloped Vision 2025 at a workshop in Dar es Salaam in September 2008. The “Dar Vision Statement,” also known as Vision 2025, and also considered the ABCG Vision, has been widely circulated and refined ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 12 since it was developed during the workshop, and is meant to be a living document to be adapted over time. Findings Vision 2025 calls upon conservationists, partners, and donors to help achieve the Vision through three intermediate results and 19 sub-results. No performance indicators were developed to track progress to￾wards achieving the Vision. Vision 2025 is cited in ABCG planning documents, proposals, and on the ABCG Website, and it is re￾ferred to during ABCG Steering Committee meetings, Working Group meetings, and in workshops and conferences with ABCG partners and stakeholders. ABCG tasks are drawn from the Vision. In interviews with the ABCG Steering Committee, the Evaluation Team found the following: • All nine ABCG Steering Committee members were familiar with the Vision. • Five of the seven institutions indicated it is useful as a general guiding document for pro￾gramming; two indicated that they do not use the Dar Vision. • No one felt that the Dar Vision should be updated – it remains relevant as a guiding docu￾ment. • The Vision is not tracked and is not considered a programming document (except in the sense that it provides general guidance). The evaluation team asked the nine ABCG Steering Committee members for more details on how ABCG and their organizations use the Dar Vision. The following summarizes Steering Committee members’ re￾sponses: • The Vision helps ABCG to think strategically and to identify issues that are bigger than any one organization. • The Vision helps ABCG set boundaries and identify tasks to which they can contribute. • It is a guide to the major biodiversity challenges and issues in Africa. The Dar Vision can help identify themes or tasks that are receiving limited attention, and where ABCG can fill a gap. For example, a Steering Committee member stated that “a review of the Vision led to awareness that the faith and conservation theme was not being adequately addressed, and subsequently ABCG developed activities, based on a BATS White Paper prepared under contract by IRG, that works on the nexus of these two areas.” Concurrent with the development of the AFR/SD CDCS and emerging attention to strengthening key Af￾rican institutions, the Vision provides a road map for increased linkages with Africans and African institu￾tions through increased field presence, Webinars, and joint workshops. The Vision is also useful to help identify where ABCG can make a contribution and to help develop tasks. For example, the ABCG Steering Committee used the Dar Vision to help frame the next phase of ABCG (the ABCG proposal to USAID, “Hosting and Management Services for the Africa Biodiversity and Col￾laborative Group, 2014-2019”) and to identify tasks/activities on which to focus over the next ABCG five-year timeframe. As part of the process to conceptualize the follow-on ABCG project, Steering Committee members partic￾ipated in a multi-day strategic planning process. This process helped to narrow the focus of the follow-on project and reduced the number of themes ABCG will focus on. The follow-on proposal is discussed in some detail in a later chapter of this evaluation. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 13 Question 2: Ideas Ideas: How has ABCG moved to identify and disseminate new advances and approaches? Background Tasked with generating and disseminating knowledge, ABCG identifies ideas that can be addressed by two or more of the member organizations. Outreach is conducted through a number of communication mechanisms, including its listserve, website, brownbag presentations, archived webinars, and events such as training, workshops, and conferences. According to ABCG provided documents, the listserve has over 1,400 subscribers with an average open rate of 20 – 40%, as shown in the figures below. Figure 2: ABCG Listserve Subscribers Figure 3: ABCG Listserve Open Rates Source: ABGC project document, “ABCG Performance and Productivity FY2014” Findings Interviews with Steering Committee members indicated that the current dissemination methods were suc￾cessful, but offered some insights for improvements. Six out of the seven organizations indicated the ABCG is an effective dissemination mechanism in general, with the representative of the seventh indicat￾ing that she was not familiar enough with the level of effectiveness to provide an opinion. Steering Com￾mittee members provided the following observations: • Dissemination tools are good, but they are not sufficient because there is a hunger for more information, and especially in Africa. ABCG needs to spread the information more broadly to potential users. • We want to expand the effort, but what has been done so far has been successful at getting more organizations involved in the issues. • We need to develop an influence strategy to get the word out further. The evaluation team included questions on accessing and use of ABCG products and information in the listserve survey to gain an understanding of how the broader ABCG community views ABCG’s idea dis￾semination. Listserve subscribers were asked to rate the usefulness of the communication methods in 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 May-11 Aug-11 Nov-11 Feb-12 May-12 Aug-12 Nov-12 Feb-13 May-13 Aug-13 Nov-13 Feb-14 May-14 Aug-14 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Sep-11 Apr-12 Oct-12 May-13 Nov-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Open rate Open rate-smoothed ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 14 helping them to acquire new knowledge, tools, or approaches from ABCG products. Responses were overwhelmingly positive, as shown in the following chart. Figure 4: Usefulness of ABCG Dissemination Methods Source: Listserve Survey4 • Respondents found presentations to be the most useful, with 95% and 94% stating that they were very or somewhat useful for presentations attended via Webinar or in person respective￾ly. • The website was also seen as highly useful, with 86% of respondents indicating that it was very or somewhat useful. • While almost two thirds of respondents (65%) indicated that they find social media very or somewhat useful, it received fewer positive responses than the other communication methods. Listserve members were also asked to rate how useful ABCG was on a number of points related to use of information. As with the types of communication methods, responses were overwhelmingly positive, with all aspects of information learning and sharing receiving at least 80% ratings of very or somewhat useful for those respondents who answered this question. Exchange of professional knowledge and building a professional network were the most highly ranked, both at 93%. Figure 5: Usefulness of ABCG Functions 4 Responses of “don’t know / not applicable” removed for analysis ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 15 Source: Listserve Survey5 The following were the survey responses indicating that ABCG is very or somewhat useful for the following: • 93% - for the exchange of professional knowledge; • 93% - for building a professional network around topics of professional interest. • 90% - for understanding emerging and high priority conservation issues; and • 82% - for improving my professional skills. The overwhelmingly positive responses to this survey question indicate that those who use ABCG tools (Website, presentations, Webinars, documents/studies/guidance) find them very useful. ABCG appears to be contributing to professional development and biodiversity information exchange. Additional key findings from the listserve survey include: • 64% (46 of 72 respondents) indicated that ABCG summarize lessons from theme areas (focus topics) in a way that is useful to them, with 87% (40 of 46) reporting that this information is easy to find. • Over the past six months, 49% (35 of 72 respondents) have visited the current ABCG Web￾site at least once per month, with 47% (34 of 72) visiting at least once every few months. This is much higher than the reported visits to the old Website hosted on FRAMEWeb of 8% (6 of 72) at least monthly, 40% (29 of 72) at least once every few months, and 51% (37 of 72) reporting either never or don’t know. This indicates that the website transition has been suc￾cessful. The FRAME website remains an archival website useful for search engines and links 5 Responses of “don’t know / not applicable” removed for analysis ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 16 not yet updated. • Respondents are generally satisfied with frequency and content of the listserve messages, with 93% (65 of 70 respondents) indicating that the number of messages is correct (vs. too many or too few) and that the messages contain about the right amount of information. • 93% of respondents (67 of 72) indicated that English is their primary language used for work. This is closely related to the fact that 71% (51 of 72) are currently working in the US. The Activity Manager survey also included a number of findings related to the dissemination of ideas. 92% of Activity Managers (35 of 38) reported that their activity developed new conservation advances and approaches for emerging and high priority conservation issues. In regard to disseminating the new advance or approach, 44% (15) thought that ABCG was very effective and 38% (13) thought that ABCG was somewhat effective. All other respondents either did not know or did not respond. The Activity Managers were also asked which types of products were produced as a part of their activity. As show below in Table 2, of those responding, 10 of the 12 tasks produced publications or reports, 9 produced a tool or methodology, 8 held conferences, and 7 issued guidelines and held presentations. Table 2: Products Produced by ABCG Activity Task Publications / reports Brownbag / Webinar / presentation Conference Tool / meth￾odology Guidelines B.2: High Conservation Value Forest Assessments X X X X X C: Analyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Gov￾ernance to Prevent Conflict and Crisis, or Land Use Management Tools for Conservation (Land Tenure and Biodiversity) X X X X X F.1: Climate Change Adaptation X X X X F.3: Woodlands and Tradeoffs X X X F.4: Clean Energy and Eco-Charcoal X X X X F.5: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon X X G.1: HIV/AIDS and Conservation X X X X X G.2: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation X X X X X H.1: Large Scale Land Acquisition X X X H.2: SMART Law Enforcement X X X X X H.3: Western Indian Ocean X X X X H.4: Faith & Conservation X X X X X Source: Activity Managers Survey and website validation. Examples of ABCG products and publications can be found on the ABCG website. Questions 3 and 4: Influence and Institutions Influence: How has ABCG influenced conservation practice, approaches, and linkages among its member institutions, the U.S. conservation community, and in Africa (governments, academic insti￾tutions, NGOs, and the private commercial sector)? Institutions: How has ABCG contributed to the improved capacity, alliances, activities, and impacts of the conservation community from both the US and Africa? Background ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 17 The previous section of this report looked at ABCG’s ability to identify and disseminate information on emerging and high priority conservation threats. We chose to examine evaluation questions 3 and 4 to￾gether because they are different points on the same continuum. When ABCG disseminates knowledge, it may influence institutions (member organizations and others) to adopt new approaches, practices, or technologies; this could go hand in hand with development of new partnerships; ultimately, the result is that new approaches, practices, and technologies are institutionalized, capacities are improved, and link￾ages are strengthened. This section examines: 1) whether the knowledge, practices, and approaches disseminated by ABCG have been adopted and applied; and 2) whether ABCG’s activities resulted in the formation of new alliances. We examined these issues from a number of perspectives, including by surveying the overall ABCG community of practice (through the listserve survey), by interviewing ABCG Steering Committee organi￾zations, by surveying those involved in implementing ABCG-funded activities, and by conducting a re￾view of the literature. Findings - Application of Knowledge Gained from ABCG This section presents findings related to the adoption and application of knowledge, practices, and ap￾proaches. Figure 6: Application of Knowledge, Practices, and Approaches Source: Listserve Survey * Note: as most respondents to the survey are resident in the U.S. a high number of people (53) answered this question as “don’t know/doesn’t apply” – presumably because the project does not seek to influence U.S. policy. • Responses from interviews with ABCG Steering Committee members indicated that ABCG has posi￾tively influenced the work of all seven organizations and that they are applying numerous lessons and practices garnered from ABCG. • The table below shows survey responses by individuals involved in implementing ABCG activities to the question: Did the (ABCG) activity result in the adoption of a new practice or policy by any of the following? ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 18 Table 3: Adoption of New Practices or Policies as a Result of an ABGC Activity Task My organi￾zation Another ABCG or￾ganization Other inter￾national NGO (non￾ABCG) Africa NGO African gov’t Private sector USAID B.2: High Conservation Value For￾est Assessments 75% 25% 25% 0% 25% 75% 0% C: Analyzing Biodiversity Conser￾vation and Governance to Prevent Conflict and Crisis, or Land Use Management Tools for Conserva￾tion (Land Tenure and Biodiversi￾ty) 50% 0% 25% 25% 75% 25% 0% F.1: Climate Change Adaptation 100% 67% 33% 17% 17% 17% 17% F.3: Woodlands and Tradeoffs 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% F.4: Clean Energy and Eco￾Charcoal 100% 100% 100% 50% 0% 0% 0% F.5: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon 50% 50% 0% 50% 0% 50% 0% G.2: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation 67% 67% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% H.1: Large Scale Land Acquisition 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% H.2: SMART Law Enforcement 75% 75% 25% 50% 75% 0% 25% H.3: Western Indian Ocean 20% 0% 20% 0% 100% 20% 0% H.4: Faith & Conservation 83% 50% 33% 50% 17% 17% 17% Total of Averages 71% 45% 29% 26% 37% 24% 8% Source: Activity Managers Survey Survey responses are from ABCG member institutions, as well as subcontractors and partners. The table highlights the following: • All eleven of the above activities have resulted in the adoption of a new conservation practice by ABCG members.6 • All eleven of the activities have resulted in the adoption of a new conservation practice by an ABCG member and at least one other organization. • For every activity in the above table, a new conservation practice was adopted by a non￾ABCG member, including by African NGOs (8 of 11 activities); African governments (6 of 11 activities); by the private sector (7 of 11 activities); and by USAID (3 of 11 activities). [Note: not all ABCG activities were designed to influence policy or lead to the adoption of practices by partner or other organizations.] The data from various sources show that as a direct result of ABCG activities, member organizations have adopted new conservation practices. The data also show that individuals and institutions are applying knowledge and practices promoted by ABCG; these individuals and institutions include core and non￾core ABCG members, such as other NGOs, governments, and the private sector. The following sections highlight examples of how ABCG knowledge and practices are being applied. The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool for law enforcement (SMART) system is presented as a detailed 6 Note: individuals from more than one organization provided comments on the same activity, which is why for some activities there are answers indicating both adoption of a new practice, and non-adoption. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 19 example of the adoption of an ABCG-supported practice. Then, to show the breadth of ABCG’s influ￾ence, brief examples of the adoption of improved practices are presented. Examples of the Adoption of Knowledge Gained from ABCG Numerous cases exist of adoption by ABCG members, as well as by African NGOs and governments, of ABCG-promoted conservation practices. The SMART law enforcement system is an illustrative example of the wide-ranging adoption of an ABCG-supported practice. A more detailed case study of the SMART activity is in Annex 2. The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool for law enforcement (SMART) This ABCG activity trained conservation professionals to use the SMART for adaptive management of law enforcement in five sites in Central and East Africa. ABCG promoted the technology through Wash￾ington-based presentations, publications, and training workshops held in 2013 in Gabon and Tanzania. SMART is a GPS-based system that tracks wildlife patrols and allows those conducting the patrols to en￾ter information on threats and incidents into a database. The system helps to ensure that patrols are actual￾ly carried out, and develops information on the types and locations of threats so that enforcement actions can be adjusted to increase effectiveness. WCS took the lead on the activity, but AWF, WWF-US, and JGI also participated. Since the original two African-based trainings were completed each of the participating ABCG members has since gone on to train others to use the system. Several ABCG members have adopted the SMART system, and it is also being used by African NGOs and governments, who were trained under the ABCG activity. ABCG members are also using the system with funding from sources other than ABCG. Adoption to date includes the following: 1) SMART has become a standard system for wildlife law enforcement for WWF-US and WCS and is used for all of their work in the Congo Basin; 2) JGI is using the SMART system to collect data in the Congo’s Tchimpounga Nature Reserve; 3) AWF field staff in Kenya and Tanzania are providing training on the system, includ￾ing for use by the Kenya Wildlife Service and for community game scouts in southern Kenya and in Tan￾zania; and 4) the Gabon and Uganda governments have been trained in the use of the system and have begun using it for law enforcement management. In addition, USAID has incorporated the use of SMART into its required reporting under its Central Afri￾ca Regional Program for the Environment, which de facto requires that implementing partners use SMART for wildlife law enforcement management. Throughout the eight Central Africa Forest Ecosys￾tems Conservation (CAFEC: post-CARPE) project’s landscapes, SMART is used to manage patrols and the majority of the rangers using the technology were trained in ABCG-sponsored or follow-on work￾shops. Additional Examples and Comments The following survey and interview comments show the breadth of adoption of ABCG-promoted knowledge and practices. • Information generated by the High Conservation Value Tool Assessment activity has contrib￾uted to the national land-use planning process in Gabon. • As a result of ABCG’s HIV/AIDs activity, WWF-US developed a policy to address HIV/AIDs organization-wide. The issues addressed by the policy include education and health screening for staff; compensation and care for families of staff lost to HIV/AIDs; and ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 20 guidelines for ranger and staff deployment based on HIV/AIDs considerations, including guidance on the length of deployments away from families and the conditions under which staff are assigned. ABCG efforts also changed behavior and practices at the College of Afri￾can Wildlife Management in Mweka, Tanzania. • As a result of the Woodlands and Tradeoff activity, the oil industry in Uganda is now using a systematic approach to identify and address the industry’s conservation impacts. In addition, WCS has signed a separate contract valued at over a million dollars to provide advice to the Government of Uganda and oil exploration companies on how to site and manage drilling ac￾tivity in Murchison Falls National Park to minimize impacts to the environment, including to the park’s globally significant wildlife. • As a result of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) activity, the Ugalla Primate Project Pro￾gram, in Tanzania, will deploy UAVs in 2015 for habitat and encroachment monitoring in collaboration with Conservation Drones and JGI. • A conservation trust fund has been created and a steering committee for spatial planning has been formed as a direct result of ABCG’s West Indian Ocean activity. The governments of Zanzibar, the Seychelles, and Mauritius have recently agreed to join with Comoros, Reunion, Kenya, Tanzania, Kenya, Madagascar and Mozambique supporting the West Indian Ocean Coordination Committee. • JGI has integrated faith values into its conservation initiatives in Uganda as a result of the Faith and Conservation activity; WWF-US developed a Sacred Earth program to address cross-sectoral linkages between faith and conservation; and the Uganda Faith Networks of Environmental Action is now using the faith and conservation toolkit (see below) in its com￾munity-based environmental education activities. Findings - ABCG’s Ability to Build Conservation Partnerships ABCG builds new partnerships in a number of ways: ABCG members collaborate on new conservation initiatives and projects; ABCG members individually or collectively reach out to organizations and gov￾ernments to collaborate on new initiatives; and some ABCG-funded activities include the provision of grants to organizations other than the seven member organizations, and thereby a partnership is formed. Examples of the latter are the Faith and Conservation activity, which provided a grant to the Alliance of Religions and Conservation (ARC), and TNC’s Soil and Carbon work, which provided grants to Kenya’s Northern Rangeland Trust. The following data relate to ABCG’s ability to build new partnerships: • The following responses were received in response to the listserve survey question: How use￾ful is ABCG in building organizational partnerships? Table 4: How useful is ABCG in building organizational partnerships? Very Useful Somewhat Use￾ful Not Very Useful Not Useful Percent 50% 33% 12% 5% 88% 17% Number of responses 33 22 8 3 Source: Listserve Survey According to the table, 88% of respondents indicated that ABCG is either very useful (50%), or some￾what useful (33%), in helping their organization to build new partnerships or alliances. • The Activity Manager Survey posed the question: Did the activity result in the formation of ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 21 any new partnerships?7 Table 5: Formation of New Partnerships Task Yes No Percent Yes B.2: High Conservation Value Forest Assessments 2 1 67% C: Analyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Governance to Prevent Conflict and Crisis, or Land Use Management Tools for Conservation (Land Tenure and Biodiversity) 2 1 67% F.1: Climate Change Adaptation 5 1 83% F.4: Clean Energy and Eco-Charcoal 1 1 50% F.5: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon 2 - 100% G.2: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation 2 - 100% H.1: Large Scale Land Acquisition 1 - 100% H.2: SMART Law Enforcement 3 - 100% H.3: Western Indian Ocean 4 1 80% H.4: Faith & Conservation 5 1 83% Total 27 6 82% Source: Activity Managers Survey As can be seen from the above table, at least one new partnership or alliance was created for each activity undertaken.8 7 Since there are two or more institutions involved in each activity, for one organization, the work may have resulted in a new alliance being formed, but this may not be the case for the other organization 8 The disparity in responses is because there are two or more organizations involved in each activity, and for one organization, the work may have resulted in a new alliance being formed, but this may not have been the case for all organizations involved. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 22 Partnerships Formed by ABGC As a direct result of ABCG’s involvement, many partnerships have been formed, most of which would never have materialized without ABCG influence. ABCG’s Faith and Conservation activity is a good ex￾ample of ABCG’s role in and impact on partnership building, and also an example of how ABCG has served as a useful communication and programming conduit for AFR/SD’s BATS program. A White Paper on faith and conservation was written by IRG through BATS support, presented through ABCG and then later picked-up as a funded activity by ABCG. Two recent components of the ABCG Faith and Conservation activity were: (1) education (the Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) Teachers’ Toolkit); and (2) illegal wildlife trafficking. A number of alliances can be directly attributed to ABCG’s Faith and Conservation project, described below. JGI and ARC have formed a partnership around the faith-based ESD Teachers’ Toolkit, which integrates faith values about caring for creation with teaching on the environment in faith-sponsored primary schools. This partnership would not have occurred without ABCG involvement, and will continue with or without additional ABCG funds (according to an interview with ARC). In Tanzania, JGI was already working with the Muslim community on JGI’s education program, Roots and Shoots, when JGI repre￾sentatives attended an ABCG-sponsored workshop in Tanzania, which presented the ESD Teachers’ Toolkit. JGI is now interested in combining the more formal environmental education methodology in the toolkit with the less formal Roots and Shoots’ methodology. Following the ARC workshop in Tanzania, ABCG funded an ESD Toolkit workshop in Uganda, and JGI co-hosted it with ARC. The partnership be￾tween ARC and JGI is now particularly strong in Uganda. As a direct result of the ABCG grant to ARC, a partnership was formed in September 2012 of 50 Chris￾tian, Muslim, and Hindu communities in Africa. This is the first-ever partnership of faith leaders across Africa to unite against the illegal wildlife trade. With ABCG funding and facilitation by ARC, the reli￾gious leaders came together to sign statements opposing the illegal wildlife trade and committing their communities to work against it, as well. These statements were submitted, in a booklet format, to His Royal Highness Prince Phillip. Another partnership formed as a direct result of ABCG support to ARC is between African and Chinese religious leaders. In the summer of 2013, with ABCG funds, the religious leaders were brought together in Norway, where they signed a partnership agreement committing them to collaborate on combatting the illegal wildlife trade. In an interview, ARC representatives stated that, “without ABCG funding and will￾ingness to allow them [ARC] to develop something that they didn’t expect to come out of the wood￾work—a partnership of religious leaders from China and Africa—they [ARC] would not have been able to take on the extra work of organizing workshops in Africa….” ABCG involvement has not only directly resulted in the formation of partnerships, it has also facilitated or strengthened partnerships. For example, an organization which brings together African and Chinese development communities was interested in focusing on China’s role in the illegal wildlife trade in Afri￾ca. The Taoist community has been especially strong in denouncing the use of wildlife in Chinese medi￾cine, and as part of this effort, a representative of that community visited Africa in October 2014 to see how African communities have been affected by the illegal wildlife trade (violence, intimidation, and de￾struction of habitat). Because ABCG had supported ARC’s work in Africa, ARC was in the position to facilitate this visit and link the Taoist representative to African as well as Chinese media, who covered her visit. According to ARC, ABCG’s ability to be flexible was very important in enabling ARC’s work in the formation of alliances. “Once the Africa-China link emerged, ABCG was willing and able to be support￾ive of this initiative.” For the education component of the Faith and Conservation project, ARC stated that ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 23 the experience has shown how working with conservation and faith groups can be successful and how, relationships formed because of ABCG involvement, will now continue. “This is a great example that these cross-sector types of partnerships can work and that there is nothing that should divide religion and conservation groups.” These partnerships and alliances had their starting point when ABCG identified the Faith and Conservation theme within Vision development as an under-served, yet high priority area on which ABCG should focus. Examples and Comments Related to other Alliances Resulting from ABCG Work The following survey or interview comments related to the formation of new partnerships provide a flavor for the types of partnerships that have been formed under ABCG: • Under the Soil Carbon work being done by TNC and the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) in northern Kenya new strategies are being developed for rotating, sharing and managing grazing. The results will lead to improved pasture management, reduced erosion, reduced conflict, and more carbon retained in rangelands. The concept and practices are being scien￾tifically tested by TNC and the Syracuse University, and are being actively implemented through the work of the Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT). The improved rangeland man￾agement practices have been adopted by six conservancies, which cover over 500,000 hec￾tares and benefit over 50,000 community members. The program and practices are also ex￾panding beyond the initial six target conservancies into an additional four conservancies. • Since the initiation of the Large Scale Land Acquisition activity (which focuses on the link￾ages between land acquisition and conservation and resource management), WRI has launched a multi-country initiative on the topic, which includes a focus on and partnerships with Tanzania, Mozambique, and the Philippines. This follow-on multi-country activity is funded with non-ABCG funds. • Under the Western Indian Ocean activity, an alliance between TNC, WWF-US, and WCS has been created, and this alliance has gone on to create a Marine Spatial Planning initiative in￾volving the Seychelles, Tanzania, and Mauritius. UNDP has also become a partner is this ini￾tiative. • Under the climate change adaptation work, WCS formed an alliance with BirdLife Interna￾tional. • Under the Clean Energy and Eco-charcoal activity, a partnership was formed between AWF and the Maasai Stove and Solar Project Maasai Stoves and Solar Project (MSSP). This pro￾ject will help to disseminate improved cooking technology and reduce pressure of harvesting forest timber for fuelwood. Question 5: Business Model Business model: How have the ABCG organizational structure, internal and external relationships, and methods of operation and collaboration facilitated or frustrated accomplishment of ABCG ob￾jectives? Background As a coalition of seven of the major US-based international conservation NGOs, the ABCG Secretariat has rotated locations among its member NGOs. The Secretariat was based at AWF from March 2000 to June 2001, at CI from July 2001 until June 2004, at WWF-US from July 2004 to November 2009, at TNC from 2009 through September 2012, then at WWF-US until the end of the current agreement in 2015. The follow-on ABCG program (2014-2019) proposes that WCS act as the host and manager of ABCG; the Secretariat would also be located at WCS in Washington, DC. The role of host and manager includes ac￾ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 24 tivity planning and implementation and associated reporting to USAID, sub-grants management, coordi￾nation and support to partners, and the responsibility for communication among ABCG partners. In 2000, ABCG hired a Program Coordinator, and this position has been proposed to continue under the follow-on project (2014-2019). The responsibilities include formalize activities, plan meetings around specific themes, and help disseminate information to African partners and others. The Program Officer (hired in 2011) supports the Program Coordinator in ensuring timely implementation and reporting, and supporting the ABCG partners to contribute to achieving the program’s objectives. With the Program Of￾ficer’s move to Nairobi, Kenya earlier this year, he is able to engage more fully with African institutions. Findings The Evaluation Team interviewed nine members of the Steering Committee about the structure and gov￾ernance of ABCG (one member from five of the ABCG organizations and two members from two ABCG organizations). In general, the seven organizations thought ABCG’s basic structure and management pro￾cesses are effective. SC members brought up many positive aspects of the ABCG structure, among them: • ABCG’s structure enables organizations to work together in the field. Field staff commented that they would be working separately on similar issues without the level of coordination that ABCG has helped to create. • The stability of institutional representatives on the Steering Committee and how well they work together has contributed to ABCG’s success. • The member organizations have a diverse set of tools and approaches, and ABCG has been a useful way to share these different perspectives. • The ABCG collaboration is ideal for working and sharing across sectors. • Rotating the leadership role (hosting, managing, and the Secretariat) among the member or￾ganizations helps empower members, and the Program Coordinator and Program Officer promote neutrality. • ABCG allows USAID to be more agile than it could be without ABCG since ABCG can delve into smaller activities and pilot them, and, if successful, can scale up (often through member organizations non-ABCG programs). Without ABCG, USAID would not be able to work at that small-scale and test activities before making decisions to fund them at higher levels. However, within this consensus that the program generally operates effective, some differences emerged and are highlighted below: • At SC level there is equitable participation; however, task management has not been as equi￾table in terms of funding. Some organizations have received a larger share of the funding. In some cases, significant funds went to just a few organizations. Some SC members also stated that the amount of funding is of little importance, since ABCG is focused on information sharing rather than on project implementation. • Because of the way funding decisions are made (the more tasks an organization participates on, the more funding that organization is likely to get), more organizations may be included on a particular task than may be optimal and appropriate. • Decision-making about funding activities has largely been by consensus; voting has rarely been necessary. This is useful for maintaining a collegial approach, but it does not always lead to the best decisions, or an efficient decision-making process. • Because ABCG members have close working relationships and the decision making process is often based on consensus, it is difficult to oppose an ABCG decision/proposal. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 25 • The process to develop the recent proposal, and sometimes funding decisions, required a large time commitment. SC members are not compensated for their time on the SC and the commitment required can be extensive. This can place an undue burden on member participa￾tion, especially for some of the relatively smaller NGOs. Attribution and documentation of these costs could count as match or leverage. • For the sake of efficiency and clarity, it is best if one organization handles the cooperative agreement’s management, and sub-grants management. In the past sub-grant management was rotated and this did not work well as it delayed accomplishment reporting to USAID and led to misperceptions of pipeline expenditures. Some SC members mentioned that working relationships have developed over several years, and because some SC representatives have been involved over the long-term, SC operations have benefitted. In addition to structural and governance challenges, ABCG Steering Committee members suggested that ABCG could have greater impacts on biodiversity conservation in Africa by focusing more attention on the following: • Dissemination and adoption: This could be done by taking on fewer tasks (as the new WCS/ABCG proposal does), but also by developing specific adoption/user strategies as part of the activity proposal process. • Use ABCG’s presence in Africa to expand its emphasis on outreach. • Focus on what ABCG does best: work on high level issues (continental/regional) rather than focus on smaller issues such as one protected area or even one country. • Focus on activities that are cutting edge. • Focus on fewer activities and be disciplined about decisions to work on specific emerging is￾sues. For example, if an emerging issue receives ABCG funding, another task should be de￾emphasized rather than growing the number of ABCG tasks. The current staffing pattern was mentioned as a possible constraint: • If ABCG is to focus on more outreach and dissemination in Africa additional staff may be needed. The current Project Officer position in Nairobi could have an increased focus on this role. The WCS follow-on proposal does indicate that the position has “assumed a critical role in expanding ABCG’s effort to cultivate leadership by African institutions in addressing the critical biodiversity conservation challenges facing the continent.” EVALUATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS This section contains the evaluation’s conclusions and recommendations. Conclusions are presented for each of the five questions in the evaluation’s SOW. The conclusions are directly supported by the data and findings that were generated as part of the evaluation and that are contained in the report’s earlier sec￾tions. The recommendations are structured more generally to address ABCG’s future. All recommenda￾tions have been developed in consideration of the report’s conclusions, but also in regard to the ABCG follow-on proposal (produced by the ABCG Steering Committee) in response to a Request for Applica￾tion from USAID/AFR. WCS is the organization proposed to manage the follow-on agreement and will be responsible for ABCG’s technical and financial management. Evaluation Conclusions Question 1: The ABCG Vision ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 26 The Dar 2025 Vision developed by ABCG is broad, and many more stakeholders than ABCG and its partners are needed to work toward its achievement; it will require contributions from governments, do￾nors, individuals, and NGOs in other sectors, as well as from conservation organizations. Therefore, ra￾ther than an ABCG Vision, it is a Vision for Biodiversity in Africa, which ABCG contributes to but which is beyond ABCG’s ability to achieve on its own. The Vision is useful for planning and decision making, to help set boundaries, and to help ground conser￾vation work in African needs and realities. ABCG tasks are rooted in the Vision and ABCG members’ capacities. For example, when ABCG reviewed the Dar Vision, USAID and the Steering Committee de￾termined that the Faith and Conservation theme was not receiving adequate attention; through the BATS mechanism, research was conducted and then the SC funded an activity in this area, bringing in a new partner to help carry the initiative forward. Beyond the Vision, there is a high degree of agreement and consistency within ABCG as to its purpose – which is primarily to act as an ideas generation and dissemination mechanism on high priority and emerg￾ing conservation issues for the institutions involved. Outside of the immediate membership, however, and including within USAID, the purpose of ABCG is often not clearly understood and it is frequently per￾ceived as having a broader mandate than is actually the case. For example, several interviewees expressed the opinion that ABCG should be providing an increased level as assistance to USAID missions, or to African institutions, but this is not the primary purpose for which the organizations involved created the collaborative. Question 2: Ideas Dissemination The vast majority of those using ABCG resources are gaining knowledge on emerging conservation is￾sues. They acquire their information through the Website, and from publications and presentations (both in-person and through Webinars). And, overwhelmingly, those accessing ABCG-generated information find ABCG’s knowledge dissemination practices to be effective. While ABCG is doing an excellent job of identifying and disseminating information on high priority and emerging conservation issues, there may be some opportunities for improvement. An issue that was raised by multiple constituencies within ABCG is that perhaps the collaborative could provide more atten￾tion to outreach and information dissemination in Africa. For example, outreach in Africa could be in￾creased by using ABCG member field offices for outreach, by hosting more events in Africa, or by trans￾lation of products/communications into languages other than English. While the lessons generated by ABCG are easy to understand for those involved, these lessons are not always clearly synthesized and may not be as accessible for those who are not closely involved and who rely solely on the Website and publications to gain their knowledge. The conclusion that ABCG is effective in generating and disseminating information on high priority and emerging conservation issues is based on an analysis of information obtained from the Steering Commit￾tee members, the listserve community, and from activity managers. For example: • 95% of those who attended ABCG presentations indicated they found the presentations to be very or somewhat useful in acquiring new knowledge or tools on emerging conservation issues and practices. Likewise, for those watching video Webinars on the same topics, 94% of survey respondents indicat￾ed the Webinars were very or somewhat useful to acquiring new knowledge or tools on emerging conservation issues and practices. • The Website was also seen as highly useful, with 86% of survey respondents indicating that it was ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 27 very or somewhat useful for acquiring new knowledge. All persons interviewed on this topic indicat￾ed that the new ABCG Website is a significant improvement over the prior ABCG portal hosted on the FRAME Website. • The following are survey response rates to a few questions that indicate that ABCG is either some￾what or very useful for the following: o 93% - for the exchange of professional knowledge; o 93% - for building a professional network around topics of professional interest; o 90% - for understanding emerging and high priority conservation issues; and o 82% - for improving my professional skills. Additional information related to this topic can be found in the report section on findings. Question 3: The Adoption of ABCG Knowledge, Tools, and Practices ABCG has been highly effective in promoting the adoption of new conservation practices within its member organizations. Each organization has adopted new conservation practices as a result of ABCG. Beyond the seven ABCG member organizations, there is also substantial evidence that practices promoted by ABCG have been widely adopted. Of the eleven ABCG-funded activities studied by the evaluation, all led to the adoption of new conservation practices by an African NGO, an African government, or by the private sector -- in addition to being adopted by one or more of the core member organizations them￾selves. The Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) for law enforcement is an example of one ABCG￾promoted conservation practice that has been widely adopted in Africa as a result of the collaborative’s work. SMART is a GPS-based system that helps to ensure that wildlife patrols are actually carried out, and develops information on the types and locations of threats so that enforcement actions can be adjusted to increase effectiveness. This ABCG activity provided SMART training for five sites in Central and East Africa. As a result of ABCG’s work: 1) SMART has become a standard system for wildlife law enforcement for WWF-US and WCS and is used for all of their work in the Congo Basin; 2) JGI is using the SMART sys￾tem to collect data in the Congo’s Tchimpounga Nature Reserve; 3) AWF field staff in Kenya and Tanza￾nia are providing training on the system, including for use by the Kenya Wildlife Service and for commu￾nity game scouts in southern Kenya and in Tanzania; and 4) the Gabon and Uganda governments have been trained in the use of the system and have begun using it for law enforcement management. This is one of several examples of the adoption of ABCG practices uncovered by the evaluation team. Anecdotally, those activities for which ABCG has conducted the most on-continent outreach and capacity building, including training and partnering with African organizations, seem to have been the most effec￾tive in leading to the adoption of new practices by African organizations (both governments and NGOs). Examples include SMART law enforcement, the WASH activity, faith and conservation and the use of UAVs for habitat monitoring. This seems to indicate that there is a tangible benefit to increased adoption when ABCG takes the extra step of taking their technologies and practices to Africa, as opposed to limit￾ing activity to running Washington-based workshops and distributing materials and hoping that the ap￾proaches are picked-up by those who could potentially benefit. The conclusion that ABCG has been effective at promoting the adoption of improved conservation prac￾tices is based on the summary information provided below, and is supported by numerous examples un￾covered by the evaluation team through literature reviews, surveys, and interviews. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 28 • All of the institutions that are members of ABCG said that ABCG has positively influenced the work of their organizations; • All of the projects reviewed indicated that a new conservation practice was adopted by either an African NGO, an African government, or by a private company. • 82% of listserve respondents said that they have applied knowledge gained from ABCG in their professional work; • 71% of activity managers said that ABCG activities have led to the adoption of a new prac￾tice or policy within their own organization; 29% indicated that ABCG practices have been adopted by non-ABCG NGOs; and 26% said ABCG has led to the adoption of new policies or practices by African governments; and • 61% of listserve respondents indicated ABCG has influenced practices at their institution. Additional details and examples of the adoption of ABCG practices are available in the corresponding findings section of the report. Question 4: ABCG’s Ability to Build Conservation Partnerships The evaluation concludes that ABCG has been highly effective in creating new conservation partnerships. The eleven ABCG-funded activities reviewed in detail under the evaluation resulted in a new conserva￾tion partnership being created. These new partnerships involved African NGOs, private sector compa￾nies, and African governments. As a direct result of ABCG’s involvement, many alliances and partnerships have been formed, most of which would probably have never materialized without ABCG support. For example, under the Western Indian Ocean activity, a partnership between TNC, WWF-US, and WCS has been created, and this part￾nership has gone on to create a Marine Spatial Planning initiative involving the governments of the Sey￾chelles, Tanzania, and Mauritius. UNDP has also become a partner is this initiative. Numerous other ABGC-inspired partnerships are presented in the main text of this report. ABCG has been particularly effective at building partnerships between the conservation community and non-traditional conservation partners. Examples of such partnerships include the work on faith and con￾servation between WWF-US and ARC; an alliance in Uganda between an oil company and WCS; integra￾tion of HIV/AIDs issues into conservation programming, particularly in terms of how such issues overlap with and affect conservation; and a partnership between the water, sanitation and health community and conservation NGOs, which focuses on the relationship between conservation management and clean wa￾ter. In many cases, including for the faith-based, HIV/AIDs, and WASH sectors, this type of work – that of linking conservation issues with non-conservation development sectors – was not previously being done. This is perhaps one of ABCG’s most significant achievements: it has successfully integrated con￾servation issues into a wide variety of non-conservation development sectors. The evaluation’s conclusion of success in this area is based on the summary information provided below, and is supported by numerous examples uncovered by the evaluation team through a literature review, surveys and interviews. Additional information can be found in the report section on findings. • 88% of listserve respondents said that ABCG has been either very effective (50%), or some￾what effective (33%), in improving their organization’s ability to build organizational part￾nerships or alliances. • At least one new partnership or alliance was created for each of the 11 ABCG-funded activi￾ties reviewed through the Activity Manager survey. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 29 Question 5: ABCG’s Business Model ABCG’s business model is generally sound, and has worked well in identifying, guiding and managing activities under the cooperative agreement. The current business model encourages strong collaboration, and cooperation and consensus is the primary basis for decision making. ABCG’s current structure and performance has benefited from a great deal of consistency among Steering Committee members as there has been very little turn-over in membership during the cooperative agreement’s implementation period. It should be noted that SC members volunteer their time to steer the ABCG program. While the evaluation found the ABCG business model to be sound, a few concerns came up during the evaluation; these may represent opportunities for marginal improvements. One issue is that the consensus decision-making process can sometimes be very time consuming, and is at times inefficient. Based on the findings, conclusions are presented below covering ABCG’s business model and govern￾ance. Decision Making. Because the SC uses a participatory decision-making process and operates mainly by consensus, decision making can at times be drawn-out, time consuming and somewhat inefficient. This mainly has to do with the role of the Coordinator being defined as a coordinator as opposed to a decision￾maker (manager). Sometimes making a tough decision, for example to cut funding of a task or to elimi￾nate a member organization from a task, may be avoided in favor of taking a less difficult, less controver￾sial path. While creating a balance in decision making (highly collaborative versus top down decision making) is a challenge in any collaborative participatory effort, small changes in ABCG’s decision￾making process could have a beneficial effect. Grant Management. When the grant management (activity fund) accounting and reporting is located within the same organization that has responsibility for the cooperative agreement’s execution fulfilling contractual and reporting obligations is more efficient. At one point ABCG rotated responsibility for the management of grants among some of it members, but this was found to be an ineffective arrangement and resulted in delayed reimbursements from USAID. Activity Monitoring. ABCG does not have a project monitoring and reporting system that tracks out￾comes; project monitoring is for the most part limited to activity-level reporting that is compiled into an annual report. This sometimes makes it difficult to understand the full impact of activities and also means that field-level impact may not always be subject to deliberate and systematic follow-through attention. The follow-on proposal does call for increased attention to be given to outcome monitoring. Evaluation Recommendations The evaluation team’s recommendations have been developed in consideration of the evaluation’s conclu￾sions and following a review of the ABCG proposal for a follow-on project. ABCG’s Vision. ABCG should continue to use the Dar Vision as it currently does: as a planning and de￾cision-making tool, a mandate, a guide, a rallying point. There is no need to update it. The focus of the proposed follow-on project, which was arrived at through an extensive strategic planning process, should provide ABCG adequate strategic focus for the coming three to five years. Ideas Generation. ABCG should continue to use its current processes to identify and explore emerging and high priority issues, and then research and disseminate information related to these issues. In some cases, pilot testing and capacity building for implementation may be required. This process primarily re￾ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 30 lies on SC members to bring the observations and concerns of their various organizations, including in￾sights from field staff, to the attention of the full committee to decide if the issues warrant further atten￾tion. A strength of ABCG is that it also serves as a discussion platform and dissemination conduit for the broader conservation community, and as an important dissemination mechanism for other work initiated by USAID/AFR/SD (including under BATS). ABCG should continue to play this role, and be alert for opportunities to include non-traditional partners, and non-ABCG members, in its discussions and activi￾ties. This could include helping to advance concepts promoted by USAID/AFR/SD or the USFS, as when it took up the topic of faith and conservation that was first initiated through a BATS-supported white pa￾per, and also when it brings new organizations in to implement its activities, as for example using Syra￾cuse University to help conduct soil carbon research work in Kenya. Activity design, monitoring and reporting. The following actions are recommended: • ABCG should develop a clear results hierarchy that can guide implementation and be used to con￾struct a results-based reporting system. This should be in the form of an objective tree or results framework. Although ABCG went through a Miradi planning process, which has been helpful to guide the collaborative’s direction, the follow-on ABCG activity will benefit from the development of a clearer results framework with targets and a strategy for achieving the targets. The current sets of objectives and activities presented in the proposal, e.g. the objectives on page five of the proposal, and the actions on page six, should be consolidated to align with a set of clear overall project objectives, which can be tracked. There is currently some redundancy between the proposal’s multiple sets of objectives and activities. Activities under themes should also develop clear results hierarchies and dissemination plans, and activity managers should periodically report against these. • ABCG should develop a project monitoring and reporting system that focuses on the achievement of project outcomes, particularly in regard to the adoption of improved practices, building of partner￾ships and influence on policy and national programs in Africa. This system should also include a tracking of activity implementation, e.g. presentations and Website statistics; training delivery; and funds leveraged. Elements of the sustainability plan should also be incorporated into the monitoring and reporting system including, for example, the mainstreaming of ABCG practices and tools by ABCG organizations themselves. • Sustainability planning: We believe the sustainability section of the follow-on proposal would benefit from additional discussion. One element of the current sustainability plan is that ABCG actions can be sustained by mainstreaming the actions into the programs of core partners. This has most certainly happened to some degree under the current cooperative agreement and could be better tracked. In ad￾dition, ABCG should give some attention to how sustaining the core operations of ABCG itself could be strengthened. Elements of this could include additional fundraising by the Coordinator. At present, each member organizations does include an annual contribution of $5,000 to help cover operations, but additional non-USAID funding for task activities would be beneficial. • ABCG should develop and update lessons learned synthesis documents for each of the key activi￾ties/themes, and highlight ABCG accomplishments. This could help ABCG’s lessons and experience be better understood by non-ABCG organizations. Currently, the Website generally provides a de￾scription of key theme activities along with a listing of activities, such an overview of workshop pro￾ceedings or the presentation of technical papers. There is not, however, usually an overall of synthesis of key lessons. Documents of a few pages that synthesize lessons and identify contacts for follow-up could be helpful to guide those not directly involved in ABCG’s work. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 31 Ideas Generation: Use of Grants. The proposal for an ABCG follow-on activity calls for the use of a small grants fund to address emerging issues. As currently structured, the small grants fund would oper￾ate through a formal call for proposals to be issued twice per year; annual issuance of 2-3 small grants, from $25,000-$75,000 each; and funding of activities that can be completed in one year or less. The evaluation team recommends that the SC reconsider the small grants fund concept as currently pro￾posed. Given that all ABCG institutional members currently commit their time to the SC on a voluntary basis, and given that there is already a tension in terms of the time commitment required to conduct nor￾mal ABCG business, we believe the proposed grant process is likely to place an untenable management burden on the SC. The process as proposed is likely to consume a great deal of time and require signifi￾cant oversight. Responsibilities will include identifying funding areas; writing solicitation scopes of work; ensuring that all eligible and potentially interested local organizations have received and have ac￾cess to the request for proposals; reviewing proposals (of which there could be many); clarifying the in￾tended objectives and activities of those selected to implement grants; and managing the oversight process – all for a relatively few activities that may be as small as $25,000 and will last for less than a year. We believe there are better ways to support African institutional research related to emerging and high priori￾ty issues. We do, however, recommend that funding flexibility be maintained to address emerging issues, as it has in the past. As an alternative to an open call for grants process, we recommend that ABCG members themselves identify African institutional partners as a way to increase on-continent institutional involve￾ment, and that these partnership become part of the strategy of pushing-out new information, tools and technology, and include elements of training and capacity building when appropriate. We believe this will be an effective strategy as ABCG has a history of successfully doing just this; in fact, this has been one of ABCG’s greatest strengths. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 32 Outreach and Dissemination: Increased Involvement of African Institutions. We recommend ABCG use some of the funds earmarked for grants to increase and deepen strategic part￾nerships with African institutions as per the activities funded under its themes, including for emerging issues (as per above recommendation). This would involve providing funds to African institutional part￾ners to participate in activity implementation and to receive capacity building and training support for the testing or adoption of tools and practices developed by ABCG. This purpose is not radically different than that of the proposed small grant fund, but it differs in that ABCG members themselves would identify the partners best positioned to provide assistance on theme-based and emerging issues, and it would not entail the management burden required of managing an open grants program. We believe this approach will be successful as ABCG has a strong track record of partnering with African institutions to test and promote the adoption of new conservation tools and strategies – even though this was not a focus of their original mission. The extent to which ABCG can increase its outreach and capacity building will somewhat de￾pend on available funding. As the ABCG follow-on proposal recommends funding that is roughly equiva￾lent to current levels the extent to which outreach can be significantly increased will be limited. In addition, to strengthen outreach and dissemination (in Africa, among conservation organizations, host governments, USAID, other donors, the private sector, and universities), the evaluation team recommends that ABCG activity plans include an outreach and dissemination plan, and that these plans link directly to the achievement of specific activity objectives. We believe that ABCG’s proposed concentration on few￾er activities means that outreach can receive increased attention and that dissemination can be more effec￾tive. An outreach strategy, for example, would involve defining the audience for each activity, identifying who should be trained and deciding how to deliver a training-of-trainers process; it would also involve the development of a clear outcome-based design for each significant funded activity. If governments are to be involved, identifying a mechanism to elicit their participation and support will be necessary. This will require identifying key stakeholders and partners for all activities and deciding and planning the appropri￾ate mechanisms for promoting the adoption of tools and practices. This has been done for several past ABCG activities, but was not always done in a strategic, pre-planned manner. Business Model: Decision Making. Identifying a way to improve the Secretariat’s ability to make deci￾sions, and to improve the efficiency and objectivity of the process, is a difficult challenge because of the need to balance participation, collaboration, consensus-building, objectivity and effectiveness. The Coor￾dinator should have an increased ability to make some executive decisions; although the SC members should maintain the authority to veto decisions (perhaps with a percentage of the vote). There also needs to be a way to better limit the participation of ABCG organizations under a particular task so that re￾sources are given only to those organizations that have the strongest comparative advantage to contribute. One way to do this could be by requiring that all members vote on the approval of each proposed activity – for example, through an anonymous voting system (survey gizmo, for example) where each member must vote and can include approval stipulations to guide the Coordinator’s decision process. In practice, for example, approval could require a minimum of five votes, and voting members could include condi￾tions for their approval, such as the number of institutions involved. This is only one suggestion as there are surely other ways that improved objectivity and efficiency could be attained – so as to reduce the time and effort to create, approve and finalize activity proposals. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 33 Business Model: Use ABCG’s Nairobi Presence to Increase Outreach and Dissemination. The role of the ABCG Program Officer, who is now located in Nairobi, should be revised to include an increased focus on ideas dissemination, outreach, adoption support and monitoring. This could include convening forums in Nairobi (and elsewhere) to present topics covered by ABCG, perhaps hosting viewings of Webinar broadcasts followed-up with live discussion forums, and fostering coordination with govern￾ments and other partners on technology and policy work. ABCG could also consider using the broad convening power of the multiple organizations to encourage the adoption of common practices and approaches, or to promote policy improvement. To some degree, ABCG has experimented with such efforts under its initiative to increase the awareness of environmental concerns with regard to large scale land acquisitions. We believe more could be done in this area because when ABCG members speak with a single voice they bring an impressive collection of organizational experience and influence to the discussion. Business Model: Organizational Composition and Participation. The evaluation finds the mission and composition of the ABCG Steering Committee to be appropriate, and while we believe there should be an increased focus on dissemination and adoption in Africa, we do not believe that the Steering Committee should be expanded to include Africa-based institutions as this would be a significant deviation from the purpose for which ABCG was created (and which it has successfully carried out). We do believe that ABCG should remain open to increasing the participation of other US-based conservation organizations as opportunities arise, and as the need arises to address issues that may require more specialized attention. For example, should an increased focus be directed toward marine issues more specialized expertise could be helpful. This could be achieved by adding organizations to ABCG’s core, or by adding organizations to ABCG-funded activities, as has been done in the past with activities such as the faith imitative (ARC) and the soil carbon initiative (Syracuse University). ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 34 ANNEX 1: EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION The Evaluation Policy commits USAID to measure and document project achievements and shortcomings so that the Agency’s multiple stakeholders gain an understanding of the return on investment in develop￾ment activities. The policy states that evaluation at USAID has two primary purposes: accountability to stakeholders and learning to improve effectiveness. Performance evaluations focus on descriptive and normative questions: what a particular project or pro￾gram has achieved (either at an intermediate point in execution or at the conclusion of an implementation period); how it is being implemented; how it is perceived and valued; whether expected results are occur￾ring; and other questions that are pertinent to program design, management and operational decision￾making. Performance evaluations often incorporate before and after comparisons, but generally lack a rigorously defined counterfactual. A mix of qualitative and quantitative methods is optimal for perfor￾mance evaluations. The goal is to use robust qualitative and quantitative methods that generate the highest quality and most credible evidence that corresponds to the questions being asked taking into consideration time, budget, and other practical considerations. To this end USAID/AFR/SD has engaged with its Management Support and Technical Analysis Services (MSTAS) contract with the Pragma Corporation to evaluate the performance of USAID Bureau for Africa Cooperative Agreement with the World Wildlife Fund/US to support the Africa Biodiversity Collabora￾tive Group (ABCG) RLA-A-00-07-00043. The purpose of the evaluation is to 1) determine the extent to which the Cooperative Agreement achieved its intended original and amended objectives, 2) assess the technical, program management, and financial performance of WWF-US/ABCG, 3) provide recommendations on how ABCG might further its institu￾tional objectives, 4) increase understanding on USAID’s role in furthering shared objectives, and 5) high￾light lessons for USAID in facilitating associations of implementing partners. Primary users of the evaluation will be 1) USAID Office of Sustainable Development both in strengthen￾ing USAID-supported biodiversity conservation practice in Africa and understanding sectoral knowledge management for the larger SD portfolio 2) ABCG member institutions and the larger conservation com￾munity in Africa and worldwide. USAID has a pending response to a Request for Application (RFA) from the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) for a new USAID partnership in hosting the ABCG. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The Biodiversity Analysis and Technical Support (BATS) program is a multi-partner USAID Bureau for Africa effort that has included International Resources Group (IRG), the USDA Forest Service Interna￾tional Programs, Environmental Law Institute (ELI), the Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communi￾ties (CK2C) project of Development Alternatives, Incorporated (DAI), Cadmus, and the Africa Biodiver￾sity Collaborative Group (ABCG) under a cooperative agreement. While all groups had separate funding and work plans, the implementing entities met regularly with USAID/AFR to coordinate their activities. Through BATS, WWF-US/ABCG received a two-year $500,000 grant in 2008–2009 to provide technical support and share lessons learned to assist USAID/AFR/SD, Africa Missions and local and national or￾ganizations in Africa to increase their effectiveness to tackle major existing and emerging threats to Afri￾ca’s biodiversity and contribute to sound development based on wise use of natural resources and mainte￾nance of ecosystem services. ABCG proposed and was awarded a five-year, $2,500,000 extension to the BATS agreement for the period 2009–2014. In 2011, ABCG was invited to submit a $4,700,000 amend￾ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 35 ment to the BATS agreement, which was approved by USAID for a life of agreement total of $7,203,923.95 and an obligation to date of $6,863,831.00. A no-cost extension request extended end-of￾agreement to March 31, 2015. The BATS program develops practical documentation of USAID’s and partners biodiversity conservation experience and resulting best practices and policy considerations, describes extractive industries partner￾ships with conservation initiatives, provides technical assistance for biodiversity conservation programs in states in crisis, in conflict and post-conflict situations and highlights governance issues, conducts bio￾diversity and tropical forestry country level assessments, and identifies and conducts analysis and out￾reach on emerging African conservation issues. The ABCG serves as a support facility that provides services to meet mission and partner needs in: • Reviewing USAID/Africa’s conservation history, lessons learned, and way forward (Task A) • Managing extractive industry alliances for environmental gain (Task B) • Addressing biodiversity conservation in states vulnerable to crisis, in crisis, or recovering from crisis (Task C) • Supporting country-level 118/119 biodiversity and tropical forestry assessments, including threats, anal￾ysis, and actions necessary for biodiversity conservation (Task D) • Supporting scaling up integration in land use planning as means to ensure a more comprehensive farm￾ing systems approaches linked to natural resources management with a focus on ecoagriculture, includ￾ing bushmeat as an important element of incorporating protein into food security. (Task E) • Investigating multiple approaches to global climate change, including scaling up climate change adapta￾tion, evaluating tradeoffs in climate planning in woodlands ecosystems, improving grazing practices linked to carbon sequestration in grasslands, and scaling up clean energy practices. (Task F) • Equipping governments, NGOs and partners to better address the intersections of global health chal￾lenges and biodiversity (Task G) • Forecasting future conservation needs and opportunities in Africa by identifying selected critical and/or emerging conservation issues and linkages in Africa as priorities for future USAID and donor support in order to better prepare the conservation sector and in some cases follow up directly or catalyze actions by others (Task H) • Conducting continued outreach on BATS products. USAID Bureau for Africa has had a long and productive relationship with the ABCG and its predecessor consortium, the Biodiversity Support Program (BSP), and seeks to continue that relationship. The ABCG is not a legal entity but a voluntary partnership of conservation organizations active in Africa. It includes a designated Coordinator and other staff salaried by one of the members. The African Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) is a coalition of the major US-based international conservation non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with field-based activities in Africa including Af￾rican Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Conservation International (CI), the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Resources Institute (WRI) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF-US). The ABCG provides program planning, implementation, evaluation and knowledge management and outreach support to USAID biodiversity conservation programs in Afri￾ca. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 36 ABCG‘s mission is to tackle complex and changing conservation challenges by catalyzing and strength￾ening collaboration, and bringing the best resources from across a continuum of conservation organiza￾tions to effectively and efficiently work towards a vision of an African continent where natural resources and biodiversity are securely conserved in balance with sustained human livelihoods. The Vision was de￾veloped under an intensive collaborative process building on Bureau for Africa biodiversity conservation experience articulated in the document The Future of Biodiversity in Africa: Report of Consultation 2007- 2009 and the attendant A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Africa. The ABCG vision is “By 2025, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss in Africa have been sig￾nificantly slowed, people and nature are adapting to climate change, and species and ecosystem services are providing a foundation for human welfare in a society committed to sustainable economic develop￾ment and equitable sharing of natural resource benefits”. This will be achieved if the community can: A) Mainstream biodiversity in human well-being and development agendas, B) Promote good conservation practices, and C) Strengthen the role of Social and Development institutions in Biodiversity Conservation and Human Well-Being. In the course of implementation, ABCG members articulated a results chains/theory of change for 1) identification of priority strategies/themes, best practices and critical actors and 2) effective functioning of communities of practice. The first chain describes the generic process appropriate for understanding any landscape/seascape, such as the greater Rift Valley, a CARPE landscape, or the West Indian Ocean, or a thematic issue such as corridors, High Conservation Value (HCV) Forest Assessments, or Faith and Con￾servation. The second chain describes how the developed Community of Practice might catalyze actions. See Annex 1 for both theory of change models. Through long-term collaboration with its members, ABCG plays a critical convening role, and is well￾known to be an objective, innovative thought leader on emerging and high-priority threats facing biodi￾versity in Africa. ABCG has been fortunate to have worked for many years with support from USAID to generate knowledge, foster communities of practice, and share best practices with a range of stakeholders, from local communities to conservation professionals around the world, and policy and decision makers in Africa, the US, and beyond. ABCG work has assisted USAID and others in better understanding con￾servation challenges and solutions, and has made important connections across different sectors. The group collectively implements more than half of the USAID Bureau for Africa portfolio of biodiver￾sity conservation efforts ($91 million in FY14) and with also other sources manage an estimated $250 million toward conservation in Africa. The global conservation portfolio of these same institutions ex￾ceeds $1.6 billion annually. The BATS/ABCG partnership provides significant opportunity to collect, analyze and share this substantial experience to benefit USAID programming and the larger conservation effort in Africa. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS The new (December 2013) Regional Development Cooperation Strategy (RCDS) proposes that AFR/SD can achieve its goal through three mutually reinforcing development objectives that together will bring new, effective ideas to policies, programs and projects being implemented by a variety of partners in sub￾Saharan Africa, including USAID Missions and Offices, other USG agencies, African governments, other donors, and a broad panoply of private sector actors who have a strong influence on the intellectual envi￾ronment in which African development is occurring. AFR/SD’s goal of ”improved impact of the policies and programs of AFR/SD and its partners on Africa's poor” is intended to be achieved by focusing on three separate development objectives (DO). DO 1) Ca￾pacity of AFR/SD to develop more effective ideas strengthened; DO 2Policies and programs of key part￾ners influenced; and DO 3) Capacity of key African institutions and networks to influence the policies and ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 37 programs of development partners strengthened. These development objectives and their respective in￾termediate results (IRs) (see Annex 3) provide the framework which guides the projects designed within AFR/SD, enabling the attainment of the overarching goal. While the above was not the organizing framework for the Cooperative Agreement being evaluated, the AFR/SD/EGEA experience with ABCG influenced the conceptualization and design of the RCDS. In the Knowledge Management section of the RCDS it is noted that, as described above, improved knowledge management is critical to the success of this strategy. AFR/SD intends to develop its capacity to identify, create, represent, distribute, and enable adoption of information and experiences. A schematic for linking learning to communities of practice, development of new ideas, and influencing of other partners is pre￾sented in Figure 12 below. This schematic, which is still in draft, was developed by the African Biodiver￾sity Collaborative Group (ABCG). ABCG was started by and is supported by AFR/SD. Therefore, the key evaluation questions are:9 • Has progress been made toward achieving the ABCG A Vision for the Future of Biodiversity in Afri￾ca? Does the ABCG Results Framework within the Vision remain valid or should it be adjusted for a potential follow-on to the agreement or future similar programs? • Ideas: How has ABCG moved to understand and disseminate new advances and approaches? • Influence: How has ABCG influenced conservation practice, approaches and linkages among its member institutions, the U.S. conservation community and in Africa (governments, academic institu￾tions, NGOs and the private commercial sector)? • Institutions: How has ABCG contributed to the improved capacity, alliances, activities and impacts of the conservation community from both the US and Africa base? • Business model: How have the ABCG organizational structure, internal and external relationships, and methods of operation and collaboration facilitated or frustrated accomplishment of ABCG objec￾tives? SCOPE OF WORK, DELIVERABLES & TIMING Evaluation team should develop a full evaluation design and methodology. Illustrative data collection methods such as key informant interviews and e-surveys are described below. It’s important to justify the choice of each method used to collect data based on evaluation questions. MSTAS should discuss any sampling techniques that will be used and rigor (e.g. how bias will be minimized). Evaluation team will provide senior technical expertise and support to USAID Bureau for Africa and the Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group (ABCG) to determine the extent to which the Cooperative Agreement and ABCG are performing towards intended objectives, and to provide recommendations on how to increase the overall effectiveness of subsequent collaborations. Evaluation team will provide senior technical expertise in the area of data analysis, survey design and im￾plementation, informant interviewing and qualitative analysis for the ABCG evaluation under the MSTAS project. The Scope of Work detailed below constitutes the work plan for the Consultant. The evaluation team will review program documentation provided by USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA and 9 Note: the evaluation question on “ideas” was modified and approved by the USAID Activity Coordinator through the Evaluation Inception Report. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 38 WWF-US/ABCG staff to understand the context and illustrative activities and document the objectives, implementation experience and expected and actual results. Using a survey tool designed by the Consultant and approved by the MSTAS Technical Supervisor, the Consultant will conduct key informant interviews to assess whether performance was aligned with tech￾nical, management and financial expectations. The evaluation team will receive support from USAID and ABCG in selecting and providing contact information for key informants. The Consultant is expected to schedule interviews or other modes of data collection with stakeholders. The evaluation team will also develop and conduct an e-survey with ABCG List serve subscribers to gather their perspectives on ABCG. Since data collection is proposed through an e-survey and/or tele￾phone surveys travel may not be required to complete this work. TIME FRAME AND BUDGET The evaluation team will work closely with MSTAS, USAID/AFR and ABCG to develop a final report and presentation on the ABCG evaluation’s findings. These tasks will be carried out between October 15 and December 15, 2014, according to the approximate timeframes described with the deliverables below. Although the intermediate deliverables listed below will be reviewed and approved by AFR/SD/EGEA to inform the overall evaluation, they may be made available to USAID for internal use and as such should be delivered in a well-written and useful format (i.e., good draft form), whether or not they are included as appendices to the final report. Contracting firm is requested to propose an evaluation team qualified and capable of implementing the evaluation. Contracting firm should propose work day allocation against team members. Position Desk Review TPM Methodology & Design E-Survey & Inter￾views Data Analysis Draft Report Presentation Final Report Total David Calli￾han 2 1 2 12 5 4 2 2 30 Karen Menczer 2 1 2 12 5 4 2 2 30 Mid-level E￾Survey 1 2 3 6 Total LOE 5 2 4 20 10 9 4 66 COMPOSITE QUALIFICATIONS FOR EVALUTATION TEAM • Assessment and evaluation experience, including mixed-method evaluation • Experience developing and carrying out key informant interviews as part of assessment and eval￾uation data collection methodologies. • Qualitative and quantitative research and data analysis, including the ability to manage large da￾tabases and survey data; • Technical expertise in results-based design using conceptual modeling and theory-of-change ap￾proaches to develop practical results chains, • Biodiversity conservation experience • Africa background • Knowledge management, including social media • Institutional capacity building understanding ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 39 DELIVERABLES10 Detailed Deliverables/Output Schedule Due Date Desk Review 10/31/14 TPM 11/3/14 Inception Report with data collection tools 11/11/14 Key Informant Interview & E-Survey Summary Reports 12/5/14 Draft Evaluation Report submitted to USAID 12/10/14 Presentation to USAID 12/12/14 Presentation to Partners 12/15/14 Comments received from USAID 12/19/14 Final Evaluation Report submitted to USAID 12/22/14 Submission to the DEC 1/19/15 The evaluation team will develop and submit to USAID an inception report with a proposed outline of the final report and an indicative methodology for evaluation within two weeks. The evaluation team will develop a tool/questionnaire for collecting data. The data collection tool and methodology developed will be shared with the USAID team for approval. Key Informant Interview Summary Report. The evaluation team will provide a narrative report highlight￾ing the key findings from key informant interviews. The report will include the interview guide used and identify the individuals interviewed along with their relationship to the program. E-survey for ABCG List Serve subscribers. Survey will validate information gathered from key informant interviews. Tabulation report of all returned e-surveys. This report will tabulate frequency of responses and characteristics of respondents and include analysis of the data. Draft Evaluation Report. The evaluation team will deliver the Draft Evaluation Report to the MSTAS Technical Supervisor. The report will be a comprehensive report of all deliverables associated with this contract, and will: • represent a thoughtful, well-presented, well-researched, and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in this project, what did not work, and why; • be a high quality technical report, in a professional writing style; • address all questions included in this scope of work; • include all the key sections: cover sheet, table of contents and acronym list/glossary of terms, ex￾ecutive summary, background, objectives, questions, methods, findings, conclusions and lessons learned, and recommendations; 10 Note: The deliverable schedule was modified with the approval of the USAID activity coordinator. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 40 • include the scope of work as an appendix; • include an introduction that adequately describes the project, explains where it is implemented, includes contextual information, and includes the “theory of change” or development hypotheses that underlie the project; • describe the methodology in detail and all tools used such as questionnaires, checklists, and dis￾cussion guides will be included in an appendix in the final report; • describe findings with gender disaggregate outcomes and impacts; • describe any limitations to the methods (e.g. selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between groups, etc.); • present the findings as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and should not be based on anecdotes, hearsay, or a compilation of opinions. Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence; • properly identify sources of information and list them in an appendix; • clearly distinguish between conclusions, findings, and recommendations; • support any recommendations by a specific set of findings; and • provide recommendations that are action-oriented, practical, and specific with defined responsi￾bility for the action. The format for the evaluation report, not exceed 25 pages, excluding references and annexes, is as fol￾lows: 1. Executive Summary—concisely state the findings and recommendations (2 pp); 2. Table of Contents (1 pp); 3. Introduction—purpose, audience, and synopsis of task (1 pp); 4. Background—brief overview of WWF-US/ABCG and linkages to BATS implemented in response to the problem and purpose of the evaluation (2–3 pp); 5. Methodology—describe evaluation methods, including constraints and gaps (1 pp); 6. Findings/Conclusions/Recommendations—for each key question (17 pp); 7. Issues—provide a list of key technical and/or administrative, if any (1–2 pp); 8. Comments on WCS proposal for next phase of ABCG funding (2–3 pp); 9. References (including hot linked bibliographical documentation, meetings, interviews and focus group discussions); 10. Annexes—annexes that document the evaluation methods, schedules, interview lists and tables— should be succinct, pertinent and readable. Evaluation de-briefing presentation to USAID. An in-person PowerPoint presentation of the evaluation process and findings intended for USAID and WWF-US/ABCG staff. The team will present the major findings of the evaluation through a PowerPoint presentation after submission of the draft report. The de￾briefing will include a discussion of achievements and issues as well as any recommendations the team has for possible modifications to project approaches, results, or activities. The team will consider USAID comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. Debriefing with Partners: The team will present the major finding of the evaluation to USAID partners (as appropriate and as defined by USAID) through a PowerPoint. The debriefing will include a discussion of achievements and activities only, with recommendations for possible modifications to ABCG approaches, results, or activities. The team will consider partner comments and revise the draft report accordingly, as appropriate. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 41 Final Evaluation Report. The team will submit a final report that incorporates the responses to comments and suggestions no later than five days after USAID/AFR/SD provides written comments on the team’s draft evaluation report (see above). The format will include an executive summary, table of contents, methodology, findings, and recommendations. The report will be submitted in English, electronically. The report will be disseminated within USAID and among implementing partners and stakeholders. Evaluation Reports must follow all USAID Branding and Graphic Standards (see http://www.usaid.gov/branding/USAID_Graphic_Standards_Manual.pdf). In addition, the cover of an evaluation report should provide enough information that a reader can immediately understand that it is an evaluation and what was evaluated. As described in Evaluation Report How-To Note, all evaluation report covers should: 1. Include a title block in USAID light blue background color; 2. Include the word “Evaluation” at the top of the title block and center the report title underneath that. The title should also include the word “evaluation”; 3. Include the following statement across the bottom of the cover page: “This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared independently by [list authors and/or organizations involved in the preparation of the report]”; and 4. Feature one high-quality photograph representative of the project being evaluated and include a brief caption on the inside front cover explaining the photo with photographer credit. Logistical Support Pragma and evaluation team will be responsible for arranging logistical support for this assignment, how￾ever the MSTAS and USAID project will assist in facilitating meetings. Oversight and Management Evaluation team will report to and be under the supervision of the MSTAS Technical Supervisor, assisted by AFR/SD Program Office Mathew Jira and AFR Evaluation Specialist Alphonse Bigirimana. Key Documents Cooperative Agreement and seven amendments Annual work plans and Annual Reports Documents, Webinars, video and PowerPoints available on ABCG.org and FRAME site ABCG Brochure Evaluation of the Global Conservation Program (GCP): Final Evaluation Report Proposal from WCS for management and hosting of ABCG. Key Informants AFR/SD/EGEA: Tim Resch, Brian Hirsch, Walter Knausenberger, James Whitaker E3/FAB: Cynthia Gill, Andy Tobiason, Diane Russell, Mary Rowen, Natalie Bailey, et al WWF-US/ABCG management team: Allard Blom, Nathalie Simoneau, Gina Villafan ABCG core team (representatives of members): Allard Blom, Todd Stevens, Michael Painter, Peter Veit, Kimberly Holbrook, Jimmiel Mandima, Janet Edmond, Alice Macharia, Nathalie Simoneau ABCG Secretariat: Jocelyn Ziemian, Kamweti Mutu US FWS: Nancy Gelman, especially for baseline understanding ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 42 Chemonics: Mathew Edwardsen US FS/IP: Kathleen Sheridan Alliance of Religions and Conservation: Martin Palmer Additional notes Concurrent to this evaluation, ABCG will be preparing their FY 2014 Annual Report, for activities im￾plemented in FY 2014 with FY 2013 and earlier financial resources and a final report for the Cooperative Agreement. The process and products resulting will be additional resources for the evaluation team. Analytics suggested Inventory/Listing of publications produced Inventory/Listing of collaborating/assisted institutions Table and graphs over time for FRAME and RM Portal Websites • Page Views • Documents and Videos • Attachments Downloaded • Videos Downloaded • List serve subscription disaggregated by institution and country • Twitter account • Facebook account Citation review perhaps via Research Gate or Google Scholar Citations Case examples from • Addressing Global Climate Change in Through Adaptation and Actions in Woodlands, Grasslands and Other Ecosystems • Bushmeat Crisis • Capacity Building • Collaboration for Conservation • Communications and Information Technology for Conservation • Communities and Livelihoods • Conflict and Corruption • Emerging Actors in Conservation • Faith and Conservation in Africa • Food Security and Conservation in Africa • Global Health and Biodiversity • Land Use, Land Tenure, Planning and Governance for Conservation • Planning, Mapping Future Trends and Interventions, and Adaptive Management for Biodiversity Conservation • Policy • Protected Areas • Regional Strategies • Reports from the Field • Sustainable Financing and Economic Opportunities in Conservation ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 43 ANNEX 2: CASE STUDIES ABCG Case Study: Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) Law Enforcement I. Profile Information - Countries: Central Africa/Congo Basin, Gabon, Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda - Implementing organization: WCS as lead, with WWF, AWF and JGI as participants - Timeframe: FY2013-2014 - Allocated Budget: $464,527 II. Purpose and Description: Purpose: Provide training and capacity building to enable conservation professionals to use the Spatial Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART) for adaptive management of law enforcement in five sites in Central and East Africa. SMART will provide a comprehensive evidence-base for decision-makers to evaluate progress toward biodiversity targets and reductions in threats, identify those actions critical to conservation success, and prioritize and adapt conservation investments over time. Description: The SMART Approach was developed in response to the recognition that traditional tools, technologies and resources are not stemming the illegal killing and trading of endangered species and the resulting loss of threatened and highly valued biodiversity. The SMART approach is a combination of software, training materials and implementation standards providing protected area authorities and com￾munity groups with the ability to empower staff, boost motivation, increase efficiency, and promote cred￾ible and transparent monitoring of the effectiveness of anti-poaching and other efforts to address illegal activities. At its core, SMART helps rangers document where patrols go, what they see, and how they respond. Whether collected by direct observation or GPS, data is fed into a central system at park headquarters. There, it is converted into visual information in near real-time to help managers understand where the greatest threats are and how best to deploy patrols. But SMART is much more than a data collection tool: it is a suite of best practices developed by the people who use them and is designed to help protected area and wildlife managers better plan, evaluate and implement their activities and to promote good govern￾ance. To help overcome wildlife monitoring challenges the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and USAID￾BATS partners (AWF, JGI and WWF) proposed to build on the group’s collective experience and scale up training for protected area staff to implement effective law enforcement, by pilot testing a new and improved user-friendly software tool to plan, implement, monitor, and adaptively manage ranger-based law enforcement patrols. Note: The SMART Partnership was in existence in SE Asia prior to the support activity funded by ABCG, and its members include CITES, Monitoring Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE), Frankfurt Zoo￾logical Society, North Carolina Zoological Park, Panthera, WCS, WWF and the Zoological Society of London. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 44 The SMART project and partnership was formally launched in early 2011. ABCG began promoting the use of the SMART system in FY2013. The SMART software-based system is now being implemented at 128 sites across 27 countries, including in Asia, Africa and Latin America. III. Activity Outputs A. Completed to date: In FY13 the following activities were completed: ● Launched the first public version of SMART 1.0, together with two subsequent releases that address feedback from early field testing. ● Localized SMART Release 1 software into both French and English. ● Provided updated training materials in French and English languages for SMART Release 1.3 and conducted the first regional technical training workshops in both Francophone (Central) and Anglophone (East) Africa, training 45 high-level SMART trainers from a total of 13 dif￾ferent countries on the continent. ● Directly supported field testing in a total of five SMART demonstration sites across Africa, and through partners and leveraged funds, enabled uptake and testing of SMART in a further 15 demonstration sites in Africa across 12 countries. ● Engaged and leveraged national-level government interest by relevant government agencies in SMART as a standard protected-area monitoring and adaptive management tool in three countries in Africa (Gabon, Tanzania and Uganda).11 Specific Events & Publications: ● ABCG Brown-Bags in Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2013 - Getting SMART about Stopping Wildlife Poaching, featuring Emma Stokes, Ph.D., Regional Advisor for Conserva￾tion Effectiveness, the Wildlife Conservation Society. ● Report: Building Capacity for SMART Law Enforcement Monitoring in Africa: Summary of Year 1 Activities (FY2013). ● Training: A regional SMART technical training was conducted at WCS’s CEDAMM Train￾ing Centre in Lopé National Park, Gabon from 22-26 March 2013. The training was aimed at SMART administrators and trainers operating in five francophone countries in Central Afri￾ca. This was the first regional SMART training in Africa. ● Training: A regional SMART technical training was conducted at the Impala Hotel in Arusha, Tanzania from 4-8 May 2013. The training was aimed at SMART administrators and trainers operating across East and Southern Africa. This was the first regional SMART train￾ing in East Africa. B. Planned: For FY14 (Progress report not yet available): 11 From FY2013 ABCG Annual Report ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 45 • Train one manager and two technical staff, and a minimum of 15 park staff from five sites across Central and East Africa in the use of SMART 2.0 • Demonstrate SMART 2.0 across at least five forest and savanna sites across Central and East Af￾rica, with measurable improvements in law enforcement performance monitoring. • Develop and disseminate best practices for SMART implementation. • Initiate Open Data Kit plug-in development for Android tablets and smart phones. • Establish and make functional an African users and trainers network with access to a Web-based collaboration space for sharing ideas, updating training materials, guiding development of SMART, and encouraging adoption and sustained use of the tool. • Enhance engagement and capacity of government and NGOs to implement a standardized and transparent approach to the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of law enforcement efforts. • Assist/promote SMART so that at least three national governments have adopted SMART as a protected area management and law enforcement monitoring platform by project end.12 IV. Results A. Conservation Advance (Approaches or Tools) The SMART approach and software was initially developed by the SMART Partnership in early 2011, and was first applied in Asia. The SMART Partnership has a Coordinator (at WCS) and includes the fol￾lowing organizations: CITES, the Frankfurt Zoological Society, the North Carolina Zoo, WCS, WWF, Living Conservation (ZSL) and MIKE. The foundation of the activity is GPS-compliant software that can be used by game rangers to track pa￾trols and enter information on threats and observations. The system requires the use of software and as￾sociated training. ABCG began supporting the SMART system in FY2013. Specific activities have included hosting a presentation in Washington, D.C., and holding two training workshops in Africa; one at WCS’s training center in Gabon, and one in Arusha, Tanzania. This ABCG activity trained conservation professionals to use the SMART for adaptive management of law enforcement in five sites in Central and East Africa. ABCG promoted the technology through Wash￾ington-based presentations, publications, and training workshops held in 2013 in Gabon and Tanzania. SMART is a GPS-based system that tracks wildlife patrols and allows those conducting the patrols to en￾ter information on threats and incidents into a database. The system helps to ensure that patrols are actual￾ly carried out, and develops information on the types and locations of threats so that enforcement actions can be adjusted to increase effectiveness. B. Adoption This activity is somewhat different than many ABCG activities as it placed a strong emphasis on adop￾tion, capacity building and on holding training sessions in Africa. The activity also had wide participa￾tion within ABCG. WCS took the lead on the activity, but AWF, WWF and JGI also participated in the trainings and gained competence in the SMART system’s use. 12 From ABCG FY14 Annual Workplan ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 46 The initial adoption of the SMART system in Africa has been relatively quick and impressive. Adoption to date has included: ● AWF has purchased the software and related equipment and is beginning field use under its own programs. Under AWF, which itself was trained by WCS through ABCG funding, a first-tier training has been completed for select AWF field staff and for wildlife authorities and wildlife departments, including for the Kenya Wildlife Service and for community game scouts in south￾ern Kenya and in Tanzania. AWF now has capacity to conduct training itself and is now focusing on building capacity in partner organizations. ● The Gabon and Uganda governments have been trained in the use of the system and have begun using it in the field. ● SMART has become a standard system for wildlife enforcement by WWF and WCS for all of their work in the Congo Basin. ● JGI is using the SMART system to collect data in the Congo’s Tchimpounga Nature Reserve (us￾ing Android Tablets and Open Data Kit (ODK). ODK forms for data collection were developed using SMART protocols in the Republic of Congo. Under this activity, JGI conducted training in the Congo for the Tchimpounga Nature Reserve team that consisted of six ecoguards hired by JGI to patrol the reserve. Since then these ecoguards have trained an additional eight guards to use the technology for a total of 14 trained ecoguards. Currently JGI is using SMART Cybertracker as its only mobile field data collection app to record field data on patrols, wildlife and illegal human ac￾tivities in Congo. ● USAID has incorporated the use of SMART into its required reporting under the CAFEC pro￾gram, which de facto requires the system’s use by implementing partners. Most or all of the eight CAFEC landscapes are currently using SMART technology for patrolling management, and the vast majority of the rangers using the technology were trained in ABCG workshops. C. Investment AWF has integrated the SMART system into its own programs in several countries, and has paid for the technology itself. In addition, several African governments have sponsored their staff for training and are beginning to roll-out the system, including in Gabon, Tanzania and Uganda. D. Alliances The activity has been responsible for the adoption and deployment of a standard approach to wildlife pa￾trol management by several of the ABCG partners, including WCS, WWF, AWF and JGI. In turn, these organizations are providing training and support to counterpart NGOs and governments to adopt the sys￾tem. V. Conclusion SMART is a good example of a tool that ABCG has promoted. The effort funded under ABCG has helped broaden knowledge of SMART and its uses, built broad acceptance for the use of the tool within ABCG itself, and made good progress in building the capacity of select African governments and NGOs in the tool’s use. This effort started with a Washington-based presentation, which was then followed-up by regional training sessions for partners in Gabon and Tanzania. Within ABCG, WCS has helped to build the capacity of WWF, AWF and JGI in the use of SMART. These organizations, in turn, are deploying it for use in their own programs, and also providing training to help local partners understand and use the technology and associated management system. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 47 SMART was developed and in use in Asia prior to ABCG’s involvement. However, there is a strong consensus within ABCG that ABCG’s promotion of the SMART system has enabled the technology to be deployed more rapidly and more widely than would have been the case had ABCG not gotten involved. VII. Bibliography and Resources - Workshop Report: Regional Technical Training Workshop, Central Africa (22-26 March 2013), Gabon - Workshop Report: Regional Technical Training Workshop East Africa (4-8 May 2013), Tanzania - Technical Training Manual for SMART 1.0 (English) ABCG Case Study: Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation in Africa I. Profile Information - Activity: Global Health and Biodiversity; Sub-theme: Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) and Conservation in Africa - Country: Africa-wide - Implementing organizations: CI, TNC, WWF, and AWF - Timeframe: March 2011-ongoing (FY 2012-FY 2014) - Allocated Budget: $185,570 II. Description: Since a kick-off on World Water Day in March 2011, ABCG has been exploring links between biodiver￾sity protection and the relationships between water conservation, water pollution, and human activities. To protect and conserve freshwater and its biodiversity in Africa, ABCG has brought together ABCG member organizations and development organizations to promote policies, plans, and projects that inte￾grate access to water supply and sanitation with the conservation and sustainable management of freshwa￾ter resources. This collaboration between CI, TNC, and WWF and development organizations specializ￾ing in WASH promotes integrated approaches to improve freshwater conservation and human well-being. The rationale for this multi-sectoral collaboration is that humans depend on healthy freshwater ecosys￾tems for multiple services. The goal for this task was to build the evidence base for how WASH and freshwater ecosystem conservation projects can achieve both health and environment goals through more holistic, integrated approaches. The initial ABCG report, “Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: Expe￾riences from Sub-Saharan Africa” (June 2012), found numerous projects in sub-Saharan Africa integrat￾ing ad-hoc WASH and biodiversity conservation, but on a disparate and disconnected basis. The report called for guidance on how to integrate the two disciplines under different scenarios, ecoregions, and cli￾mates. Subsequent ABCG activities in 2012 through 2014 built on this report. III. Activity Outputs A. Completed to date ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 48 - Report (June 2012): Linking Biodiversity Conservation and Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene: Experi￾ences from Sub-Saharan Africa. (A white paper, by David Bonnardeaux, with syntheses of conserva￾tion NGO, USAID and other development group or agency case studies that make the case for inte￾grating conservation and WASH projects.) - Brown Bag Presentation (11 July 2012): Linking together Conservation and WASH Initiatives: Im￾proving Biodiversity Conservation and Human Health (Janet Edmond and Colleen Vollberg of CI). (The brownbag was organized to release the initial report and present the findings) - FRAME Webinar (18 July 2012): Linking Conservation and Health (presented the report findings to additional stakeholders and began a dialog on next steps) - Wilson Center Event (10 September 2012): Linking Biodiversity Conservation and WASH: Experi￾ences from Sub-Saharan Africa. (Highlights of the report presented by David Bonnardeaux, with an integration case example from Bruno Rajaspera from CI Madagascar, and Dennis Warner from Cath￾olic Relief Services as a discussant from the WASH sector) - Workshop for WASH and conservation NGO professionals and donors (22 and 23 May 2013): To increase awareness and understanding of the value of integrated programs, and to gather input for the development of Freshwater Conservation and WASH Guidelines. - Seminar (Sept 2013): Nature Based Solutions seminar, held during World Water Week, Stockholm, Sweden. Nick Davidson from the UN Ramsar Convention on Wetlands highlighted how the Ramsar convention, focused on the sustainable use of wetlands, sees the potential for natural solutions to con￾nect the WASH, conservation, and agriculture sectors. The next series of presentations looked at case studies (from World Vision, Catholic Relief Services, and The Global Water Initiative) and tools (from CI, Wetlands, International, and UN Food & Agriculture Organization) that successfully in￾cluded a multi-sectoral approach or were intended to improve the implementation of integrated pro￾jects. - Presentation (Sept 2013): Collaboration in Watershed Management and Conservation, a presentation by Sarah Davidson, The Nature Conservancy at World Water Week in Stockholm, Sweden - Report (December 2013): “Freshwater Conservation and WASH Integration Guidelines: A Frame￾work for Implementation in sub-Saharan Africa” - Workshop on Integrated Indicators for Freshwater Conservation and WASH Programming (15-17 July 2014 in Nairobi): Co-hosted by AWF, CI, and TNC, for African conservation, health, and devel￾opment practitioners to design a WASH and freshwater conservation M & E framework. - Workshop (30 September 2014): Participants reached a consensus on a draft M & E framework and indicators for integrating conservation and WASH programming. B. Planned: Additional ABCG work in the WASH theme will depend on the outcome of the ABCG proposal process. IV. Results A. Conservation advance/approaches or tools (ideas) The report (December 2013), “Freshwater Conservation and WASH Integration Guidelines: A Frame￾ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 49 work for Implementation in sub-Saharan Africa” produced information on integrated monitoring and evaluation, indicators, and measuring results, areas identified as lacking in research and guidance. The report addresses the limited information available on integrated evaluation frameworks for WASH and biodiversity. The workshop on Integrated Indicators for Freshwater Conservation and WASH Programming (15-17 July 2014 in Nairobi) was the first time that WASH and freshwater conservation sector professionals came together to craft an integrated M & E framework for improved health, development, and conserva￾tion goals. By the end of the three-day workshop participants had reached agreement on a draft M & E framework and indicators for integrated programming, and CI, in collaboration with ABCG members, workshop participants, and WASH and conservation partner organizations, refined the framework. A comprehensive table of indicators, including their intermediate results (IR) and rationale were present￾ed and vetted at a workshop on 30 September 2014. B. Adoption Several of the organizations present at the World Water Week conference (CRS, CI, TNC, WWF, and World Vision) are now collaborating to advance this effort within their own organizations and with part￾ners as is Wetlands International as part of a similar European-based group, the Dutch WASH Alliance. Following the seminar, members of these two groups met to discuss areas for collaboration and learning. One of several follow-up activities identified was to reconvene at a future World Water Week in Stock￾holm, to share progress, engage more partners in the discussion, and promote holistic solutions to devel￾opment and environmental conservation challenges. ABCG members and other organizations are developing proposals and project concepts to test the inte￾grated guidelines. These are new products: the M & E framework was completed in September 2014 and the guidelines in December 2013, so as yet, no organization is currently using them in Africa, but many are exploring opportunities. C. Investment There is considerable interest from other donors, as well as possibly USAID in using the guidelines. The RAIN Foundation (Coca Cola foundation in Africa) is interested in funding the piloting of the guidelines, and requested a proposal concept from ABCG members. Currently, two concept notes are under consid￾eration by the RAIN Foundation for funding (to be determined in January 2014) for CI South Africa and CI Madagascar and respective partners. JGI also submitted a concept to the Global Environment and Technology Fund (GETF) for funding of activities in Uganda. D. Alliances Alliances have been formed between conservation NGOs and development/health sector NGOs. Accord￾ing to one informant, conservation organizations are usually completely removed from human develop￾ment. Through ABCG they have been more willing to integrate human development into conservation programming, as can be seen with WASH and freshwater biodiversity. CI has engaged numerous development groups in discussions about partnering to pilot the guidelines in Africa (and Asia), including Catholic Relief Service, World Vision, Water for People, WaterAid and oth￾ers. CI has also engaged a private sector partner (Chevron) who was interested in piloting the guidelines ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 50 in Liberia and received seed funding to explore the possible sites, but that is on hold due to the Ebola cri￾sis. V. Operations There was good follow-up after the workshops, but that follow up mainly came from participating organi￾zations rather than from the ABCG coordinator. An example of the dissemination outside of ABCG is: World Water Week Daily, the daily newsletter of World Water Week, highlighted ABCG members’ work on integrating WASH and freshwater conserva￾tion, emphasizing the importance of building partnerships and aligning agendas. VI. Conclusion ABCG is well-suited to promote multi-sector work, such as the WASH-freshwater conservation links. Without the broader convening power of the large conservation organizations, the M & E workshops would probably not have gotten the attention and traction that they have. The convening power of multi￾ple organizations was effective, and created a large spark for collaboration. VII. Bibliography and Resources See above ABCG Case Study: Faith and Conservation in Africa I. Profile Information - Activity: Faith and Conservation in Africa - Country: Africa-wide - Implementing organization: Alliance for Religions and Conservation (ARC) with WWF (Sacred Earth Program) and JGI - Timeframe: September 2010 (FY 2011) -ongoing - Allocated Budget: $226,492 II. Description This project has two components: (1) education (the Toolkit); and (2) illegal wildlife trafficking. The pro￾ject/theme was kicked off in September 2010, with discussion of a BATS white paper that USAID/SD/EGEA commissioned, From Practice to Policy to Practice: Connecting Faith Conservation in Africa. Other meetings/workshops followed: • On 1 June 2011, ABCG held a meeting on Faith and Conservation in Africa chaired by Tom Dil￾lon, Senior Vice President, Field Programs, WWF/US to explore opportunities for collaboration between faith communities and conservation groups. • ABCG held a brown bag presentation and discussion on 22 September 2011 featuring Vannesa Henneke from The International Small Group & Tree-Planting Program (TIST) hosted by WWF. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 51 • From 18-20 September 2012, ARC hosted the “Many Heavens, One Earth, Our Continent: Afri￾can Faith Commitments for a Living Planet” conference, during which faith groups from throughout sub-Saharan Africa launched their long-term plans for conservation. During this con￾ference, ABCG-sponsored a wildlife safari to Nairobi National Park as part of discussions on the role of religion in halting the illegal wildlife trade in Africa. • On 28 November 2012, ABCG hosted an event to share the results of the “Many Heavens, One Earth, Our Continent” conference in Nairobi, as well as to discuss other efforts on faith and con￾servation. • To encourage other faith leaders to recommit to wildlife protection and to lead environmental ac￾tivities, the Catholic Church held an interfaith event during which several media interviews were given. This built on the previous year’s safari event. III. Activity Outputs Outputs of the meetings, workshops, and discussions were: • Long-term action plans for conservation, developed by participating faith-based organizations • A first-ever partnership with faith leaders from across Africa to unite against the illegal wildlife trade • The Faith-based Education for Sustainable Development Teacher’s Toolkit, integrating faith val￾ues about caring for Creation with teaching on the environment in faith-sponsored primary schools (launched in Nairobi, Kenya, on July 17, 2013). ABCG funding supported adaptation of the Toolkit to Tanzania-specific and Uganda-specific circumstances. A. Completed to Date • Paper written (September 2010): “From Practice to Policy to Practice: Connecting Faith and Con￾servation in Africa” by Amy Gambrill of IRG • Conference (1 June 2011): Meeting on Faith and Conservation in Africa • Brownbag Presentation (22 September 2011): Vannesa Henneke from TIST, hosted by WWF • Conference (18-20 September 2012): “Many Heavens, One Earth, Our Continent: African Faith Commitments for a Living Planet” conference (Nairobi) • Plans developed (September 2012): Twenty-five faith-based organizations from 11 countries in sub-Saharan Africa developed long-term plans for conservation. The plans are compiled in a vol￾ume of the same title. (The organizations involved are listed here: http://www.arcworld.org/projects.asp?projectID=564) • Commitments made to help end the illegal wildlife trade (September 2012): Fifty African reli￾gious representatives from different faiths and countries came together to call for the end of ille￾gal wildlife trade. • Conference (28 November 2012): “Many Heavens, One Earth, Our Continent” conference (Washington, DC) • Teacher Toolkit (launched 17 July 2013): The Faith-based Education for Sustainable Develop￾ment Teacher’s Toolkit. (Adapted to Tanzania and Uganda situations) • Conference (October 2013): Faith leaders recommitted to wildlife protection and to lead envi￾ronmental activities. B. Planned ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 52 • $11,000 remains in the budget to use through March 2015. This will be used to pilot the Toolkit in Uganda, in the west and in Kampala. • ARC envisions that funding for training of teachers to use the Toolkit will come from within each country. They are looking for funding for this (Tanzania, Uganda). • ARC’s work on illegal wildlife trafficking continues, currently without ABCG funding. IV. Results Conservation advance/approaches or tools (ideas): • Martin Palmer of the Alliance of Religions and Conservation spoke at the World Wildlife Fund's 2011 Fuller Science Symposium hosted by the National Geographic Society. • WWF/US starts in October 2012 their Sacred Earth: Faiths for Conservation Initiative • Teacher Toolkit (launched 17 July 2013): ARC supported development of the Faith-based Educa￾tion for Sustainable Development Teacher’s Toolkit. The Toolkit was developed in Kenya (prior to ABCG funding), with the intention of adapting it to other countries. ABCG funding allowed ARC to work with partners who adapted it to Tanzania-specific and Uganda-specific situations; next in line are Rwanda and Ghana. • UNESCO ended a decade of ESD, and they chose 25 projects as best practice to present at a con￾ference in celebration of ESD. The Kenya Toolkit was one of the 25 projects. Adoption: • Teacher Toolkit (launched 17 July 2013): The Faith-based Education for Sustainable Develop￾ment Teacher’s Toolkit has been endorsed by Kenya’s major Christian, Muslim and Hindu groups as well as the Ministry of Education and National Environment Management Authority. As of November 2014, the Toolkit was officially accepted as part of Kenya’s curriculum. • Dekila Chungyalpa, WWF Sacred Earth Founder, is named 2014 McCluskey Fellow in Conserva￾tion at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) working with the Yale Fo￾rum on Religion and Ecology. Investment: Development of Toolkit in Kenya and training in Kenya (ToT) was funded by NFA/Norway (an educa￾tion/information package supplements the Toolkit and is for ToT). Because ARC also works in the WASH field with funding from UNICEF, UNICEF funds have indirectly contributed to the Toolkit. ARC’s illegal wildlife trafficking work has received funding from the Mott Foundation, WWF-UK, and the Valley Foundation (Dutch). Alliances: • A partnership was formed of 50 African religious representatives from different faiths and coun￾tries calling for an end to the illegal wildlife trade. • ARC’s alliances with JGI and WWF would not have happened without ABCG. V. Operations • ARC is on a shoestring budget and so their work is constrained by limited funds. For example, the workshop in Uganda on the Toolkit had limited outreach because ARC didn’t have the fund￾ing for wider reach. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 53 • Possibly the reason that some of this theme’s achievements are not on the ABCG Website is that ARC reports annually (versus quarterly or semi-annually), and 2014 accomplishments are yet to be posted on the Website. VI. Conclusion • ABCG funding and flexibility allowed ARC to move forward with something that they didn’t ex￾pect to materialize (a partnership of African and Chinese religious leaders). • Especially for projects that are about attitude change and not scientific, the flexibility of ABCG is critical. • There is nothing to divide conservation and faith groups, and the two communities are an exam￾ple of how well unexpected partnerships can work. VII. Bibliography and Resources Related Resources Hillard, Alison and Susie Weldon, editors. (September 2012). Many Heavens, One Earth, Our Continent: African Faith Commitments for a Living Planet. Alliance for Religions and Conservation. Palmer, Martin and Tony Whitten State of the Wild 2010-2011. “Faith, Hope, and Conservation.” Wild￾life Conservation Society. (Chapter 3). Faith Statement on Wildlife Trade from Sub-Saharan African Faith Leaders (01/03/2013) – A statement of commitment by Southern African Faith Communities to uphold biodiversity conservation as part of their divine responsibilities. Muslim Faith Statement on Wildlife Trade from Sub-Saharan African Faith Leaders (01/03/2013) - A commitment from the Muslim faith community to protect threatened species and prevent illegal. Muslim Statement on Wildlife Conservation (01/03/2013) – Islamic statement committing to respect and to bestow protection on animal biodiversity. State Magazine (July/August 2011). “Reaching the Faithful: Engaging believers advances foreign policy.” (pages 28 and 29). Twelve U.S. Government agencies have faith-based initiatives. Operative guidance for USAID is found in 22 CFR Parts 202, 205, 211, and 226: Participation by Religious Organizations in USAID Programs and in the Automated Directive System (ADS) 303.3.28: Participation of Faith-Based and Community Organizations. USAID’s Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives has worked with faith-based and community organizations to multiply the impact of foreign aid by leveraging existing resources overseas. Their Stra￾tegic Partnerships Guidebook details how best to partner with faith-based and local organizations. USAID has a library of best practices for partnerships on its intranet site. ABCG Case Study: Large-Scale Land Acquisition I. Profile Information ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 54 - Activity: Land Use and Planning - Country: Africa-wide - Implementing organization: Jane Goodall Institute, World Resources Institute and African Wildlife Foundation - Timeframe: FY 2012 through FY 2014 - Allocated Budget: $429,631 II. Description: In FY 2012, the member organizations ranked large-scale land acquisition the highest of all new concepts for ABCG attention. Six of the seven members—WRI, AWF, JGI, TNC, WWF, and CI—consider this issue a high-priority. JGI and WRI’s work is designed to secure biodiversity and other critical ecosystem services important for rural livelihoods from the threat of large-scale land acquisitions for agricultural production purposes. It involved risk mapping, due diligence on land risk, investigations of the invest￾ment environment in various regions in Africa, and an assessment of spatial planning tools for balancing biodiversity and large-scale agricultural expansions. III. Activity Outputs A. Completed to date: FY 2013 Research: To review the legal procedures for allocating agricultural land to investors, including safe￾guards applied to protect biodiversity, ecosystem services, and local livelihoods. (Ongoing) Draft Report: “Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Kenya: Environmental and Social Impacts,” which doc￾uments the environmental and social impacts of four proposed large-scale land acquisitions in Kenya. Draft report: “The Role of Kenya’s National Investment Authority in Identifying and Allocating Land for Private Investment” identifies the legal basis and the role of Kenya government’s Investment Authority in identifying and allocating land for private investment, especially for large-scale land allocations for food and biofuel crop production. Report: “Assessment of the Impact of Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGs) on Environmental and Social Safeguards in SAGCOT Region” commissioned by AWF. FY 2012 Research: To understand the threat posed to biodiversity conservation and local livelihoods by LSLAs in Tanzania and Uganda. Report: Governance of Large-Scale Land Acquisitions in Uganda: The role of the Uganda Investment Authority by M. Mercedes Stickler. The paper was submitted to and accepted by the Land Deal Politics Initiative (LDPI) International Conference on Global Land Grabbing II, 17-19 October 2012, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. Report: Report on the investment environment and safeguards applicable to large-scale agricultural in￾vestments in Uganda and Due diligence on lands at risk of or subject to land acquisitions in Uganda both authored by M. Mercedes Stickler, including a set of four risks maps for sugar, maize, jatropha and oil ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 55 palm. The risk maps identify areas of high agricultural potential and high biodiversity value; and com￾bine risk maps with information on current land use and tenure to predict how LSLAs could affect local biodiversity and livelihoods in the affected areas. Report: Modeling potential conflict between agricultural expansion and biodiversity in the Greater Ma￾hale Ecosystem, Tanzania Research: WRI completed research on LSLAs in Uganda with a focus on the role of the Uganda Invest￾ment Code and the Uganda Investment Authority in the identification and allocation of rural land for agri￾cultural investment, especially by foreign actors (e.g., food and biofuel production). Research: JGI completed research on LSLAs in Masito-Ugalla, Tanzania with a focus on modeling and mapping potential conflict between agriculture and biodiversity with a special emphasis on chimpanzees as a flagship and umbrella species for the region. JGI collaborated with Google Earth Outreach and Google Earth Engine teams to develop a cloud platform that enables for the first time to model species distribution in the cloud. This allowed modelling and mapping of chimpanzee distribution in Masito￾Ugalla using petabytes (thousands of terabytes) of satellite imagery and other ancillary data stored in the Google cloud. In order to improve the likelihood of finding chimpanzee nests during the field surveys over the large and difficult to access remote areas, JGI tested the use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as drones. B. Planned: No separate theme for LSLA in the new proposal, but plan to continue to work on this issue under the Land Use/Land Tenure theme. The specific details will be developed once USAID awards the new agreement. IV. Results Conservation advance/approaches or tools (ideas) • Risk maps produced for Uganda showing jatropha, maize, oil palm, and sugar and the overlaps with biodiversity. • JGI collaborated with Google Earth Outreach and Google Earth Engine teams to develop a cloud platform that enables for the first time to model species distribution in the cloud. In order to im￾prove the likelihood of finding chimpanzee nests during the field surveys over the large and diffi￾cult to access remote areas, JGI tested the use of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as drones. Adoption • WRI has spent significant effort to disseminate lessons learned from the LSLA work, including with the World Bank and the African Union (NEPAD). • As a result of the ABCG work, WRI began to invest more in LSLAs. They received funding from an anonymous donor who had never funded work in LSLAs previously. • AWF and JGI have also been involved in LSLA and have increased their focus on this issue as a direct result of ABCG. • Other NGOs, such as IIED, have requested the maps for their own work on LSLA. The maps were produced for use by governments, investors, and NGOs concerned with biodiversity impacts of investments; but currently ABCG is unaware if governments and investors have used them. Investment ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 56 • WRI now has a fairly significant program in this area, funded entirely by non-ABCG funding, but the initial work was supported by ABCG. WRI has a long history on working on land rights, but ABCG started/prompted WRI’s focus on the intersection of LSLA and conservation issues. Alliances • As a direct result of this work, WRI brought together NGOs from Tanzania, Mozambique, and the Philippines to work on LSLA issues. The focus of this work and the collaboration is to re￾form regulations/guidelines to ensure better community participation in decision making regard￾ing investments on community land. The work is funded by another donor agency. • JGI collaborated with Google Earth Outreach and Google Earth Engine teams to develop a cloud platform that enables for the first time to model species distribution in the cloud. V. Operations • The research in this theme/activity is still on-going. Preliminary evidence suggests that there are considerable gaps between the legal frameworks governing the process for transferring land to investors—including the social and environmental safeguards applied—and their implementation on the ground. VI. Conclusion • ABCG started/prompted WRI’s focus on LSLA and on the conservation-LSLA focus. • Based on ABCG’s work, WRI scaled up their LSLA work in East Africa and Asia (non-ABCG funding). WRI allotted institutional funding to LSLA, launching a multi-country project on LSLAs including Tanzania, Mozambique, and the Philippines. VII. Bibliography and Resources No Webinars or brownbags, no meetings documented on the ABCG Website; however, results from the Activity Manager survey stated that ABCG sponsored Webinars, brownbags, and conferences. This could be because LSLA events may be listed under other themes and sub-themes (Land Use/Land Tenure). ABCG Case Study: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon I. Profile Information - Activity: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon - Country: Kenya - Implementing organization: TNC, with grants to the Northern Rangelands Trust - Timeframe: FY2012-2014 - Allocated Budget: $404,185 II. Description Purpose: To better understand how holistically planned grazing can be rolled out across multiple community conservancies, and to determine the extent of rangeland improvement and soil carbon sequestration. Objectives: ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 57 1. To understand if holistically planned grazing management can be successfully implemented across multiple Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT) conservancies. 2. To understand if implementation of holistically planned grazing management results in changes in rangeland health. 3. To understand if implementation of a holistically planned grazing program sequesters more soil carbon. Description: Since 2004, the NRT has facilitated the development of 18 community owned and managed wildlife conservancies in northern Kenya. Improving grazing management to address declining rangeland health was identified as the most important strategy across multiple NRT Conservancies during two plan￾ning workshops held in 2009 (TNC 2009a, b). Recognizing the potential of planned grazing to rehabilitate pastoral lands for enhanced livelihoods and improved wildlife habitat, with the support of several organi￾zations, NRT has launched Holistically Planned Grazing (drawing on principles of Holistic Management, Butterfield et. al.2006), training, and implementation across a number of member conservancies as a pri￾mary emphasis of a new grazing management strategy (NRT 2011). Implementation of planned grazing across the NRT landscape is an immense challenge. The environmen￾tal problem of declining rangeland health is exacerbated by social, cultural, and governance issues, such as eroded traditional governance of natural resources in communal land, insecurity and inter-ethnic vio￾lence, lack of formal land tenure in many areas, and the nomadic nature of pastoralists and their livestock; however these must be addressed if improved rangeland health is to be achieved at a meaningful scale. Mobilizing entire communities (NRT conservancies represent an estimated 100,000 people) behind a communally agreed grazing plan requires a large investment in training and awareness touching all sec￾tors of society. TNC and its partners will continue to implement a pilot program to further investigate the relationship between implementing an expanded grazing management and soil carbon sequestration program. The specific intents are to (1) more accurately assess the potential to scale up a grazing management program and (2) increase our understanding of the related impact on soil carbon sequestration. The long term ob￾jectives are for (1) carbon financing to become a critical, long-term revenue stream to support the imple￾mentation of a successful grazing management program leading to improved rangeland health across the entire NRT project area (3.5 million acres), and (2) for other ABCG members to be able to apply the data and lessons learned from TNC’s pilot research to other pastoralist/wildlife grassland landscapes elsewhere in Africa. III. Activity Outputs A. Completed to Date FY2011 • Staffing: Five grazing coordinators were employed by NRT to coordinate and implement the holistic grazing and soil carbon project covering seven different community conservancies in Northern Ken￾ya. • Training: 1) NRT Research and Monitoring team of four was trained in soil carbon and vegetation sampling. 2) Eight people trained as lead trainers, including a visit to the Africa Centre for Holistic Management in Zimbabwe. 3) NRT team in conjunction with Grevy Zebra Trust facilitated 16 train￾ing of trainers (ToT) workshops on holistic planned grazing at the zone levels. Participants included grazing coordinators of five conservancies, NRT staff, grazing committee members and board mem￾bers from conservancies. This translates to 800 people reached by the holistic management work￾shops in 2012. Cumulatively Up to 2,336 people have been trained in holistic planned grazing from project inception to date through the project. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 58 • Monitoring: 1) NRT research team completed the design of a vegetation monitoring database to fa￾cilitate conservancy-led rangeland monitoring. 2) Within the project sites, 200 permanent monitoring stations were identified and sampling was conducted (beginning of growing season) for soil, vegeta￾tion, and rangeland health assessment in seven separate conservancies. The samples were submitted to labs for analysis lignin and carbon equivalent analysis. At the end of this management period, 72 bags of perennial grass seeds were harvested by one conservancy for re-seeding in the next planting season. • Mapping: Five maps with designated grazing blocks prepared for holistic planned grazing workshop. FY2012 • Five Grazing Coordinators and five Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation teams hired and trained. • Location of ~200 permanent monitoring stations identified and sampled (beginning of growing season) for soil, vegetation, and rangeland health assessment. • Soil and vegetation samples processed and sent for additional analysis to Nairobi, and rangeland health data tabulated. • 10 bags of perennial grass seed harvested per Conservancy. • Training of Trainers workshop, report and training manual. • 6 people trained in facilitating holistic planned grazing in a community setting. • Formal document detailing standardized grazing by-laws for adoption by Conservancies. • 10 zone-level workshops (2 per Conservancy) and workshop report. • 500 people (50 people/workshop representing women, youth and elders) engaged in discussing holistic planned grazing implementation. • 5 maps with designated grazing blocks prepared for holistic planned grazing workshop. • Monitoring and Evaluation Training with each Rangeland Monitoring and Evaluation Team completed. • 10 holistic planned grazing workshops (2 per Conservancy) and workshop reports. • 100 people trained in holistic planned grazing (20 per Conservancy). • 5 Conservancy grazing plans mapped and ready for implementation. • 10 grazing plan dissemination meetings (2 per Conservancy) reaching 500 people per Conservancy. FY2013 • Training materials developed and workshops held on: o Soil carbon and vegetation for conservancy monitoring teams o Harmonization of grazing bylaws o Training of trainers on gully-healing and community action cycle (20 people in 5 conservancies) o Scaling up holistically planned grazing in community areas • Wet and dry season soil carbon and vegetation monitoring across 200 sampling sites • Harvesting of perennial grass-seed in West Gate, Kalama and Meibae • Ongoing awareness and implementation of grazing plans across 5 conservancies • Analysis of FY2012 soil and vegetation monitoring data completed • Vegetation monitoring database trialed and finalized • 2013 grazing plans developed for 5 conservancies • Gully-healing in target areas (erosion gullies) across 5 conservancies • Analysis of soil and vegetation monitoring data for predictive soil carbon model finalized • Potential partnerships for carbon project identified. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 59 B. Planned: By September 30, 2014 (progress report not yet available): • A comprehensive soil carbon baseline assessment for the entire NRT project area. • A rangeland health baseline assessment for the entire NRT project area. • A baseline biodiversity health assessment for the entire NRT project area. • A validated remote sensing model to detect change in levels of grazing intensity across the entire NRT project area. • Final report IV. Results A. Conservation advance/approaches or tools (ideas) New strategies are being developed for rotating, sharing and managing grazing. The results will lead to improved pasture management, reduced erosion, reduced conflict, and more carbon retained in range￾lands. The concept and practices are being scientifically tested by TNC and the University of Syracuse. B. Adoption The improved rangeland management practices have been adopted throughout 6 conservancies (over 500,000 hectares and affecting at a minimum, 50,000 people) and is expanding beyond those 6 conserv￾ancies (currently NRT and TNC are funding the expansion of the program into another 4 conservancies). The area is also experiencing more organic adoption of the practices. This has happened for a couple rea￾sons. First, when communities begin to see the benefit of the improved grazing program on grassland quality they want to participate. Second, the improved grassland program is linked to the livestock-to￾markets program which provides a further incentive to adopt the practices as they get improved access to markets. This program is embedded in the NRT program which works with pastoralists throughout northern Kenya and which has grazing coordinators in each of the 23 conservancies. So these ideas are being spread throughout 10 million hectares of land just by being part of a larger, ongoing program. The aim is that these practices will be fully adopted in all 23 conservancies in another 3-5 years and expand into all of the new conservancies (6 more) being established in Turkana over the next few years. C. Investment The majority of the funding for this project (approximately $404,000) has been provided by ABCG. In addition, the NRT, the University of Syracuse and TNC have provided funding, staff time, and other lo￾gistical support to complement the activities, which has totaled about 10-15% (estimate) of total sup￾port. No other ABCG members have been involved in this activity. VI. Bibliography and Resources - Does soil carbon matter? Recent advances in livestock grazing management to improve rangeland health in community-based conservation in Northern Kenya; 05/29/2013 - Vegetation monitoring database; 12/20/2012 (spreadsheet) - Holistic Grazing Planning Trainer of Trainers Report; 12/20/2012 - Map of Northern Rangelands Trust Conservancies—Soil Carbon Dynamics on the NRT Conserv￾ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 60 ancies; 12/20/2012 - Interim Report: Soil Carbon Dynamics in the Northern Rangelands Trust Member Conservancies, Kenya; 12/20/2012 - NRT Conservancy Grazing Planning Follow up Report - NRT 5-Year Strategic Plan excerpt: Goal 4: Productive Rangelands - NRT Holistic Planned Grazing Progress Report Oct 2012-Apr 2013 - NRT Grazing By-laws development workshop (July 2013) - Northern Rangelands Trust Community Conservancy First Year Grazing Planning Follow-Up Report: 02/05/2014 – Training: Training of Trainer workshops. - Northern Rangelands Trust 5-Year Strategic Plan 2013 - 2017 Goal 4: Productive Rangelands - Naibung Planned Grazing Management Zones 2013 - Rangeland Management Report: Lekurruki Conservation Trust - Kalama Grazing Management Planning 2013 ABCG Case Study: Bushmeat Crisis I. Profile Information - Activity: Bushmeat Crisis - Country: Sub-Saharan Africa - Implementing organization: WWF, WCS, CI, JGI - Timeframe: 2001-2010 - Allocated Budget: Unknown II. Description: On 7 March 2001, ABCG and the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force (BCTF) held a meeting, organized by WWF and CI, on Innovative Actions to Address the Bushmeat Crisis. More than 50 participants from NGOs, government agencies, international institutions, and universities participated. The objective of the meeting was to identify organizational interests in working collaboratively on on-the-ground actions to address the bushmeat crisis in Africa. This meeting served as a precursor to the May 2001 BCTF Action Planning Conference, and kicked off ABCG’s Bushmeat Crisis task. Since the 2001 meeting, ABCG members and partners have played critical roles in addressing the drivers of and solutions to the bushmeat crisis, through innovative, holistic approaches. ABCG meetings and events have addressed collaborative action planning; human, wildlife and domestic animal health and dis￾ease; food security linkages; and capacity building for conservation in East and Central Africa. III. Activity Outputs A. Completed to date: March 2008: Short-term assistance assignments in Africa: Bushmeat in Eastern Africa by Dr. Heather Eves of the Bushmeat Crisis Task Force at the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanza￾nia. This was one of four modules for a total of four and a half weeks of training to post-graduate stu￾dents at the College of African Wildlife Management, Mweka, Tanzania, including developing curricu￾lum and giving lectures on Conducting a Bushmeat Field Assessment (2 weeks). January 2009: Workshop in Africa: Symposium on Unsustainable Bushmeat Trade in Eastern Africa at the Society for Conservation Biology-Africa Conference in Accra, with more than 70 African scientists ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 61 attending. 23 June 2009 (Bushmeat Briefing 1): Celebration and Reception on Building Capacity and Net￾works for Bushmeat Solutions This event brought together conservationists from the U.S. and Africa to: • Celebrate ten years of accomplishments by the BCTF (www.bushmeat.org) • Learn about capacity building from a cadre of east African conservationists addressing bushmeat exploitation through the 2008-2009 USFWS Wildlife Without Borders-Africa MENTOR Fellow￾ship Program (www.mentorfellowshipprogram.org) • Meet two USFWS MENTOR Fellows and a Mentor, and hear about their efforts on regional bushmeat solutions • Participate in the launching of the Bushmeat-free Eastern Africa Network (BEAN) (www.bushmeatnetwork.org) 19 November 2009 (Bushmeat Briefing 2): Double Brownbag Brownbag 1: Implementing Bushmeat Solutions around Tsavo National Park, Kenya; Presented by: Mr. Iregi Mwenja Senior Bushmeat Project Coordinator for the East African Wildlife Society in Kenya and BEAN Field Officer This brownbag covered innovative new efforts funded by the USFWS Wildlife Without Borders-Africa and other partners to reduce the illegal bushmeat trade in Tsavo ecosystem in Kenya. Brownbag 2: The Dzanga-Sangha Project, Central African Republic: Anthropological & Ecological Perspectives on Wildlife Hunting, Commerce, and Conservation; Presented by: Carolyn A. Jost, doc￾toral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at Purdue University and Lesley Daspit, doctoral can￾didate in anthropology at Purdue University The Dzanga-Sangha Project is one of the first examples of an Integrated Conservation & Development Project (ICDP) in the Congo Basin. This protected area is co-managed by WWF and the government of the Central African Republic. 29 January 2010 (Bushmeat Briefing 3): Meeting ABCG hosted a Bushmeat Briefing. The meeting’s objectives were to: • Share recent developments in policy and field projects in Africa • Learn about the policy and law enforcement impacts of bushmeat in the U.S. • Discuss priorities and strategies for better engaging stakeholders and decision makers in address￾ing the bushmeat crisis. 28 July 2010: Brownbag • Mitigating the impacts of the illegal bushmeat trade in the Tsavo Ecosystem, featuring Iregi Mwenja, Kenya Country Manager, Born Free Foundation, Former USFWS MENTOR Fellow, co-hosted and held at US Fish & Wildlife Service 2 May 2012: Public Health, Bushmeat and Nutrition event: Featuring Dr. Christopher Golden, Cara Honzak (WWF), Steve Osofsky (WCS), and Nathalie Simoneau (WWF) 7 June 2012: Brownbag • Mitigating the impact of the illegal bushmeat trade: Awareness and alternative proteins in Katavi￾Rukwa ecosystem of western Tanzania, featuring Andimile Martin, Bushmeat-Free Eastern Afri￾ca Network Field Officer, co-hosted with US Fish & Wildlife Service B. Planned: None (Bushmeat Crisis theme has ended; some bushmeat crisis tasks are continu￾ing as part of SMART and Global Health and Biodiversity) ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 62 IV. Results Conservation advance/approaches or tools (ideas): Development of Bushmeat modules for the three regional wildlife training colleges in Africa Adoption: Since “graduating” this theme from ABCG, individual organizations have adopted approaches of the Bushmeat Crisis task, including CI, WWF, WCS, and JGI. BEAN became a stand-alone Uganda-based network that used the approaches and knowledge developed under ABCG to become an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional network consisting of wildlife professionals, human development experts, government representatives, and academic experts, with the goal of incorporating private industry personnel, local community leaders and citizens, engaged in implementing grassroots solutions that directly address bushmeat exploita￾tion in and around protected areas in Eastern Africa. Building on this experience, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has developed a signature initia￾tive in the Congo Basin to engage a diverse group of local professionals and address the issues re￾lated to forest and wildlife conservation in Central Africa. The MENTOR-FOREST Program (Mentoring for Environmental Training in Outreach and Resource conservation), in partnership with Parks Gabon, is addressing wildlife conservation and promoting forest stewardship through an innovative two-year Master’s degree program. MENTOR-FOREST brings together a diverse group of nine Central African forest resource and conservation professionals, as well as individu￾als trained in sociology, law and public health, to work together as a team to identify new forest stewardship strategies, monitor wildlife populations, and ultimately enhance the sustainable man￾agement of forests in the Congo Basin. Investment: • The spin-off to the ABCG work on the bushmeat crisis—BEAN--has received funding from other sources. • US Fish and &Wildlife Service has supported some of the work that was started as a result of the initial ABCG meeting and extended the model to the forests of Central Africa. Alliances: • Partnerships between ABCG and the three regional wildlife training colleges in Africa. For ex￾ample, under the Wildlife without Borders-Africa program, the MENTOR (Mentoring for Envi￾ronmental Training in Outreach and Resource Conservation) Fellowship program was estab￾lished. This mentoring program focused on capacity strengthening to reduce illegal bushmeat ex￾ploitation in east Africa under a tripartite agreement between ABCG, USFWS, and College of Af￾rican Wildlife Management. V. Operations • The Bushmeat Crisis task has been noted as one of ABCG’s early success stories of collaboration with African universities/colleges. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 63 • This task has “graduated” from ABCG funding, after having been identified early on as an emerg￾ing issue, receiving significant ABCG attention, and then being taken up by individual ABCG or￾ganizations, other NGOs, the created BEAN Network and the USFWS as part of their programs. VI. Bibliography and Resources Dupain, Jef (10/19/2012) The Nexus of Biodiversity Conservation and Law Enforcement: The Case of Maringa-Lopori-Wambi Landscape in DRC. Golden, Christopher D. (9/17/2013). Public Health, Bushmeat, & Conservation: The Delicate Balance of Biodiversity and Human Health. Stokes, Emma (2/5/2014). Getting SMART about Stopping Poaching. ANNEX 3: EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS The following describes the evaluation team’s data collection and analysis methods. The list of people interviewed for this evaluation is included in Annex 4. Survey and interview data was provided to USAID/SD in the December 2014 report, “Survey and Steering Committee Interviews Report”. • Desk review: Prior to interviewing key informants and other stakeholders, the Evaluation Team re￾viewed program documentation provided by USAID/AFR/SD/EGEA and WWF/ABCG staff to un￾derstand the context and illustrative activities and to document the objectives, implementation experi￾ence, and expected and actual results. • Key informant interviews: To understand ABCG’s history, goals, objectives, and roles, method of operation, and business model, the evaluation team interviewed key informants. Key informant inter￾views were semi-structured, and designed to get an overall picture of ABCG’s approach to and role in biodiversity conservation in Africa, and to get responses to specific, targeted questions to help the evaluation team better understand ABCG. • Steering committee structured interviews: The evaluation team conducted phone interviews with current Steering Committee members using the structured interview guide (Annex 4). The evaluation team designed the interview guide and methodology to help the evaluation team understand ABCG’s methods of identifying, disseminating, and influencing new advances in and approaches to biodiversi￾ty conservation. Interviewing by phone allowed the evaluation team to build on answers of particular interest and to have targeted discussions. Interviewing each steering committee member separately al￾lowed for greater freedom of responses than if interviewed only in a group setting. Based on respons￾es to the questions, the evaluation team produced a Steering Committee Interview Summary Report. • E-survey of listerve members: The evaluation team designed an e-survery, which was distributed to the approximately 1,400 ABCG listserve members to get their perspectives of ABCG. The e-survey was primarily designed to generate demographic information of ABCG Website users; to identify ABCG resources (available on or through the Website) that users find particularly helpful; to deter￾mine how ABCG resources are used; and to get a sense of how users view the overall Website expe￾rience. The e-survey allowed evaluation team members to determine whether ABCG’s methods of dissemination are penetrating to African biodiversity conservation practitioners and whether the doc￾uments, tools, guidance, and lessons are being put into practice. This survey helped validate infor￾mation gathered from other interviews. Based on responses, the evaluation team produced a Tabula￾tion Report of all returned e-surveys, which tabulated frequency of responses and characteristics of respondents, and analyzed the data. Data Limitation: There is likely a non-response bias in the listserve survey data. The listserve survey was distributed through the ABCG listserve. This listserve has approximately 1,400 subscribers, of ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 64 which 72 completed the questionnaire. The survey was open for 13 days and two reminders were posted. Demographic information on all ABGC listserve subscrivers was not available to the evalua￾tion team to compare between all subscribers and the survey respondents. While the insights gained from this survey are still valuable, it is important to stress that they may not be representativ of the ABCG listserve community as a whole. • E-survey of Activity Managers: The evaluation team added this survey to fill gaps they identified in the data collection methods in the Evaluation SOW. This e-survey of Activity Managers was designed to help evaluation team members evaluate the influence of ABCG, specifically in Africa. It helped evaluation team members determine whether ABCG is catalyzing and scaling up new approaches and practices, and whether ABCG has leveraged funds in support of the thematic areas. It also allowed the evaluation team (and ABCG and USAID/AFR/SD) to showcase case studies and results of ABCG grants/tasks/activities. Data Limitation: ABCG provided the contact information of 84 Activity Managers of both ABCG member organizations and any subcontractors, of which 38 (45%) responded. As detailed below, con￾tacts were provided for some, but not all, ABCG tasks. Additionally, 35 of 38 respondents (92%) in￾dicated that their organization was actively implementing the task, so current activities are more heav￾ily represented than historical activities. ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 65 Task Surveys Sent Surveys Completed Response Rate B.2: High Conservation Value Forest Assessments 7 4 36% C: Analyzing Biodiversity Conservation and Govern￾ance to Prevent Conflict and Crisis, or Land Use Man￾agement Tools for Conservation (Land Tenure and Bi￾odiversity) 13 4 24% F.1: Climate Change Adaptation 13 6 32% F.3: Woodlands and Tradeoffs 3 1 25% F.4: Clean Energy and Eco-Charcoal 6 2 25% F.5: Grazing Management and Soil Carbon 3 2 40% G.1: HIV/AIDS and Conservation 1 0 0% G.2: Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) and Con￾servation 5 3 38% H.1: Large Scale Land Acquisition 3 1 25% H.2: SMART Law Enforcement 11 4 27% H.3: Western Indian Ocean 7 5 42% H.4: Faith & Conservation 12 6 33% Total 84 38 45% Source: Activity Managers Survey ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 66 ANNEX 4: LIST OF INTERVIEWS Name Organization Relationship to ABCG Date Inter￾viewed Natalie Bailey USAID/E3/FAB (formerly WWF) Former ABCG Coordina￾tor 10/31/14 Jocelyn Ziemian World Wildlife Foundation ABCG Coordinator 11/3/14 Nancy Gelman US Forest Service (formerly WWF) Former ABCG Coordina￾tor 11/7/14 Kamweti Mutu World Wildlife Foundation ABCG Program Officer 11/10/14 Matt Edwardsen TetraTech (formerly USFS) BATS Partner 11/10/14 Kathleen Sheraton US Forest Service BATS Partner 11/13/14 Adam Welti US Forest Service BATS Partner 11/13/14 Gina Villafan World Wildlife Foundation Financial Program Ad￾ministrator 11/14/14 Peter Veit World Resources Institute Steering Committee Member 11/17/14 Allard Bloom World Wildlife Foundation Steering Committee Member 11/17/14 Nathalie Simoneau World Wildlife Foundation Steering Committee Member 11/17/14 Janet Edmond Conservation International Steering Committee Member 11/18/14 Alice Macharia Jane Goodall Institute Steering Committee Member 11/20/14 Jimmiel Mandima African Wildlife Foundation Steering Committee Member 11/20/14 Kimberly Holbrook The Nature Conservancy Steering Committee Member 11/21/14 David Williams African Wildlife Foundation Activity Manager 11/21/14 Todd Stevens Wildlife Conservation Socie￾ty Steering Committee Member 11/24/14 Tim Resch USAID/AFR/SD ABCG AOR 11/24/14 John Waugh Integra (formerly IUCN) Former Steering Commit￾tee Member 11/25/14 Diane Russell USAID/E3/FAB USAID Stakeholder 12/1/14 Mary Bellekom Alliance of Religions and Conservation Activity Manager 12/1/14 Martin Palmer Alliance of Religions and Conservation Activity Manager 12/1/14 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 67 ANNEX 5: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS Steering Committee Interview Guide I. Vision 2025 1.1 Do you use the Vision 2025 and, if so, how? 1.2 Have you made progress in achievement of the Vision: a) generally; and b) specifically -- the Vision has 3 intermediate results 19 sub-results, do you measure or track the achievement of these results? II. Dissemination of Technology, Approaches and Ideas 2.1 Are ABCG’s information and technology dissemination practices sufficient and effec￾tive? III. Institutional Adoption of Practices, Approaches and Policies 3.1 Has ABGC influence improved the effectiveness of (and how): - Your organization’s programs (including field operations)? - Of critical African conservation institutions (NGOs and government)? - Of USAID? 3.2 Is ABCG able to provide sufficient attention/follow-up to issues (e.g., post workshop) to enable technologies and practices to be main-streamed or sufficiently adopted/scaled? (or does an activity end with workshops, presentations, publications) IV. Business Model/Governance/Operations 4.1 Is the ABCG structure and governance arrangement effective? Does it work for your or￾ganization? Do you have suggestions for improvements? V. General Success/ABCG Rationale 5.1 Does ABCG track progress against objectives? If so, how? 5.2 How easy is it for you to understand the critical overall lessons learned under the themes/activities? 5.3 Why is the collaborative effective? Can you provide an example of what has been achieved through the collaborative that may not otherwise have been done by the indi￾vidual ABCG member themselves? ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 68 Listserve Survey ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 69 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 70 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 71 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 72 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 73 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 74 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 75 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 76 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 77 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 78 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 79 Activity Managers Survey ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 80 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 81 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 82 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 83 ABCG Evaluation Final Report: January 2015 84