Report submitted to the
United States Agency for International Development
USAID’s
Global
Conservation
Program (GCP I)
Evaluation
Report
under USAID Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00, Biodiversity and
Sustainable Forestry (BioFor) IQC,
Task Order No. 2, entitled Technical Assistance to the Global Bureau’s
Biodiversity Program
Submitted by:
J. Kathy Parker, Ph.D.
Consultant to
ARD–BioFor IQC Consortium
159 Bank Street, Suite 300
Burlington, Vermont 05401
telephone: (802) 658-3890 fax: (802) 658-4247
email: ard@ardinc.com
December 2002

Table of Contents
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report i i
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.....................................................................................................................iii
Acronyms and Abbreviations ...................................................................................................xiii
1.0 Introduction and Background ............................................................................................ 1
1.1 Focus of the Global Conservation Program........................................................................ 1
1.2 NGO Partners with Which USAID/GCP Works ................................................................ 2
2.0 The GCP I Evaluation Process ........................................................................................... 3
2.1 Purposes of GCP I Evaluation ............................................................................................ 3
2.2 Intent of the Evaluation Questions...................................................................................... 3
2.3 Evaluation Methods ............................................................................................................ 3
2.4 Evaluator’s Comments........................................................................................................ 4
3.0 Evaluation Findings............................................................................................................. 6
3.1 General Program Overview ................................................................................................ 6
3.1.1 Findings on the Strengths of the Overall GCP Program....................................................6
3.1.2 Findings on the Weaknesses in GCP ..................................................................................7
3.1.3 Findings on Potential Gaps in the GCP .............................................................................8
3.1.4 Findings on Potential Opportunities GCP I Might Take Advantage of at this Point .........9
3.1.5 Findings on the Contribution that USAID’s Global Conservation Has Made to
Conservation of Biodiversity to Date..................................................................................9
3.1.6 Requests for GCP Services ...............................................................................................10
3.1.7 Awareness-Raising by USAID/GCP Among Missions about LWA Mechanism and
Services Available.............................................................................................................10
3.2 Assessment Results of the Evaluation .............................................................................. 10
3.2.1 Document how Partner Approaches Are Evolving and Assess How Well GCP is
Addressing Threats at Sites...............................................................................................11
3.2.2 Degree Partners Have Clearly Defined Threats...............................................................13
3.2.3 Degree Partners Believe They Have Made Progress to Date...........................................14
3.2.4 Greatest Challenges Partners Face in Addressing Threats..............................................17
3.2.5 Learning About Threats-Based Approach ........................................................................18
3.2.6 Work with Traditionally Marginalized People .................................................................19
3.2.7 Most Effective Approaches in Working with Stakeholders ...............................................20
3.2.8 Greatest Challenges Related to Obtaining Input from Traditionally Marginalized
People ...............................................................................................................................21
3.2.9 Greatest Returns on Investment in Getting Input from Traditionally Marginalized
People ...............................................................................................................................22
3.2.10 Degree to Which Partners Think Progress Has Been Made Toward Mitigating Priority
Threats Given Time Frame ...............................................................................................23
3.2.11 Examples of How Partners Have Begun to Successfully Mitigate Key Threats ...............24
3.2.12 Issues about the Threats-based Approach of GCP ...........................................................24
3.3 Assessment of How Well the Principles Guiding the Program are Integrated into the
Program............................................................................................................................. 26
3.3.1 Degree to Which Overall Set of Principles Affected Design of Partner Programs ..........26
3.3.2 Degree the RFA Principles Had an Effect on Partner Program Implementation ............27
3.3.3 Degree Partner Policy Initiatives Demonstrate Tangible Conservation Benefits ............27
3.3.4 Ways Partners are Ensuring Sustainability......................................................................28
3.3.5 Degree Partners Have Promoted Participation ...............................................................29
Table of Contents
ii USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.3.6 Development of Local Capacity........................................................................................29
3.3.7 Examples of Successful Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration.........................29
3.4 Identification of Opportunities to Improve Learning and its Application in GCP ........... 30
3.4.1 Priority “Best Practices” or Lessons Learned from GCP for Dissemination..................30
3.4.2 Conditions/Factors for Effective Adaptive Management..................................................31
3.4.3 Greatest Challenges for Partners in Instituting and Maintaining an Adaptive
Management Approach.....................................................................................................32
3.5 How Well Program Management (between USAID and NGO Partners and Among NGO
Partner institutions) Works ............................................................................................... 33
3.5.1 Degree USAID/GCP and Partner Relationship is Working Well and Proposed
Improvements....................................................................................................................33
3.5.2 Proposed Improvements to Enhance Relationship between USAID/GCP Program and
Missions ............................................................................................................................35
3.5.3 Proposed Improvements to Enhance Partner Relationships ............................................36
3.5.4 Communications Issues—Have They Hurt or Helped the Relationship of GCP ..............36
3.5.5 Reporting Issues................................................................................................................36
4.0 Recommendations.............................................................................................................. 39
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference .................................................................................... 50
NOTE 1: GCP Program Principles from RFA 1999................................................................. 50
NOTE 2: Description of GCP Sites and Policy Initiatives ....................................................... 52
NOTE 3: Selected Details on NGOs Working Under USAID/GCP Funding.......................... 57
NOTE 4: Evaluator’s Reflections and Recommendations for USAID/GCP Staff and Partners,
Based on the GCP I Evaluation Process ........................................................................... 58
Annexes:
Glossary
Introduction
Annex A: The Global Conservation Program: Background, Partners, and Sites
Annex B: Scope of Work
Annex C: Evaluation Approach and Questionnaire
Annex D: Analyses of Responses to Questionnaire
1. Threats Addressed: Questions D-1 through D-17 (question D-18 was not used)
2. Principles Integrated: Questions D-19 through D-41
3. Learning and Adaptive Management Questions D-42 through D-58
4. Interinstitutional Relationship Questions D-59 through D-68
5. USAID and Partner Program Management Questions D-69 through D-78
6.GCP I Potentials Component Questions D-79 through D-85
Annex E: Definitions of the Concept of “Threats”
Annex F: Graphic Depictions of GCP Program by Partners and Staff
Annex G: Partner Statements about What they Are Individually Holding Themselves
Accountable for During the 5-Year Implementation of GCP-I
Annex H: List of People Interviewed
Annex I: References
Executive Summary
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report iii iii
Executive Summary
The Global Conservation Program (GCP) began in October 1999 and is now the US Agency for
International Development (USAID)’s only global conservation initiative. It complements a wide
array of prior and existing Agency-funded biodiversity activities around the world. The GCP
works through six nongovernmental organization (NGO) Partners (see Evaluation Report Notes
for Reference, Note 3):
x The African Wildlife Foundation (AWF),
x Conservation International (CI),
x EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW),
x The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
x The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and
x The World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Its primary goal, as stated in the original Request for Applications (RFA), is to conserve
biodiversity largely through improved management of globally significant habitats. The funding
mechanism permits USAID to support the best biodiversity conservation projects of the selected
NGOs without prescribing the approaches that they use or the sites where they work, while also
meeting needs of country mission biodiversity programs. The GCP consists of 21 sites and
initiatives ranging from the Congo to the Bering Sea to Bolivia (see Evaluation Report Notes for
Reference, Note 2). Among the 14 original principles in the RFA (see Evaluation Report Notes
for Reference, Note 1), the most emphasized is a threats-based approach to conservation, through
the design and implementation of activities to abate threats to biodiversity in situ.
The Program is currently in transition to a second phase of implementation (GCP II). USAID
requested that a participatory evaluation be conducted to “constructively reflect” on the Program
and to serve as a springboard for design and implementation of GCP II.
Intent and Methods of the Evaluation
The overall intent of the evaluation was to help USAID and its NGO Partners improve ongoing
program implementation and cross-institutional collaboration, and to initiate planning for GCP
II. In particular, the evaluation sought:
x To assess how well GCP is addressing threats at sites;
x To assess how well the guiding principles identified in the RFA are integrated into the
program;
x To assess program management (between USAID and NGO Partners and within NGO
partner institutions);
x To identify opportunities to improve learning in the GCP, particularly across institutions;
x To document how partner approaches are evolving and how the GCP facilitates or
contributes to this;
Executive Summary
iv USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x To identify recommendations both to improve the current program and for the design of
GCP II; and
x To identify gaps and/or opportunities in the GCP as the primary biodiversity
conservation program of USAID’s Central Bureau.
The evaluation was designed to be highly participatory, with the evaluator playing roles of both
evaluator and facilitator, to “help GCP Partners and USAID constructively reflect on the
program’s strengths and weaknesses and successes and failures.” Thus, USAID/GCP staff and
the implementing NGO Partners contributed fundamentally to the evaluation’s conclusions and
recommendations and were its primary audience. In all, 23 individuals from NGO Partners and
five USAID/GCP staff provided input into all phases of the evaluation, from the design of the
questionnaire in June 2002 to the final drafts following a wrap-up workshop in October. The
evaluator conducted in-person and telephone interviews with staff of all six Partner
organizations, six USAID Missions and with selected three bureau personnel recommended by
USAID/GCP staff. The GCP evaluation did not include any field visits.
The Evaluator’s Primary Observations
The evaluation was a participatory evaluation, and its fundamental conclusions and
recommendations reflect the views of the participating USAID/GCP staff and NGO Partners.
USAID also asked the evaluator to provide some initial conclusions based on the interviews,
meetings, and responses to the questionnaire. The following highlight the evaluator’s primary
conclusions and recommendations. The Evaluator’s more detailed conclusions and
recommendations related to the recommendations in Section 4 are provided in the Evaluation
Report Notes for Reference, Note 4.
x The GCP has begun to make contributions to the conservation of biodiversity, even in
the short period of time since its inception. More substantial contributions will take time.
A field evaluation should be carried out within the next few years to confirm or
contradict the early assessments of this evaluation.
x Partners and USAID/GCP have developed a fundamentally strong base on which to
build (both administratively and substantively). They should build from this base to
work together to address opportunities and weaknesses identified during the evaluation.
x The Leader with Associate Award (LWA) under which the Partners have Cooperative
Agreements works well, and Mission and Bureau personnel consider it a generally
efficient and cost effective procurement mechanism.
x Partners either have, or already had, incorporated most of the 14 program principles in
their ongoing work. These principles should—and easily could—continue to be made
available to others working on sustainable development activities. Greater awareness and
use of these principles would improve the integration of important biodiversity
conservation themes and issues in their broader development and humanitarian
assistance efforts.
x Partners have applied “threats-based” approaches in various ways, and these approaches
have evolved over the course of the Program. USAID and Partners should continue
Executive Summary
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report v v
discussions on the “threats-based approach” to improve their understanding of these
approaches, lessons learned, and to clarify USAID’s implicit assumptions.
x USAID/GCP and Partners should further explore support of various mechanisms (a) for
learning opportunities for internal learning for all Partners and (b) for shared learning
among Partners and other members of the conservation community.
x USAID/GCP and Partners should all explore opportunities for improved coordination,
cooperation, and collaboration as these arise.
x Partners and USAID Missions should actively seek ways to improve their relationships.
x Some Partners find reporting requirements arduous. USAID/GCP should work with
Partners to improve the work plan process and streamline semi-annual reporting.
x Partners need increased understanding of the concept of “results”, vis-à-vis USAID
definitions, to better monitor and report on them. USAID/GCP should hold Partners
accountable for results, not just activities and outputs.
x Current indicators for reporting are inadequate measures of the intended results of the
GCP. USAID should assess overall monitoring of the GCP in the not-too-distant future.
GCP Program Strengths and Weaknesses
Contributions to Biodiversity Conservation: The majority consensus is that the GCP, even in
its first few years, has already made some contributions to the conservation of biodiversity. Most
agree, too, that the potential for more substantial contributions will take additional time. Some
give it very high marks on this count. Others agree that the GCP has made a contribution but feel
that the time frame has been too short to determine fully the kind and degree of its contributions.
One person expressed the more skeptical view that the GCP could go away tomorrow and not
have been considered to have made any impact. However, he did acknowledge that the GCP
might eventually make a contribution. A few of the examples given of the GCP’s nascent
contributions through its funding of diverse on-the-ground efforts include (a) support for
sustainable conservation financing, (b) engaging stakeholders effectively in monitoring, (c)
catalytic support for new activities, and (d) helping policymakers recognize the value of
biodiversity conservation, already leading to some positive results in the Philippines and Bolivia.
Program Strengths: Participants in the evaluation agreed that the Global Conservation Program
has many substantial strengths, both those that exist now and those that provide a foundation on
which to build in the future. Areas where strengths lie include the GCP’s:
x The approach to biodiversity conservation (e.g., threats-based approach, in-situ
conservation, partner driven, and global perspective);
x The diverse array of conservation partners and efforts funded (e.g., critical resources for
large-scale conservation approaches, for developing local-level economic incentives;
excellent NGO technical staff; and committed organizations that contribute resources of
their own, enhancing the potential for sustainability);
Executive Summary
vi USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Learning opportunities under GCP (e.g., provides a venue for sharing experiences/
perspectives; catalyzes learning and exchange within USAID and among partners
outside the rubric of the GCP);
x Advantages of partnership between USAID and Partners (e.g., provides a sense of a
global network and links to the broader conservation community; and raises the profile
of the Agency’s role in biodiversity conservation);
x Advantages of relationships between USAID/GCP and USAID/Missions (e.g.,
USAID/GCP staff provide good technical backstopping to Missions, connects Missions
to current thinking on biodiversity issues); and
x Highly acclaimed procurement mechanism (e.g., considered to be easy, effective, very
efficient, excellent mechanism to procure services of high quality NGOs).
Program Weaknesses: The weaknesses of GCP identified by participants in the evaluation
process fall into the following categories:
x Communication issues (e.g., limited outreach within the Agency and towards Missions;
most Partners indicated that differing uses of words and concepts, or differing
assumptions resulted from a lack of clarity in definitions);
x Limited proactive internal sharing, coordination and collaboration from all sides (e.g.,
most Partners observed the need to have more catalytic and proactive sharing and
collaboration when need and opportunity arises);
x Limited analysis of lessons learned (e.g., several Mission and Bureau personnel, and
most Partners noted the loss of knowledge from program investments due to limited
analysis of lessons learned);
x Budget issues (e.g., perceived need for a bigger program budget given the immensity of
the challenge, the uncertainty in year-to-year funding);
x Staff-related issues (e.g., limited field visits by USAID/GCP staff);
x Program management (e.g., problems with timing and process in review of work plans);
x Limited substantive contributions from meetings (e.g., Partners leave most meetings with
few specific ideas that might apply to their own programs);
x Reporting requirements (e.g., the majority of the Partners noted a need to streamline
reporting requirements—“It feels like I am always reporting”);
x Limited apparent capacity building in the field (e.g., one individual from USAID raised
the question of whether capacity building is actually going on in the field); and
x Limited emphasis on financial sustainability (e.g., one USAID/GCP staff member stated
that there has not been enough focus on financial sustainability).
How Well Threats Have Been Addressed
Partner Approaches to Address Threats: Partner approaches to address threats at sites vary
considerably and have evolved in one way or another during the course of GCP I:
Executive Summary
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report vii vii
x AWF has incorporated and adapted new tools learned from another partner to improve
their planning processes.
x WCS has developed more robust conceptual models through its landscape species
approach to site planning.
x TNC has not so much changed its approach but applied it more systematically.
x WWF has become more confident about aspects of its approach by testing it at various
sites.
x EWW, while not changing its fundamental approach, has carried lessons learned from
continuing application of its approach to new sites.
Key threats identified have included land subdivision, lack of awareness, illegal logging,
unsustainable levels of hunting and fishing, weak management capacity to address difficult
transboundary issues, and issues of scale.
Partner Efforts to Address Priority Threats: Partners believe they have identified threats at
the appropriate scale for their GCP-funded sites moderately well. In their self-assessment, the
overall average for Partner ratings is slightly above a moderate degree of progress in addressing
priority threats to date (i.e., in relation to where they hoped to be at this point in the program).
Mission representatives provide similar ratings for all except two Partners. Some Missions
observed and/or experienced less than favorable relationships between themselves and some
Partners and between some Partners and their local NGO Partners.
Lessons Learned about the Threats-Based Approach: Among the lessons that Partners noted
they had learned are the following:
x If used rigorously, a threats-based approach helps keep field staff, communities, and
other stakeholders (government, other NGOs, etc.) focused on the resource management
aspects of the work.
x Assessment of causal linkages is useful to identify where and how interventions can
have an effect on the threat status, and where monitoring can be done. Assessment of
causal changes also helps to explain why we are doing what we are doing.
x A threats-based approach in marine/coastal areas needs to be undertaken holistically,
looking at both marine and terrestrial systems, and may require addressing terrestrial￾based threats.
x Determining the size of large-scale activities is a significant issue. For example, the
scale of interaction and impact in the Bering Sea is highly related to threats arising from
markets and policies in the European Union (EU).
Work with Traditionally Marginalized People: Partners rated as moderately high the degree to
which they have worked with traditionally marginalized people at GCP-funded sites. Partners
provided perspectives on the nature of marginalizing forces—including government laws and the
conservation community itself—and the potentially important role of local NGOs. Partners
identified the following benefits from working with traditionally marginalized people, among
others:
Executive Summary
viii USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Results achieved or actions undertaken (e.g., reduced illegal logging, use of easements
in return for economic incentives);
x Demand-based replication of models (e.g., requests from communities);
x Improved technical processes and management (e.g., improved assessment of threats);
and
x Increased participation (e.g., locals reporting conflict areas, improved participation in
meetings after trust has been built).
Challenges to USAID’s Threats-Based Approach: During an early phase of the evaluation,
several Partners suggested that USAID’s “threats-based approach” should be challenged.
Subsequent interviews revealed that the issue was not so much the “threats-based approach,” as
all Partners include that as part of their focus. Rather, the Partners felt that USAID has focused
too intensively on only one component—threats—of a continuum that includes a number of
important aspects (e.g., conservation targets, threats, ultimate causes, proximate causes, stressors,
and other variations on Partners’ ways of characterizing their focus). USAID assumes that, as
part of that focus, the broader continuum is addressed implicitly while highlighting only the
threats. Partners have responded in different ways, and some believe there are potential
“disconnects,” for example, of threats from conservation targets. Others acknowledge USAID’s
interest in the effectiveness of investments or that USAID’s emphasis encourages Partners to
leverage other resources to go beyond the threats focus funded by USAID.
How Well Principles Have Been Integrated
Integration of Principles: The majority of the Partners had already incorporated many of the 14
program principles into their organizational philosophies and/or Missions. USAID/GCP itself
has integrated the principles completely in its own documentation. Furthermore, one Partner
noted that the principles would prove very useful for non-conservation development
organizations that wish to include conservation objectives in their programs.
Ensuring Sustainability: Partner efforts to ensure ecological, technical, economic, financial,
social, institutional, and political sustainability range widely. Illustrative examples include:
x Focusing on carefully selected focal species that represent large and diverse extents of
habitat and the integrity of ecological functions;
x Building capacity through project activities;
x Helping communities develop alternative, compatible livelihood and resource
management activities to address their development needs;
x Collaborating closely with protected area services (all sites), other government agencies,
universities, and the private sector;
x Working closely with local, regional/district level, and national forestry officials to
promote effective implementation of community forestry laws; and
x Developing wildlife-based enterprises for greater internal revenue flows and internal
financial sustainability.
Executive Summary
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report ix ix
Identification of Opportunities to Improve Learning and Its Application Across
GCP
“Best Practices” from Learning: At the July Roundtable, Partners identified “best practices” or
lessons learned under the GCP in a number of areas related to addressing threats to biodiversity,
including innovative landscape tools, steps toward improved learning and measuring progress,
progress on integrating economics into conservation, scope and scale issues, and place-based
(site) planning.
Adaptive Management: Partners outlined an array of illustrative examples of conditions/factors
that need to be in place for an effective adaptive management approach, including (among
others):
x Goals and objectives established, including assumptions;
x Monitoring and information management systems in place, including active use of
information and on-going information dissemination/exchange;
x Analysis, including funding, conceptual models, and an array of tools and methods that
can be applied at active pilot sites,;
x Local capacity—e.g., to carry out research or provide technical assistance—and
knowledge of local conditions.
How Well Program Management (between USAID and NGO Partners and Among
NGO Partner Institutions) Works
USAID and Partner Relationship: Both USAID/GCP staff and Partners agree that their
relationship is working moderately well. In general, Partners view that their relationship with
USAID is working well in that they can leverage funds; there are significant possibilities for
learning within and across programs; and there is not too much micromanagement.
USAID/GCP staff members noted that relationships are strong on the administrative level; the
possibility of interaction on both technical and management levels contributes to a higher value
relationship; and the GCP contributes to the goal of broadening the Agency’s relationship with
the broader NGO community in Washington.
GCP Relationship with Missions: In general, relationships between the GCP and missions are
good. Partners and GCP staff, however, recommended improvements in relationships with
USAID Missions in the following areas: a) increased interactions between USAID/GCP staff and
Missions (e.g., site visits, provide more information on the LWA mechanism, encourage that
mission-allocated funds enhance the work being seeded by GCP); b) coordination of Partner
programs with USAID programs that complement sustainable development efforts of Missions,
ensure that GCP sites fit into Mission strategy and priorities; c) increased interaction with and
input by USAID Mission staff (e.g., review of work plans, get clear understanding of Mission
concerns and expectations regarding specific approved activities).
Communications: Partners and some USAID/GCP staff reported different perspectives on the
issue of communications. For some it is a problem, while for others it is not. All acknowledge
Executive Summary
x USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
that it is an “issue” in one way or another. Partners and staff recommended an array of ways to
improve the variety of communications mechanisms in place, most specifically work plans (e.g.,
communicate basic requirements before preparation of the plans); semi-annual reports (e.g.,
streamline and make clear the purpose and issues that USAID wants); quarterly meetings (e.g.,
prepare and distribute minutes, ensure that follow-up promised is done by all); annual meetings
(e.g., have a facilitator who will work with all); and performance monitoring forms (e.g., revisit
and make them more useful).
Program Management in General: Partners and USAID/GCP are generally consistent in their
perspectives on a wide range of program management issues and opportunities:
x Relationships and processes (e.g., for work planning) are good, but can be improved.
x USAID/GCP rarely provides input into policy development.
x USAID/GCP staff does not constrain Partners, except in those areas where government
regulations require it. Neither they nor Partners are resistant to change.
x USAID/GCP generally gives useful input on work plans but almost no input on semi￾annual reports. While Partners perceive the reporting process as an unnecessary burden,
USAID/GCP staff finds the reports useful for internal reporting, at many different points
in time, and for a wide range of purposes.
Recommendations
USAID/GCP staff, Partners, and other USAID personnel interviewed provided the following
selected recommendations. They fall into two categories—tactical and strategic. The evaluation
process provided opportunities for interaction between the evaluator and USAID/GCP staff and
as evaluation input began to flow, USAID/GCP staff began to develop and implement action
plans for key recommendations found in Section 4 of the Evaluation Report. Most of these action
plans deal with more tactical and administrative actions. At the workshop in October to wrap up
the evaluation, Partners, USAID/GCP staff, and other Bureau and Mission personnel discussed
an array of the issues that came out of the evaluation, and both tactical and strategic implications
of these issues. The second set of more strategic recommendations listed below come from
Partners and the evaluator. Although full consensus has not been reached on all of them, they
merit continued reflection and discussion.
Selected Tactical Recommendations
x More frequent visits by USAID/GCP field staff to field sites have already begun.
x Partners should share lessons learned about adaptive management conditions, challenges
and “best practices” on a more regular basis. Specific opportunities to share products
should be identified.
x USAID/GCP staff should ensure clarity for all of the concepts and terms they use.
x USAID/GCP should address the Partners’ limited understanding about differences
between results, outputs and activities and their subsequent reporting of these to USAID.
Executive Summary
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report xi xi
x USAID should increase the GCP budget to make available resources appropriate to the
scale of the challenges taken up. USAID/GCP staff and Partners should periodically
review the budget process and related administrative issues.
x USAID/GCP should work to ensure a clearer, organized and responsive work plan review
process. This should include its interactions with both Partners and Missions.
x Insofar as possible, USAID/GCP should streamline its semi-annual reviews. However, it
is important for Partners to recognize the diverse uses of these documents that meet
USAID reporting and documentation requirements.
x USAID/GCP and Partners should continue to work together to improve the content and
process of meetings, identifying priority topics for discussion, setting meeting objectives
and shorter agendas, and ensuring follow-up actions are identified and carried out.
Similarly USAID/GCP and Partners should work together to improve the structure/format
for work plans, communicate the “rules of the game” (e.g., budgets limits, levels-of￾effort), and streamline semi-annual reports.
x USAID should recognize and manage limited USAID/GCP staff time more strategically.
USAID/GCP should explore the potential of hiring a dedicated person/consultant part
time to follow up with Partners on the most pressing issues from meetings.
x USAID/GCP should carry out a strong field evaluation to assess progress and explore
issues in greater depth.
x While communications are generally good, they are one area in any program that need to
be constantly re-visited to ensure that relationships are made stronger through improved
understanding rather than diminished by lack of good communications.
x In general, USAID/GCP has good relationships with USAID Missions. These
relationships can be improved, and USAID/GCP should explore ways to constantly work
to serve the needs of the Missions and ensure that they are well integrated with Mission
strategies.
Selected Strategic Recommendations
x USAID should clarify its “global biodiversity” mission and how its portfolio responds to
this mission. In doing so, USAID/GCP should work within USAID to clarify the link of
its biodiversity mission to other aspects of development. USAID/GCP should identify the
GCP’s role/niche among the biodiversity programs supported by USAID missions and
other donors (public and private). It should seek to make the activities it supports
explicitly complementary to what these others are or could be doing. USAID/GCP should
work with Partners to access/leverage interest and/or support from other USAID
audiences. It should identify ways to engage Missions more in GCP-funded activities.
x USAID/GCP, together with Partners, should determine how to exercise more proactive
leadership within the conservation community, actively identifying linkages and
synergies among the activities the GCP supports, other USAID-funded projects, and
other donor activities. The GCP should take a lead in articulating and sharing the ways
that increased communication, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration among key
Executive Summary
xii USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
players in the conservation community (USAID, other donors, US NGOs, local partners)
can improve conservation results on the ground.
x USAID/GCP and Partners should work together to develop a clear identity that draws
sites and Partners together. Together, they should better articulate the focus of their site￾based and policy activities with respect to a core set of specific themes or geographic
areas, around which lessons can be generated, results analyzed, and experiences among
Partners and others shared. USAID/GCP should continue to strengthen its understanding
of Partner’s field-based programs and activities, and communicate this understanding
more forcefully to other colleagues in the Agency.
x USAID/GCP and Partners should explore appropriate forms and potentials for more
catalytic and proactive sharing and collaboration to make the GCP a program that is more
than the sum of its parts. These should respond to specific needs and opportunities as
these arise, and may include strategic alliances or other interactions. USAID/GCP staff
should develop a knowledge protocol/framework that permits characterizing the GCP’s
activities across sites and should share information about improved tools for identifying,
measuring, and reporting results.
x GCP should be more proactive in exercising the leverage it has as USAID’s major global
conservation program to encourage a greater learning and results orientation within the
Agency and GCP partner organizations. Partners should include explicit elements for
documentation and sharing lessons learned in their proposals, work plans, and reporting
across site and policy activities.
A second set of “reflections and recommendations,” is found in the Evaluation Report Notes for
Reference, Note 4. These comments provide the evaluator’s perspective on the above and related
areas for consideration as the USAID/GCP team and NGO Partners move toward and into GCP
II.
Acronyms and Abbreviations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report xiii xiii
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADS Automated Directives System
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
BCN Biodiversity Conservation Network
BSP Biodiversity Support Program
CA Cooperative Agreement
CI Conservation International
CIB Congolaise Industrielle de Bois
CTO Cognizant Technical Officer
DFO District Forest Officer
EGAT Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade Bureau
ERBC Ecoregion-Based Conservation
EU European Union
EWW EnterpriseWorks Worldwide
FY Fiscal Year
GCP Global Conservation Program
GEF Global Environmental Facility
HCP Heartland Conservation Planning
LLP Living Landscape Program
LRFT Live Reef Fish Food Trade
LWA Leader with Associates
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NRM Natural Resource Management
RFA Request for Applications
SCP Site Conservation Planning
SO Strategic Objective
TDY Temporary Duty
TLCT Tanzania Land Conservation Trust
TNC The Nature Conservancy
USAID US Agency for International Development
USAID/W US Agency for International Development/Washington
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wildlife Fund
1.0 Introduction and Background
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 1 1
1.0 Introduction and Background
1.1 Focus of the Global Conservation Program
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) began the Global Conservation
Program (GCP) in 1999. It is now the Agency’s only global conservation initiative,
complementing a wide array of prior and existing Agency-funded biodiversity activities around
the world. USAID established the Program for five years, with the option of extending it for up
to 10 more years. Program implementation began slowly due to funding issues, but it has been
making progress recently. The Program is currently transitioning to its next phase (GCP II), thus
the need for this mid-term evaluation.
USAID programmed the initial level of effort for $3.2 million per year. The Program went
through a competitive process to add four new activities in FY01 that raised the annual level of
effort to $3.8 million. For FY02, the GCP has $4.2 million available, and currently is planning
for a straight-line budget from FY02 for the next phase—GCP II.
At the outset, 14 Program principles provided essential guidance for the development of the
initiative. These principles are listed in the Evaluation Report Notes for Reference, Note 1.
USAID works with six leading conservation organizations to address the most pressing threats to
21 species-rich sites around the world, and through several policy initiatives. (GCP sites and
policy initiatives are listed in the Evaluation Report Notes for Reference, Note 2.) The primary
focus of the Agency-funded effort is a threats-based approach to conserving biological diversity.
Many of these sites are vulnerable to immediate threats such as poaching, logging, and mining.
Some sites are more pristine and offer conservation opportunities before they come under many
of the pressing threats that exist worldwide. Seventeen of the sites are large-scale conservation
activities (e.g., landscape scale), nine are transboundary, two are in non-presence countries
(where USAID does not have a Mission), and eight are in countries where Missions do not have
environmental Strategic Objectives (SOs).
GCP works to address gaps identified in prior USAID-funded biodiversity conservation efforts,
including the Agency’s need to:
x Build stronger partnerships with the conservation community;
x Co-fund conservation activities with selected NGOs to increase the potential for
sustainability of USAID funding; and
x Provide direct support for in-situ conservation to reflect the Economic Growth,
Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT) Bureau’s orientation on achieving results.
While this evaluation reviewed GCP I, it is clear that EGAT’s mandate also will shape GCP II’s
vision and mission. The elements of EGAT’s mandate are:
x Customer-focused, including Missions, regional bureaus and NGO Partners;
x Cutting-edge, with programs required to develop and maintain USAID’s leadership; and
x Learning-focused, learning is explicit and brought to the field.
1.0 Introduction and Background
2 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
1.2 NGO Partners with Which USAID/GCP Works
USAID/GCP represents a new partnership between the Agency and leading private conservation
organizations. These partnerships offer new hope for threatened areas ranging from the Maasai
Mara region of Africa, to the rainforests of the Amazon, to the fisheries of the Bering Sea.
USAID/GCP is using competitively awarded Cooperative Agreements (CAs) with six leading
private NGOs under the Leader with Associates (LWA) award mechanism. These NGOs are:
x African Wildlife Foundation (AWF),
x Conservation International (CI),
x EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW),
x The Nature Conservancy (TNC),
x Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and
x World Wildlife Fund (WWF).
Selected details on the organizations and areas where they work appear in Evaluation Report
Notes for Reference, Note 3.
2.0 The GCP I Evaluation Process
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 3 3
2.0 The GCP I Evaluation Process
2.1 Purposes of the GCP I Evaluation
The purpose of the GCP I evaluation, as stated in the Scope of Work (SOW; see Annex B), is to
help the six global conservation NGO Partners and USAID “constructively reflect” on the
program’s strengths and weaknesses and its successes and failures. The SOW focused primary
attention on:
x Improving program implementation;
x Exploring cross-institutional cooperation, coordination, and collaboration; and
x Providing a foundation for planning of GCP II.
2.2 Specific Intent of the Evaluation
The specific intent of the evaluation questions was to:
x Assess the GCP’s effectiveness at addressing site threats;
x Assess integration of the Program principles (from the RFA) into the Program;
x Assess Program management (between USAID and NGO Partners, and within NGO
partner institutions);
x Identify opportunities to improve learning and knowledge in the GCP, particularly across
institutions; and
x Document evolving partner approaches and the GCP’s facilitation/contribution to these
evolving approaches.
The evaluation was also designed to serve as a platform for planning GCP II, in particular,
x To identify recommendations both to improve the current program and for the design of
GCP II; and
x To identify gaps and/or opportunities in the GCP as the primary biodiversity
conservation program of USAID’s central technical bureau.
2.3 Evaluation Methods
The evaluation SOW called for a participatory evaluation that involved no field visits. Thus,
USAID/GCP staff and the implementing NGO Partners themselves were not simply key
informants for the evaluation report’s findings. They participated in all phases of the evaluation
and contributed fundamentally and substantially to the conclusions (the evaluation’s
interpretations and judgments) and recommendations. Together with the USAID ENR Office
Director and the USAID missions where the GCP programs, they also comprise the primary
audience for the evaluation.
The evaluation was carried out by a Senior Institutional Development Specialist, whose role was
that of both an evaluator and a facilitator of a process of constructive reflection. An additional
2.0 The GCP I Evaluation Process
4 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
facilitator supported her for two of the meetings with USAID/GCP staff and NGO Partners, in
July and October.
The following is a list of evaluation methods employed during the course of this participatory
evaluation effort. The most appropriate method employed at any point in time depended on the
nature of the evaluation question or issue being explored and the phase of the evaluation.
x Interviews (e.g., face-to-face, by phone, and by e-mail) were carried out between June
and August 2002 with USAID/GCP staff, Partners, other USAID staff at the Bureau
level, and selected Mission staff from a list of people recommended by USAID/GCP staff
(see Annex H; some individuals contacted did not respond to the request for an
interview).
x Joint meetings with the GCP Partners were carried out as appropriate and included a
roundtable discussion in July and a workshop in October that included mission and
regional bureau representatives.
x A systematic questionnaire was developed with input from Partners and USAID/GCP
staff. Partners were asked to answer certain questions (required and optional) between
July 16 and August 9. USAID/GCP staff had their own set of questions to answer
(including some of those that were posed to Partners). The evaluator focused her primary
analysis on the “required” questions. The evaluator then selected a few of the “optional”
questions for further analysis and reporting, primarily because of the ample detail
respondents provided.
x Development and application of an “evaluation lite” questionnaire for USAID Mission
personnel made use of a select set of questions focused on specific field-related elements
of the GCP Program and elicited more general observations about the strengths and
weaknesses of the Program from a field perspective.
x Content analysis of documents focused on specific questions.
x Synthesis, integration, and reporting drew on input from all sources and include
observations and reflections of the evaluator.
2.4 Evaluator’s Comments
Many of the responses to questions in the questionnaire and the interviews invite further
exploration—beyond the scope of the present evaluation—to provide deeper insight into such
aspects as the implications of lessons learned or individual concerns, the relationship between
threats in a given context and the mitigation actions chosen to respond to these threats, and
actions that may be most usefully adapted across sites. The following sections provide both
specific and general information and examples of current Partner activities and their results.
Every issue raised herein could potentially be explored in more detail. In this light, this report is
only a part of the process of constructive reflection to which its author contributed. As the GCP
continues to evolve it will be up to the Partners and USAID/GCO staff who participated in this
evaluation process and those who review these materials to continue the reflection and learning
that is documented here.
2.0 The GCP I Evaluation Process
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 5 5
For a number of reasons, the evaluator has provided little or no attribution for specific responses
throughout the text. In some cases, the evaluator promised to keep answers confidential to allow
participants to feel more open to respond to the questions for self-reflection and self-rating. In
the other cases, she aggregated and synthesized information under categories that captured
general points expressed by one or more respondents. Comments attributed to specific
institutions and/or individuals where confidentiality was not required are included in Annex D.
Readers will see what may be, for some, unclear information, (e.g., one organization rated all its
sites at ‘2’ [moderate]). This limited clarity of specific details has generally resulted from cases
in which the evaluator has not provided attribution in order to maintain confidentiality. The
summary conclusions at the beginning of most sections will provide readers a greater sense of
the meaning and/or implications of this information.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
6 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.0 Evaluation Findings
3.1 General Program Overview
The following subsections provide analysis of the responses to the GCP I Potentials Component
in Section VI of the Questionnaire (questions 79 to 85; see Annex C). Specific details about the
answers to all questions can be found in Annex D. Analysis and synthesis of the responses to the
questionnaire along with other details from interviews and interactions with major stakeholders
in this program at the Washington level appear herein.
Many of the strengths, weaknesses, and gaps identified in the following subsections are quite
general, a direct reflection of the fact that work under the GCP is carried out in the same context
as most development-oriented activities. Although some feel it would be useful to differentiate
those that are specific to conservation-related activities, it is more important to take note of the
elements Partners identified that most affect the efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of their
efforts, whether conservation specific or not. Because so many are general, it may reflect an
opportunity for conservation organizations to learn from the ways in which development
organizations address these issues. In some cases, a development organization may be able to
share directly relevant analysis, synthesis, and integration of years of experience as well.
3.1.1 Findings on the Strengths of the Overall Global Conservation Program
Based on written and/or oral comments from Partners, USAID Regional Bureau staff, Mission
Staff, and USAID/GCP staff, the Global Conservation Program has many substantial strengths,
both those that exist now and those that provide a foundation on which to build potentially
greater strengths within the GCP in the future. Areas where strengths lie include the GCP’s:
x Approach to biodiversity conservation (respondents noted threats-based approach, in-situ
conservation, partner driven, global perspective, and support in USAID non-presence
countries);
x Funding/support of an array of conservation efforts (respondents noted that critical
resources for large-scale conservation approaches are provided, support is given to
develop economic incentives for conservation at the community level, a matching fund
requirement is often mandated, global priorities are funded, and catalytic funding for
additional initiatives is provided);
x Quality partners and what they bring to the GCP (respondents noted the excellent NGO
technical staff, cooperation between Partners, good institutional diversity, and Partners
are committed to continue activities over the long term without GCP funding at their
sites);
x Learning opportunities (respondents noted that the GCP provides some good
opportunities to share lessons learned, provides a venue for sharing
experiences/perspectives, supports learning openly within USAID, and catalyzes
individual organization interactions outside the rubric of the GCP);
x Advantages of partnership between USAID and Partners (respondents believe that the
GCP provides an opportunity to expand the scope of existing partnership with USAID,
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 7 7
provides the sense of a global network, provides higher value for USAID’s portfolio,
provides a link to the broader conservation community, and raises the profile of the
Agency’s role in biodiversity conservation);
x Advantages of relationships between USAID/GCP and USAID/Missions (respondents felt
that USAID/Washington staff are technically solid, USAID/GCP staff provide good
technical backstopping to Missions, and the GCP connects Missions to current thinking
on biodiversity issues; the evaluator notes that the relationship is generally fine between
USAID/GCP and USAID/Missions except for needed improvement in work plan
processes.);
x Highly acclaimed procurement mechanism (GCP is considered to be an easy, effective,
very efficient, excellent mechanism to procure services of high quality NGOs); and
x Ways to promote higher potential for sustainability (respondents noted cost sharing with
NGO Partners enhances potential for sustainability of program).
3.1.2 Findings on the Weaknesses in the GCP
While the strengths of the GCP are substantial, those who provided input also noted some
weaknesses. USAID/GCP staff members are aware of most of the weaknesses identified. Staff
can deal with weaknesses constructively with input from all. However, those issues in the hands
of higher levels of the Agency may be difficult, if not impossible, for staff to address directly.
Weaknesses fall into the following categories:
x Budget issues (a number of Partners perceived the need for a bigger Program budget,
several Partners noted the uncertainty in year-to-year funding, one Mission staff member
and a number of Partners noted the lack of Administration political will to fund
biodiversity as an issue, and one Partner noted a cut in funding at some sites);
x Staff-related issues (many respondents noted that staff need to go out to the field more,
USAID/GCP staff members expressed concerns with time limits, one Bureau staff
member questioned whether USAID/GCP staff are aware of other public and private
conservation efforts; the evaluator notes that USAID/GCP staff members already are
responding to the issue of field visits and are pursuing a more proactive response, in spite
of other Bureau pressures on their time.);
x Program management (respondents noted limited programming flexibility, problems
with the timing and process in review of work plans, and perceived the need for more
attention to site selection process if new sites eventually are added to the Program);
x Communications (most respondents indicated in one form or another that there is a lack
of definitional clarity across the Program [i.e., differing definitions of certain words or
concepts and assumptions that are made because of the lack of clarity or that cause lack
of clarity], one Partner and one Mission staff member pointed to the need to get the
message about biodiversity conservation as a contributor to sustainable development
upward in the Agency, one Mission staff member noted the lack of information given to
field Missions about the Program, a Bureau staff member noted the lack of information
about the program on the Internet, several Mission respondents noted the lack of a
newsletter or some form of dissemination of information, several Mission staff members
3.0 Evaluation Findings
8 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
and one Bureau staff member indicated a greater need to get success stories out, and most
Mission staff members indicated the lack of enough direct interaction with the Missions);
x Need and/or opportunities for proactive internal sharing, coordination and collaboration
from all sides (two Partners noted that nothing really holds this loose collection of
projects together except the umbrella name, most Partners observed the need to have
more catalytic and proactive sharing and collaboration when the need and opportunity
arises, one Partner pointed to the need to institute corporate behavior of coordination so
that more synergies could occur, one USAID/GCP staff member noted that a number of
Partners do not acknowledge support from USAID/GCP in public presentations so it is
hard to make a definable impact if no one knows they exist);
x Lack of adequate analysis of lessons learned (several Mission and two Bureau staff
members, and most of the Partners noted due to the lack of analytics, the Program is
losing knowledge, one high-level member of the Bureau and one of the Mission staff
member emphasized it in the following way: “no apparent learning”);
x Difficulties with Meetings (upon leaving most meetings, Partners have few specific ideas
that might apply to their own programs and little discussion of substantive issues, since
most of the discussion is on administrative details and Agency transition; as both
technical and administrative personnel participate in these meetings, sometimes it is
difficult to have strong substantive discussions);
x Reporting Requirements (the perception of one Partner is that there is a problem with
changing the goalpost for reporting [the evaluator believes this is meant in terms of what
has been expected and the changes in the process or time]. The majority of the Partners
noted in the questionnaire and/or interviews that there is a need to streamline reporting
requirements. One stated: “It feels like I am always reporting”);
x Lack of Capacity Building in the Field (one individual from USAID raised questions
about whether capacity building is actually occurring in the field); and
x Lack of Focus on Financial Sustainability (one USAID/GCP staff member stated that
there has not been enough focus on this topic).
3.1.3 Findings on Potential Gaps in the GCP
USAID/GCP staff responded to this question along with input from one Partner about the current
gaps in the GCP. The gaps identified include but are not limited to:
x Lack of a GCP identity and the consequent gap that needs to be filled by creating and/or
capturing and retaining that identity (One USAID/GCP staff member noted this and that
an institutional memory about the GCP’s creation and its provision of cutting-edge
biodiversity conservation should be maintained. The disparate visions of the GCP’s
identity are graphically shown in Annex F);
x Lack of analytics (respondents noted the lack of lessons about implementation at larger
scales, and the need to identify analytic organizations);
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 9 9
x Interinstitutional engagement and communications (respondents noted the lack of NGO
engagement, the lack of internal communication about visions and the goals and ultimate
expectations of the GCP);
x Staff issues (respondents noted the lack of field-based knowledge, lack of standard
knowledge each USAID/GCP manager [i.e., CTO] should know about sites); and
x Program gap (several noted the need to represent other biomes).
3.1.4 Findings on Potential Opportunities GCP I Might Take Advantage of at this Point
The questionnaire asked that only USAID/GCP staff respond to this question. It is clear that staff
have some constructive ideas taking advantage of some of the existing opportunities. Their ideas
fall into the following categories:
x Continue and change role of the GCP (This includes continuing to serve as a catalyst for
Partners to work on addressing large-scale issues, serving as a catalyst to facilitate and
fund various cooperative efforts of Partners, strengthening and clarifying its goals,
continuing to focus at the site level and ensuring that learning is captured and shared, and
pushing Partners to deal more with the development side of conservation.);
x Need to support an analytic/synthesis component (This might include planning for
programming flexibility for learning and getting those Missions with Associate Awards
more involved in sharing lessons learned.); and
x Identify a clear administrative assistance mechanism (This was raised by one
USAID/GCP staff member, and addresses issues related to the staff’s lack of time and
acknowledges the need to find a mechanism to facilitate coordination and buffer USAID
due to staff’s time limitations).
3.1.5 Findings on the Contribution that USAID’s Global Conservation Has Made to
Conservation of Biodiversity to Date
The general consensus about the GCP is that it has made some contributions to the conservation
of biodiversity. Some respondents to the questionnaire and interviews give it very high marks on
this count. Others agree that it has made a contribution but that the time frame has been so short,
it is difficult to determine the complete category and degree of the contribution. One respondent
provided a more skeptical view of the GCP contributions, but did acknowledge that the GCP
approach may make a contribution eventually. Therefore, the GCP still has potential to do more.
Examples of some of the GCP’s contributions from respondent’s perspectives include but are not
limited to:
x ‘Has provided funds necessary to many on the ground efforts that have contributed to the
conservation of biodiversity.’
x ‘Provides power for leveraging funding for work that may be more sustainable over
time.’
x ‘Allowed us to undertake a new strategic approach to site-based conservation which is
proving compelling and, with time, we think will be extremely effective on the ground.’
3.0 Evaluation Findings
10 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x ‘There is some new activity on finance that has some high potential.’
x ‘Provided support to build local capacity to manage the natural resources.’
x ‘Monitoring was built in from the beginning and they have gotten inputs from
communities, enterprises, government DFOs (District Forest Officers), etc. on priority
indicators.’
x ‘Allowed NGO to play a catalytic role in a region where new activities may develop.’
x ‘Supported work with policymakers to see the value and some positive results in Bolivia
and the Philippines have resulted.’
3.1.6 Requests for GCP Services
Three members of the GCP staff responded to this question (during the review of the
questionnaire a number of Partners said they did not know what these services were or would
need more information to be able to respond to this question). Staff responses vary. One staff
member indicated that the level of response from Missions is moderate and anticipated. Another
staff member indicated, however, that they might possibly become more “popular” if they were
marketed more. The evaluator notes that this last point is consistent with the input into the
evaluation by field Mission personnel.
3.1.7 Awareness-Raising by USAID/GCP Among Missions about LWA Mechanism and
Services Available
Staff response to this was mixed. One indicated that most Missions are aware of the GCP’s
availability but need some additional guidance on details. It is only when a Mission becomes
engaged in the negotiation that USAID/GCP staff provides more details on specific next steps.
One mentioned the potential for additional marketing. Another wondered: “It would be
interesting to figure out if the few policy initiatives are well received in the field and whether this
is an area for expansion.” The process of the first response might need to be revisited. The need
for more marketing should be explored further, based again on input from field Mission
personnel recommendations. The third idea is something the USAID/GCP staff may want to
explore further with its Partners.
3.2 Assessment Results of the Evaluation
The “topics of intent” for the evaluation listed in the description above of the GCP I Evaluation
Process form the other major subjects for synthesis, analysis and reporting in this evaluation. The
following subsections, therefore, will cover those “topics of intent:”
x Document how partner approaches are evolving and assess how well the GCP is
addressing threats at sites;
x Assess extent that Program principles (from the RFA) are integrated into the program;
x Identify opportunities to improve learning in the GCP, particularly across institutions;
and
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 11 11
x Assess effectiveness of program management (between USAID and NGO Partners and
within NGO partner institutions).
3.2.1 Document how Partner Approaches Are Evolving and Assess How Well the GCP
is Addressing Threats at Sites
3.2.1.1 Partner Approaches to Address Threats
Brief descriptions of the approaches, as articulated by the Partners, are presented below. Each
Partner brings something unique to the mix. Potentially, the area of most interest for GCP I may
be the evolution of approaches since 1999.
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF)—Heartlands Program
x “Developing strategies and making commitments to the long-term application of
innovative methodologies to specific, working African landscapes where actions can be
coordinated to favor the long-term survival of their wildlife resources.”
x AWF has both ecological and social integrity and operates at a landscape scale.
x “Conservation landscapes…are intended to be flexible and adaptable, functioning on the
ground, able to address threats as they arise with appropriate incentives and policy
interventions.”
x GCP has allowed AWF the opportunity to implement (with adaptations) the TNC
planning process. They now have what is called Heartlands Conservation Planning.
Using this iterative process, AWF thinks about targets, then threats, and to how to
measure them.
Conservation International (CI)—Biodiversity Corridors
Threats are categorized as follows:
x Biological,
x Social,
x Economic (“forces and incentives that play a decisive role in driving land use and
infrastructure development at the corridor level”), and
x Legal Assessment (e.g. property rights, land tenure, jurisdictional conflicts).
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW)—Community Enterprises
x EWW’s “approach to biodiversity conservation focuses exclusively on creating market￾based incentives for local conservation activities through sustainable resource use and
enterprise development.”
x “Community enterprises are only effective at conserving biodiversity when they are
directly linked to use of in-situ biodiversity, involve a community of stakeholders,
generate short-term and long-term benefits, and are linked to a property rights system.”
x EWW uses Hotspots approach to set conservation priorities.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
12 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)—Ecoregions with “Platform Sites”
x “The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural
communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and
waters they need to survive.”
x TNC’s approach, as outlined in Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission
Success (2000), is:
“To fulfill its long-term vision and achieve its goals, The Nature Conservancy employs
an integrated conservation process comprised of four fundamental components:
¾ Setting PRIORITIES through ecoregional planning;
¾ Developing STRATEGIES to conserve both single and multiple conservation
areas;
¾ Taking direct conservation ACTION; and
¾ MEASURING conservation success.”
x TNC’s process of developing strategies—site conservation planning or conservation area
planning—is driven by the identification of conservation targets and the threats that affect
these targets. This is sometimes known as the “5S” approach: Systems (conservation
targets), Stresses, Sources of Stress (stresses + sources = threats), Strategies, and
measures of Success derived from the conservation targets and threats. Recently, TNC
has added two additional “S”s to this process: Stakeholders and Sustainability.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)—Living Landscape Program
“We begin with the understanding that you cannot address threats unless you are explicit about
threats to what. Within the Living Landscapes Program we view threats through the eyes of a
complementary suite of area demanding wildlife species. This Landscape Species Approach
allows us to explicitly identify, prioritize and address threats to specific species and their habitats
that together serve as a landscape scale conservation umbrella.”
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)—Ecoregion Based Conservation
x WWF uses Ecoregion-Based Conservation (ERBC)—”a strategy targeted at the Global
200 which adopts a conservation arsenal that includes science, economics, education,
policy advocacy, capacity building, planning, and community-based conservation.”
x “As ecoregions are biologically coherent, it is possible to set more meaningful and
strategic biodiversity conservation goals—focusing on the sites, populations, ecological
processes, and threats that are most important for the ecoregion as a whole, rather than
for some political unit within it. Operating at an ecoregional scale will help achieve
conservation results that are ecologically viable, conserving networks of key sites,
migration corridors, and the ecological processes that maintain healthy ecosystems.”
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 13 13
x “The key to ecoregion-based conservation is to establish goals and action plans through
comprehensive and rigorous integration of ecological and socioeconomic information and
expertise.”
3.2.1.2 Evolution of Approaches
x AWF has evolved their approach over time in terms of reinjecting socioeconomic
considerations along with biophysical. They found that it was possible to incorporate and
adapt conservation planning tools used by another Partner (TNC) to better serve its own
needs in the field.
x EWW has used substantially the same approach it had refined through its work under the
Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN) and Ford Foundation funding. However, as
the organization learns from application of its process, it learns and takes that learning to
its other sites.
x TNC’s Conservation Approach has evolved (in general and applied to the GCP) and is
described below. TNC fundamentally has the same approach that it has had since the
mid- to late 1990s. However, under GCP I, TNC has been more rigorous in its application
of this approach.
x WCS has developed the Living Landscapes Program (LLP) and designed and launched
their Landscape Species Approach to site-based planning and implementation. Within the
program, WCS has developed much more robust conceptual models for testing, stronger
monitoring, and more adaptive management. This approach has evolved over the last two
years.
x WWF has used fundamentally the same approach and tools. However, the GCP funded
activities have allowed WWF to test the approach and tools at more sites. WWF believes
that it is more humble about some things, but it is also more confident about others.
The evaluator notes that the diversity of Partners and their approaches is one of the strengths of
the GCP. Their individual, potential in-situ conservation may be high over time. This diversity
and potential should not be diminished. However, there is also a potential weakness if the
individual contributions do not add up to something greater than the sum of their parts. It is not
clear in the GCP I RFA whether a “collective contribution” was high on the Principles priority
list. The only mention of it was the penultimate principle in the RFA: “Programs should
complement other conservation and development activities. Where appropriate, applications
should indicate if there are other relevant conservation and development efforts. Clearly, this is
not required in areas where there are no relevant efforts, or if existing efforts are ineffective or ill
conceived. In particular, applications should indicate, briefly, how they will complement
activities of USAID, other donors, host-country governments, the private sector, and other
institutions.”
3.2.2 Degree Partners Have Clearly Defined Threats
The questionnaire asked Partners to rank themselves on a scale of 1 (high) to 4 (very low) in
terms of the degree to which each believes they have clearly identified threats for sites under
their GCP-funded efforts at the appropriate scale.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
14 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
Organization self-ratings
x Three organizations rated themselves overall at ‘1’ (high);
x One organization rated themselves overall at ‘1.5’ (moderately high);
x One organization had one site with multiple layers of ratings that averaged at ‘1’ and the
other at ‘3,’ therefore the overall rating for this organization averaged at ‘2’ (moderate).
Some of the selected lessons learned related to these ratings and based on Partner input may state
the obvious. However, in some cases, the obvious may have been taken for granted! Therefore,
here is a short list of issues from respondents for consideration:
x Comprehensive and thoughtful processes used to identify threats can also identify
opportunities to work with stakeholders to mitigate and/or abate those threats.
x As existing or new planning and assessment processes are applied, a realignment of
activities to abate newly or differently defined threats will often be necessary. This is an
example of the integral contribution new learning to adaptive management.
x Technical experts may have completed a threats assessment. However, without
widespread review, the assessment process should be considered incomplete. (Evaluator
Note: What the extent of the concept of a “widespread review of the assessment” means
may remain an issue.)
x Not including some critical threats can undermine the overall value of a threats
assessment. However, lessons learned from a more comprehensive process can be shared
at other sites for more effective threats assessments as improvements in the process
continue.
x Threats assessments that include only biological threats should not be considered
complete. A more useful assessment would include social, institutional, policy and other
threats as well.
x The scale of the area where the assessment is undertaken affects the ability to ensure that
an assessment is full and complete.
x Disaggregation of threats and ratings by individual threats (rather than rating them as a
whole set) provide useful tools for thinking about the broad array of potential challenges
at any given site.
3.2.3 Degree Partners Believe They Have Made Progress to Date
Presented below is a summary of organization self-ratings on degree of progress made to date
toward addressing priority threats at all their listed sites:
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 15 15
Organization
# of Threats
Listed at All
Sites
High
Progress
(1)
Moderate to
High
Progress
(1.5)
Moderate
Progress
(2)
Low
Progress
(3)
Not at
All
(4)
Organization 1 4  (4 threats)
Organization 2 6  (3 threats)  (3 threats)
Organization 3 4  (3 threats)  (2 threats)
Organization 4 6 (1 threat)  (1 threat)  (4 threats)
Organization 5 5  (2 threats)  (1 threat)
 (2 but one
is only that
high if one
looked at the
biological
aspects of
dealing with
the threats)
Organization 6 5 (1 threat) (4 threats)
The array of threats included, but was not limited to:
x Land subdivision,
x Lack of awareness,
x Illegal logging,
x Unsustainable levels of hunting and fishing,
x Weak management capacity to address difficult transboundary issues, and
x The size of the region where threats are being addressed.
The evaluator notes that this is another potential for further discussion about what a “threat” is.
Would the last one appropriately be considered a threat or a challenge? Would the next to last
one also fit more appropriately under the category of challenges as many Partners “defined” the
concept of challenges in response to the question in the next subsection?
Several issues of potential importance arose during the evaluation of the self-assessment process
for this question.
x The question about what constitutes a priority threat may appropriately be raised.
Partners provided a set of their general definitions of the “threat” concept (see Annex E)
during interviews. Looking at those definitions and looking at the illustrative ones listed
above, it is probably safe to assume that many of the above are threats. However, the
issue of “priority” seems to be one of the context in which a given threat occurs.
Therefore, understanding the context in which “threats” are addressed needs to be clearly
articulated to assure USAID/GCP that any given threat is indeed a priority.
x Also, the question arises about whether lack of awareness is a threat at all. In fact, if
thought of in a different way, as one USAID/GCP staffer noted, lack of awareness may
not be a threat at all. However, it might contribute to human behaviors that cause or
reflect the real threat.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
16 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x During the course of this evaluation, the evaluator contacted selected USAID/Mission
staff, recommended by USAID/GCP staff. The purpose was to discuss a range of issues
related to:
¾ The value of the Leader with Associate Award (LWA) as a contractual mechanism,
¾ Strengths and weaknesses of the GCP, and
¾ Overall ratings of progress being made by Partners at sites in their countries.
In order to maintain anonymity of the Partners in sections where the evaluator promised that self￾reflection answers would not be made public, it is now difficult to directly identify where
perceptions of USAID/Mission personnel differ from that of the Partners.
Rather than say that x Mission officer rated this Partner at y level for z site, only a few issues that
Mission personnel raised might be of general value to reviewers of this document. While
USAID/W is the primary point of contact, it is important to remember that they are linked as one
organization with field Missions and other Bureaus. Field officers may want the mechanism and
funding committed to conservation in the countries where they currently work, but they may
(and often do) see things differently than USAID Central Bureau staff and may have different
pressures and priorities that they are trying to meet through more cooperation, coordination,
and/or collaboration with Partners—even though the funding for activities does not come directly
from the Mission. These perspectives underlie, to some degree, the reactions of Missions to
USAID/GCP which is generally positive as compared to Mission reaction in some cases to
individual Partner organizations.
The following Mission comments do not pertain to all Partners. In fact, only one Partner’s
ratings were to some greater degree different from Mission personnel ratings. Several others
were slightly different. For one organization, the Mission rating was exactly the same as that of
the Partner. Mission personnel did pass along a few compliments as well. Below, Partners
provide their perceptions about relationships with USAID/Missions that may be helpful for
review to provide insights on where comparisons and contrasts of perspective exist:
x The Mission would like to be more collaborative, but the Partner seems to feel that there
is some sort of competitive relationship.
x The Mission believes that this Partner is the least cooperative among all the others and
not focusing on key threats.
x The Mission believes the Partner is cordial but keeping at arm’s length from USAID. Not
sure what the problem is, since they are working on complementary issues in country
under different funding sources.
x The Mission is dissatisfied with focus on “processes” and lack of completion of work
promised in the first year work plan.
x The Mission ratings are much lower because structures promised have not even reached
the point of starting to be formed.
x One Mission rates all Partners at high to moderate level, but one concern expressed about
two out of the three Partners is the way they deal with their local NGO Partners (e.g.,
relationships not clearly defined, funding from big donors goes to Leader but rarely to
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 17 17
local NGO, Partner either ends relationship in tumultuous fashion or conversely finds it
hard to let local Partners go it alone).
The evaluator notes that though this is a Central Bureau program, Partners who do not have good
interaction, honest and open communication, and real performance may jeopardize their
programs in some way if they do not improve relationships with USAID/Missions.
3.2.4 Greatest Challenges Partners Face in Addressing Threats
The following pulls together an illustrative array of challenges outlined by Partners in the
Questionnaire. Please note that Partners individually defined what the concept of a “challenge”
meant to them in responding to this question. This is not a complete list, but it serves to show the
nature and magnitude of challenges (as defined by respondents) that Partners face as they try to
address threats at their sites. These challenges undoubtedly will be dynamic as threat abatement
activities move forward.
While all these challenges are valid, it is difficult to identify more than a few sets of challenges
that are of slightly more consistent concern to Partners in response to this Questionnaire. Those
that are more of a focus include:
x Organizational capacity,
x Information,
x Law enforcement,
x Changing human behavior, and
x Political will.
As the concept of what a “challenge” is turned out to be more loosely defined than anticipated by
the evaluator, a number of the Partners noted that, to them, “challenges” are things beyond their
control. One USAID/GCP staff member added a perspective: “My interpretation is that there are
two categories of challenges, those challenges that make it difficult for the NGO within its
institution to implement a threats approach and those challenges that make it difficult to mitigate
threats at a site.” Further exploration of these perspectives would be interesting.
One gap in the list of potential challenges listed is that of biophysical challenges. Among
potential biophysical challenges might be how to deal with invasive species in a given area; how
to determine the appropriate scale for a landscape or ecoregion approach, how to address the
impacts of natural disaster; how to deal with wildlife conflicts with humans; what the nature of
the ecosystem structure is and the what the functions in a given area are; what mitigation
measures should be taken for slope stabilization after road construction occurs; how to deal with
pollution, etc. Pollution might be the threat, but the challenge could be how to deal with it
effectively and efficiently. While it struck the evaluator as interesting, this particular set of issues
may not have shown up for any number of reasons, including how Partners define the term
“challenges”, their confidence in their ability to address biophysical threats, their current staffing
that may tend to be stronger in many cases on the biophysical side, etc.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
18 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.2.5 Learning About Threats-Based Approach
The set of “lessons learned” is particularly rich not only in terms of the lessons that can be shared
but also in the diversity of lessons. Perhaps, it is the sharing that is most important since analysis
of the diversity showed no sets that were mentioned multiple times per se. Selected points about
what Partners have learned appear below. (Note: Given that this is the major focus of the GCP,
more details are provided than in some other sections.)
Partners: Selected Learning About a Threats-Based Approach
Threats-Based Approach
x If used rigorously, we have found the threats-based approach helps to keep field staff, communities,
and other stakeholders (government, other NGOs, etc.) focused on the resource management
aspects of the work.
x We have also learned that one can identify, with a high degree of confidence, some top threats. In
many cases threats are well known and action and work on the threats will be a long-term effort, but
the important thing is to start addressing the threat rather than overanalyzing it.
x A threats-based approach in marine/coastal areas needs to be undertaken in a holistic manner,
looking at both marine and terrestrial systems. There needs to be an acknowledgement that to
undertake marine/coastal conservation we need to look beyond the marine system and be prepared to
implement strategies that address terrestrial-based threats in order to be successful in marine
conservation.
x An important lesson learned from the threats-based approach is that it encourages a focus on the high
threats and ignores the so-called low threats.
x But the low threats are sometimes also important and deserve attention.
x We found that assessment of causal linkages is useful to identify where and how interventions can
have an effect on the threat status, and where monitoring can be done. Assessment of causal
changes also helps to explain why we are doing what we are doing.
x It is also useful to consider whether important factors are being ignored by a “threats-only” approach:
factors that might instead by identified more easily as opportunities. These can be as important as
threats in some situations.
x Much depends on the people designing the effort.
x A threats-based approach is very different than a needs-based approach (i.e., one that focuses on
human needs as compared to human-induced threats on the resource base on which they depend).
x In many ways, the threats-based approach is more subjective in terms of where you make a decision
to take action
x Need to determine how big scale activities need to be (the scale of interaction and impact for example,
in the Bering Sea is highly related to things happening in the EU).
Tools
x The HCP process is highly aligned with the threats-based approach and we have moved towards
working at landscape level while focusing on threats to conservation targets. As demonstrated in
annual GCP work plans and activity reports, we have moved towards implementing activities with the
main focus of addressing priority threats to conservation targets in the sites we work in.
x There are good tools out there for engaging in site planning that yield better threat planning. We really
believe that there should be a set of “industry standards” possible to set now.
x It is critical to always go in and scope (find out expectations, how much conservation is going on, and
what their own role might best be, such as facilitator, facilitator/implementer, capacity builder, etc.
x A systemic threat analysis before beginning the work is a very precious tool.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 19 19
3.2.6 Work with Traditionally Marginalized People
Stakeholders
x Great care needs to be used in the vocabulary surrounding the issue of “threats.” When the words
“human induced” threats are used, it sets up a potential dynamic between Partners and locals, and
even though the intent is not to alienate local people, it often does. Some adaptations need to be
made and they’re working on it in the Heartlands Program as their experience broadens and deepens.
x The “scoping” phase is a particularly important stage to engage stakeholders.
x Consistent application of tools is important, i.e., to have similar elements across each.
x Common Threats do exist (e.g., there is always human-wildlife conflict). Total involvement of various
stakeholders (to include other interests, including private entities with direct interest into the area
(forest area) in threat analysis through consultations is a better way of assessing the threats. This can
be reinforced by economic studies where in the result of the economic study is also presented to the
public for validation and confirmation.
x Threats analysis is particularly useful in the context of getting various stakeholders to participate in
their identification. As far as the “project” was concerned, we had identified priority threats and were
addressing them, but it is important to hear what other possible partners are thinking, as it may
provide clues about what is important to them and how to address the issue.
Information
x We continue to grapple with where and when to get socioeconomic information built in along with the
biophysical. The Scoping Phase helps to do that. We have some good expertise. We are committed
to documenting, enterprise mapping, and socioeconomic (not as separate part from the biophysical
elements). Some of this work has been paid for through GCP funding and some has come from
organizational funding because of our organization’s commitment to integration.
x Our experience says that an action research mode of project work is more practical and effective.
Since the communities are the ultimate stakeholders of biodiversity, their participation right from the
analysis of the threats is very important. If analysis starts before raising stakeholder awareness levels,
and they’re included in project implementation which begins with sophisticated analysis and fine￾tuning, it would make it difficult to secure community participation and support. This approach appears
to the communities as an academic exercise rather than the practical work. So, it would be better to
start addressing the threats and their root causes with a simple participatory analysis. When the
project is off the ground, a monitoring system to track project progress and ensure project activities
are geared toward addressing the threats is beneficial. In the meantime, detailed analysis of cause
and effect and fine-tuning of the analysis can be done to pin down the project strategies and activities
with the greater level of confidence.
x Make use of existing data and try to obtain more.
x A threats-based approach needs to be supported with data that are able to quantify the threats and
the impact on the target systems.
x A project based on threats analysis must monitor threats over time to evaluate the effectiveness of the
project in preventing, controlling, and mitigating the threats.
x There is a need for a means of focus/priority setting in large, complex sites—we have developed a
wildlife focus.
Implementation/Management/Staffing
x We found good intermediaries in terms of enterprise development.
x Continuous field presence of staff members involved in park management is important to stay
updated on the occurrence of new, unanticipated threats.
x We need adequate funding to scale up.
x There is a need for adaptive management.
x We need to recognize the difference between addressable threats and those that can just be
managed.
Political/Institutional Issues Related to Threats
x Tremendous instability of economic situation exists at national levels.
x Addressing institutional development—it can change from day to night, so change is a constant factor
of concern.
Sustainability
x Moving beyond such an approach and being a mentor vs. an implementer ensures sustainability.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
20 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
Organization self-ratings
x Three organizations rated themselves overall at ‘1’ (high);
x One organization rated itself overall at ‘2’ (moderate);
x One organization that subdivided sites, rated one at ‘1’ (high);and one at ‘3’ (low); and
x One organization that subdivided sites rated two at ‘1’ (high), two at ‘1.5’ (moderate to
high), and one at ‘2’ (moderate).
Selected Lessons Learned
x Marginalizing forces can include a wide array of factors, including but not limited to:
¾ Governmental laws;
¾ Civil conflict;
¾ Outsiders (e.g., immigrants, private industry); and
¾ Society. Society may marginalize some groups, but the conservation community has
marginalized some that need to be constructively engaged (i.e., groups that have
traditionally been considered as the “enemy” in the effort to conserve biodiversity.
Thinking about the opportunities of interacting more constructively with these groups
may, and have, actually been helpful when they are provided with awareness and
incentives to change their behaviors.).
x We need input from the marginalized, but it is important to target the appropriate
communities, groups, etc.
x There may be a particularly important role for local NGOs to play in working with
Partners to address issues related to the marginalized.
x Marginalized people are often not a significant threat. Some Partners often work with
them as part of the solution to address other greater outside threats.
x Local people and communities frequently are heterogeneous in their interests and actions,
are unorganized, live and work at a scale different from conservation needs, and they do
not always perceive commonality with or a need for a conservation threats-based
approach.
3.2.7 Most Effective Approaches in Working with Stakeholders
The following presents an illustrative list of effective approaches proposed by the Partners.
(Note: not all Partners have used all of these approaches. However, the approaches listed respond
to the question about what ones they have individually found to be effective under a given set of
circumstances.) Again, it is not a complete list of effective approaches (others exist that are used
by other organizations and/or these organizations). The evaluator notes that the illustrative list
demonstrates the range of activities that have proven successful from Partner perspectives to
date. Partners can provide more details on any given approach (and undoubtedly others as well)
that are of particular interest.
The approaches fall into the following categories:
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 21 21
x Consultations and Participatory Activities;
x Participatory Appraisals/Studies;
x Conservation Enterprise Development Activities;
x Natural Resource Management (NRM) Planning engaging communities and other
stakeholders;
x Involvement (including mainstreaming gender, i.e., ensuring involvement of all in all
phases from start up to implementation);
x Promoting Organizations and Alliances;
x Communications Activities; and
x Environmental Education Efforts.
3.2.8 Greatest Challenges Related to Obtaining Input from Traditionally Marginalized
People
The following presents challenges outlined by the Partners vis-à-vis getting input from
traditionally marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and activities to
address threats. This is the range of challenges that Partners have encountered to date. The
evaluator notes that Partners can provide more details on any given challenge (and undoubtedly
others as well) that are of particular interest and how they may have worked to overcome them.
This kind of information was beyond the scope of the question, which asked only for illustrative
examples.
The challenges fall into the following categories:
x The nature of working with marginalized people (e.g., defensiveness of stakeholders that
arises through planning processes developed and initiated from capital cities).
x Politics and Power Elites (this group might be the most decisive factor in whatever
decisions are eventually made).
x Lack of awareness of various kinds (the evaluator notes that some of the wording Partners
use makes it seem like the challenge is to “make them understand” or “make them do
something” as compared to “working with them” which may be a more fruitful attitude
and guide to action).
x Attitudes of Local People and Professionals (the issue of attitudes came up in several
interviews but was not often raised in questionnaire responses. The evaluator notes that
while the issue of attitudes is critical to assess, the more important challenge is behaviors
that people exhibit that may contradict the attitudes or words that people use.).
x Costs (e.g., time and resources of doing business for conservationists as well as for local
people. The evaluator notes that the cost of participatory practices is often
underestimated. It certainly is time consuming for the conservationists and consequently
costs more to undertake this kind of approach. However, many often underestimate the
high cost of participation by stakeholders. Working to get women involved, while an
important principle in the GCP, costs women in terms of time away [sometimes as long
as 18-hour workdays] from tasks that are part of the division of labor in their household.).
x Limited capacity and skills by marginalized people.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
22 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Security concerns in some areas.
x Limited information (monitoring conservation impact with marginalized peoples, e.g.,
groups that manage livestock and their relationship to biodiversity conservation).
3.2.9 Greatest Returns on Investment in Getting Input from Traditionally Marginalized
People
An illustrative list of the great returns on investment by getting input from traditionally
marginalized people is presented below. Again, it is not complete, however, it demonstrates the
range of returns that Partners have observed to date (even though one admitted that it is very
early in the process at some sites to begin seeing significant results). The evaluator notes that
Partners can provide more details on any given challenge (and undoubtedly others as well) that is
of particular interest and how they may have worked to achieve the returns on their investments
beyond what they provided in illustrative fashion in the questionnaire.
The returns on investment fall into the following categories:
x Results Achieved (e.g., reduced illegal logging, corridor demarcation that forms a critical
links for wildlife between reserves, and locally managed marine areas that have enabled local
communities to make their own rules and manage their own reef systems based on the threats
they themselves have identified).
x Actions Undertaken (e.g., local people putting land in easements in return for economic
incentives, community participation in recent years resulting in improved roads, school
construction, and community waste disposal reservoirs, and governor approval of
environmental work).
x Models/Replication Occurring (e.g., increased requests from communities, work in
organizing and working with many local organizations and working with them and the local
forestry officials to settle long-standing resource disputes has allowed communities to move
beyond conflict and unsustainable use to productive economic development and resource
management).
x Improved Technical Processes and Management (e.g., improved identification of threats,
improved ability to identify resources needed to undertake technical processes and
management).
x Different Kinds or Levels of Participation (e.g., locals reporting conflict areas).
x Local Responses Changed (e.g., invitations to participate in meetings after trust had been
built—when the project activities resulted in their economic empowerment and education,
the level of enthusiasm significantly increased (e.g., marginalized women and men).
x Getting More or Different Input (e.g., learning what people perceive as threats—input has
been high and helps with information, ground-truthing and testing assumptions, getting
inputs from the marginalized people to formulate and implement policy favorable to them).
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 23 23
3.2.10 Degree to Which Partners Think Progress Has Been Made Toward Mitigating
Priority Threats Given Time Frame
The rating for all Partners combined is slightly less than ‘2,’ or moderate, so they suggest that
they have had what they consider to be basically moderate success in making progress to date
toward mitigating priority threats under their GCP-funded program. The sets of ratings follow:
x Three organizations rated themselves at ‘2’ (moderate);
x One organization rated itself on two sites at ‘1’ (high), and ‘2’ (moderate); and
x One organization rated itself on three sites at ‘1’ (high); ‘2’ (moderate), and ‘ 2.5’
(moderate to low).
Selected Lessons Learned:
Note: Partners provided the following illustrative responses. In the Questionnaire, they did not
link any given mitigation effort to a given threat.
Progress toward mitigation of threats has been achieved by:
x Working with more organized stakeholders (e.g., communities),
x Developing partnerships to leverage funds, and
x Working with key government agencies.
Problems that affect progress toward mitigation of threats include but are not limited to:
x Lack of adequate funding,
x Lack of capacity at field level,
x Political and socioeconomic contexts, and
x Outside forces (e.g., industry).
Some examples of efforts to mitigate threats include, but are not limited to:
x Working with the Tacana in Bolivia to establish formal land tenure has created a large
buffer for Madidi National Park to reduce immigration and resource degradation on its
eastern borders.
x At the national and international level for Komodo, we have been extending the
effectiveness of no-take zones as a tool to abate overfishing. This led to an officially
endorsed zoning plan that includes no-take zones. The zoning plan also takes into account
traditional fishing grounds and other functions of the World Heritage Site, Komodo
National Park, such as protection of biodiversity and pristine ecosystems, and generation
of revenue for the local economy through ecotourism.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
24 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.2.11 How Partners Have Begun to Successfully Mitigate Key Threats
Below is a presentation of ways that Partners have begun to successfully mitigate key threats at
sites. The evaluator notes that the array is wide. There are no “silver bullets” that come out of
this array as might easily be expected. The threats vary, the conditions in which they exist vary,
the approaches to addressing threats vary, and the solutions vary. The most relevant finding from
the list is that a variety of “how tos” exist, however, each must be explored for its validity for a
given situation.
The categories of “how tos” from the responses to the Questionnaire are:
x Laws, regulations and rules;
x Analysis;
x Mapping;
x Planning and Resource Management;
x Workshops and Demonstrations;
x Strategy Identification and Implementation;
x Partnerships;
x Information Management;
x Application of Pressure;
x Promotion of Best Practices;
x Education and Awareness;
x Enforcement with Incentives; and
x Incentives.
As one reviewer noted, the mitigation measures need to be more closely linked to specific threats
at specific sites. The question only asked for illustrative examples. Therefore, to get that depth of
information, further exploration of the issue would be required. Evaluation at the site level would
probably be a much more effective and productive way to assess the validity of this kind of
information.
3.2.12 Issues about the Threats-based Approach of the GCP
While this was not in the questionnaire, the Threats-based Approach of the GCP came up as an
issue in a number of interviews with Partners. The following box provides a sense of some of the
issues surrounding the GCP’s Approach.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 25 25
Selected Comments on Issues Related to
Threats-based Focus of USAID/GCP
Several Partners: One challenge about the “threats-based approach” is how to work with stakeholders to
identify threats when the major threat may be the stakeholders themselves. This can become a very
contentious issue if not handled well. Sharing information on practices to achieve this in constructive ways
would be helpful.
TNC (Smith and Salem): Issue about using concept of “Conservation Targets” is important from their
perspective (not the phrase per se). This focus on conservation targets provides contextualization for
dealing with threats. The concept provides a way of understanding what it is that you are trying to protect. It
is hard to imagine using the concept of “threats” without linking them to the targets that are threatened and
then being able to prioritize the threats, focus on them, etc.
AWF (Frohardt): Might be helpful to have conservation target to “ground” thinking, i.e., which threats are key
to which target. That’s why the summary table on targets done in early 2002 is not necessarily that helpful
since it homogenizing the targets but splits out the threats. The analysis needed to show linking of threats to
more specific targets.
WCS: No real issue against threats, per se “but we think that alternatives/complements are worthwhile to
look for: e.g., opportunities.” WCS concurs that the current matrix (i.e., the one pulled together by a
USAID/GCP staff member and submitted to Partners in January 2002) used to demonstrate threats
identified and being addressed under GCP is too simplistic. Some threats may be affected by multiple
components of approach. It really is a threats list rather than anything strategically thought out.
WWF (Christiansen):
x Difficult to do matrices of suites of stressors and strategies because of complexities at ecoregion
scale. Most matrices developed so far may not convey the complexities.
x Conceptual models work to a certain degree. Most don’t capture “gut and know-how and flexibility.”
x Need to get at the way factors interact with each other. Need to find ways to prioritize and weigh (in
order to determine where to invest).
x WWF approach is inherently “threats-based” but they look at the whole causal chain.
x USAID is interested in where they invest in threats on the causal chain (i.e., on more proximate
threats).
x NGOs have to look beyond USAID slice to get other funding.
x Specific indicators of biodiversity threats are needed.
CI (Gambill): GCP should be focusing its time on:
x How do you motivate change to conserve biodiversity?
x What are the lessons we are learning as we go?
x How do you learn internally?
x How do we influence government?
EWW (Koontz): Their “threats-based” tool involves talking to people (what are threats? Can something be
done? Have foresters walk the area and talk with people as well; introduce enterprise model to help with
conservation approaches since they can reinforce each other).
USAID/ANE (Resch):
x Would be better to have an “opportunities” approach dealing with tractable problems.
x Understands reason for selecting “Threats-based” but also believes it may lead to ultimate failure.
x If you only look at richness and uniqueness and threat, you don’t bring in countries, free press, and
probability of success
3.0 Evaluation Findings
26 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.3 Assessment of How Well the Principles Guiding the Program are Integrated
into the Program
3.3.1 Degree to Which Overall Set of Principles Affected Design of Partner Programs
Since this was an optional question, not all Partners responded. The observation of the
organization that rated the effect as “high” is of particular note and is thus the reason that the
evaluator included analysis in the report. (This observation may be of importance to the GCP in
terms of the degree to which USAID/GCP highlights or integrates principles so that they are
implicit rather than explicit to others.) This observation is that for non-conservation
organizations wanting to think through project implementation issues that more specifically
relate to conservation objectives, the principles can serve as a helpful awareness and guidance
tool. Therefore, the principles should not be so integrated and implicit that they do not reach out
to others who could use them effectively.
The two organizations that rated the effect of the principles on the design of their programs as
being “low” noted that the principles were/are consistent with the organization’s own and did not
effect design much in one way or another. Thus, these organizations could use or build on, and
not be molded directly, by GCP principles.
Evaluator Perspectives:
x The issue is not about the focus on the threats-based approach per se.
x Some of the issue may be about the vocabulary used since there are so many ways of talking
about concepts like conservation targets, goals, etc. related to what the treats are "anchored
to."
x Some of the issue is linked to the kind of communication that occurs during the work plan and
semi-annual report processes. It may relate more to some of the unspoken assumptions
USAID/GCP staff may be making about the broader context in which USAID funds a threats￾based approach under GCP. At the same time, many of the Partners may feel a need for
those assumptions to be more explicit in discussions. So, USAID/GCP staff may be leaving
out the broader contextualization (e.g., starting with thinking about conservation targets before
identifying threats related to those targets) in their review and comments on work plans and
semi-annual reports to the extent that they provide comments on the threats only.
USAID/GCP, however, clearly believes that the broader context is important.
x The evaluator take on it is that USAID may have developed a process that looks at one
component of a continuum of linked parts, i.e., threats. As part of that focus, USAID may have
made assumptions and therefore there is a potential “disconnect” from conservation targets by
only looking at proximate threats in the USAID/GCP Program. Some Partners acknowledge
that USAID is interested in where they invest and that is in proximate threats on the causal
chain while others in the conservation community are looking at it more holistically.
USAID/GCP responded that it does not want to dictate any method/approach but that the
Agency wants to work with existing Partner methods/approaches to find something that works
for GCP, USAID, the Partners, and conservation.
x This approach by USAID forces and/or encourages organizations to look beyond the
“component” funded by USAID to get other funding. That is not necessarily a negative. This is
just reality.
x There are other issues that are linked as well. But, the issue may merit more discussion even
though USAID and Partners have discussed some variations on themes already at other
meetings.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 27 27
3.3.2 Degree the RFA Principles Had an Effect on Partner Program Implementation
The combined average for all Partners is about 2.3, or slightly lower than moderate.
x Two organizations rated at themselves at ‘1’ (high);
x One organization rated itself at an average ‘2.5’ (moderately low);
x Two organizations rated themselves at ‘3’ (low); and
x One organization rated itself at ‘3.5’ (low to no effect).
Explanations
All of the Partners generally agreed that the principles are consistent with the ones they
themselves hold. However, the two organizations that rated the effect of the principles as ‘high’
did so from the perspective of how convergent the principles were/are with what they do and
with how close in alignment the principles are with those held by the organization.
The organization that rated the effect of the principles lowest agreed but added one point. They
noted that USAID itself has shown no real follow through on the “results-oriented” principle
because they haven’t been asking what the results are and do not seem to require a differentiation
between results and activities in reporting.
The evaluator notes that the definition of “results” in the current USAID context should be
conveyed to all USAID/GCP staff and Partners. It is “A significant, intended, and measurable
change in the condition of a customer, or a change in the host country, institutions, or other
entities that will affect the customer directly or indirectly. Results are typically broader than
USAID-funded outputs and require support from other donors and partners not within USAID’s
control.” (ADS Chapters 200-203)
3.3.3 Degree Partner Policy Initiatives Demonstrate Tangible Conservation Benefits
The combined rating for all Partners on the degree to which they believe their policy issues under
the GCP demonstrate tangible conservation benefits to date is ‘1.6’ (moderately high).
x Three organizations rated themselves at ‘1’ (high);
x Two organizations rated themselves at ‘2’ (moderate); and
x One organization rated itself at ‘3’ (low).
The political process is typically slow but Partners provided the following examples to illustrate
occurrences of tangible conservation benefits:
x Establishing a national park;
x Working, not to develop policy, but to improve enforcement of existing policy to stop
illegal logging;
x Educating politicians, bureaucrats, and other stakeholders to create respect and
acceptance of new policies and therefore build a strong basis for sustainability and not
policies that will change as frequently as the governments do;
3.0 Evaluation Findings
28 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Working with the government to design their regulations and working on indigenous land
titling that involved precedent-setting NRM planning;
x Working to develop private nature reserves (important because you can count the number
of hectares [evaluator assumes that it is important to the Partner for monitoring purposes
and for reporting to donors in quantitative terms.])
x Working with law enforcement to “connect up” [Evaluator Perspective: I assume this
means to make them more consistent from country to country or to make them
enforceable in one country like they are in the country of origin) laws from the 3 nations
involved in the endangered spaces program]
x Making appropriate contacts with key government officials and signed Memorandum of
Agreements (MOUs) when appropriate
x Bringing together local partners to engage in transboundary efforts on the ground.
3.3.4 Ways Partners are Ensuring Sustainability
Partners provided a wide array of examples about how they are working to ensure sustainable
changes through their GCP-funded program. Partners provided these as examples of indicators of
internal and external financial sustainability (i.e. where there are long-term internal revenue
flows). These are in contrast to examples of external financial sustainability where external
sources of finances are the primary mechanism for ensuring sustainability. They are different
approaches. These examples need further exploration, and the differentiation between the pros
and cons of the approaches need further exploration as well. The following illustrate only a small
part of that array:
x Ecological: Working at a landscape scale, with a focus on carefully selected focal species
that represent large and diverse extents of habitat and the integrity of ecological
functions.
x Technical: Capacity building through project activities (e.g. training in community-based
monitoring of biological phenomena as well as key threats such as toxins in the Bering
Sea)
x Economic: Emphasizing alternative, compatible livelihood activities to address the
development needs of communities while diverting them from destructive enterprises.
x Social: Assessing economic, social, and biological sustainability issues to come up with
optimized economic activities and resource management. Conduct impact tracking
system each year to assess social conditions.
x Institutional: Close collaboration, including capacity building, with protected area
services (all sites), other ministry level departments, university (Ecuador and Bolivia),
private sector (CIB logging-Congo).
x Political: Work closely with local, regional/district level, and national forestry officials to
promote effective implementation of community forestry laws.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 29 29
x Financial: Internal Financial Sustainability: Funding from tourism activities, Land
Conservation Trust. External Financial Sustainability: Cost-share mechanisms,
leveraging of funding, funding from organization membership, donor support.
3.3.5 Degree Partners Have Promoted Participation
The combined rating by all Partners who provided scores was ‘1’ (high) in terms of the degree to
which they believe they promoted participation of an appropriate array of stakeholders in the
implementation phase of their GCP-funded programs. Among the list of ‘means of promoting
participation,’ Partners indicated that they undertake the following actions:
x Recruit field staff who have expertise in community development and conservation.
x Rely on partners in the landscapes where they work.
x Formulate strategies to manage (e.g., inform, raise awareness, invite input) each
stakeholder group once identified.
x Develop local coordinating units.
x Stress that inclusion covers involvement from annual planning, to coordinated meetings
with other resource management programs, to field biological monitoring, to enterprise
development, to policy lobbying, etc.
3.3.6 Development of Local Capacity
Below are a few examples that Partners provided that suggest some possibilities:
x Technical Assistance,
x Learning while doing strategic and financial planning, and
x Training.
The evaluator notes that this is one area that needs more exploration. Review of documents
available showed many training sessions, technical assistance efforts, workshops, etc. However,
discussion of the processes and outcomes of developing local capacity were lacking in the
documentation available.
3.3.7 Examples of Successful Coordination, Cooperation, and Collaboration1
Several Partners took extra time and effort to pull together an array of examples of the kinds of
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in which they have participated. The evaluator notes
that these provide some of the potentially useful distinctions between these forms of social and
1
 Coordination = Individuals or organizations doing similar or related kinds of work (e.g., studies) independently,
but find it mutually advantageous to understand each others’ work while continuing to maintain independent
individual efforts.
Cooperation = Willingness of the individuals and/or organizations concerned to plan a rudimentary arrangement
for working together for some mutual benefit.
Collaboration = Two or more individuals or organizations working jointly to resolve a common problem or
objective with a shared plan and implementation responsibilities.
3.0 Evaluation Findings
30 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
organizational interaction, with each higher level requiring different types of interactions,
resources, etc. Perhaps most interesting is some of the reflections at the end of the analysis about
what it takes to see collaboration happen. The Partners’ examples include:
x Collaboration occurs as need arises.
x Need to think about “strategic alliances”. These alliances should be built on the
complementarities and comparative advantages of the different organizations.
x Collaborations occur organically in the field (site).
x You need evangelists who will make collaboration really happen.
x USAID is in a position to more proactively promote collaboration among the GCP
Partners (and others) if it wants to be.
x If one of the GCP’s broader objectives is to promote greater coordination, cooperation,
and/or collaboration among the partner NGOs, it could usefully play a more active role in
identifying and “brokering” opportunities.
x That said, one key obstacle to greater collaboration among the GCP Partners is USAID’s
procurement mechanisms, which sometimes require that funding for a joint activity be
obligated to only one of the Partners, thus setting up a prime/sub relationship that is not
always conducive to effective collaboration.
3.4 Identification of Opportunities to Improve Learning and its Application in
the GCP
3.4.1 Priority “Best Practices” or Lessons Learned from the GCP for Dissemination
During the July 11, 2002 Round Table of the GCP, “Best Practices” was the focus question for a
good portion of the session. While this discussion was not able to explore this theme as fully as it
might have been through detailed responses to further questions in the questionnaire or in
interviews, it was useful in identifying lessons learned and exploring how to improve learning in
the GCP.
The question was “In your program or across the whole GCP I portfolio, what ‘best practices’ or
lessons learned under GCP about addressing threats to biodiversity would be a priority for
synthesis and dissemination at this point?” Points highlighted during the Round Table are present
in the box on the following page.
3.4.2 Conditions/Factors for Effective Adaptive Management
Partners outlined a sound array of illustrative examples of conditions that need to be in place to
have an effective adaptive management approach. The conditions/factors listed include, but are
not limited to:
x Goals and Objectives Established, including assumptions;
x Monitoring Systems Need to be in Place (e.g., a monitoring framework, needs to include
ecological as well as socioeconomic indicators, and development of a sound baseline);
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 31 31
x
x Information Management System in Place;
x Analysis: Funding, Models, Tools, Methods (e.g., including conceptual models that can
be tested, key pilot sites that can be studied for lessons, use of an array of methods and
tools, and funding to undertake the analytics necessary);
“Best Practices” and Lessons Learned
“Best Practices”
x Innovative Landscape Tools (e.g., Land Trusts, integrated methodology for watershed
valuation, business ventures)
x Learning and Measuring Progress (e.g., value of consistent approach across sites)
x Integrating Economics into Conservation (e.g., need to acknowledge that economic
growth and conservation are not contrary)
x Scope and Scale (e.g., maximizing benefits of collaboration, need for greater capacity,
protected areas are critical but not enough)
x Place-based (Site) Planning (e.g., value of diverse planning tools that "fit" in different
scales and contexts across GCP portfolio)
Innovative Landscape Tools
x Land trusts as a tool for conservation
x Integrated methodology for watershed valuation, planning and management
x Innovative tools for landscape conservation (land trusts, private land acquisitions,
enterprise acts).
x Business ventures as tool for threat abatement
x Pitfalls, benefits and strategies of engaging with industry/private sector
Learning and Measuring Progress
x Value of consistent approach to facilitate and guide learning and implementation across
sites within a program
x M&E
Integrating Economics into Conservation
x Economic development is NOT contrary to conservation
x Conservation must have value…but need support from those who pay
Scope and Scale
x Challenges and benefits of working at larger scale conservation
x Need to build support and capacity at all levels, local and national
x Value of protected areas as anchors…but this is not enough
x Importance of working with "development" organizations when working on "development"
issues (i.e. population, poverty, agriculture, health, etc.)
x Maximizing benefits of collaboration
Place-Based (Site) Planning
x Value of diverse planning tools that "fit" in different scales and contexts across GCP
portfolio
x Site conservation planning methodology (e.g., AWF - TNC)
x General lessons from threats approach
x Integrated methodology for watershed planning and management
x Site planning:
¾ Value of tools (i.e. SCP) for clear threats identification
¾ Identifying and prioritizing targets, threats, activities
3.0 Evaluation Findings
32 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Capacity (e.g., to do targeted research, technical assistance available if needed);
x Staff Roles and Responsibilities (e.g., with clear goals and responsibilities, accountable
for monitoring and evaluation [M&E], questions assumptions, uses a team approach that
values suggestions from all parties);
x Information Dissemination/Exchange (e.g., among other programs, with outside
organizations);
x Active Use of Information (e.g., to restrategize and modify efforts to ensure desired
impacts, to question and revise design, and to acknowledge that there are some things
beyond our control);
x Positive Relationship with Donor (e.g., to trust that learning and changes made from the
learning process are acceptable and that work plans can be adjusted to acknowledge new
learning); and
x Positive Relationship with Project Participants and Knowledge of Local Conditions (e.g.,
develop trust, and have some flexibility in the timing of implementation to meet local
conditions).
3.4.3 Greatest Challenges for Partners in Instituting and Maintaining an Adaptive
Management Approach
Partners reported on a wide array of “greatest” challenges. Issues about funding, time and timing
of actions, staff, changes in government, and using lessons learned seem to rate higher than
others that may be no less of a challenge but may be more project specific. The following are the
categories of challenges:
x Lack of Funding (e.g., does not meet real needs for the things that would provide good
returns);
x Timing of Implementation of Adaptive Management Approach (i.e., helpful if the learning
system was developed and formally implemented at an even earlier stage in our corridor
process);
x Time Frame for Initiating and Implementing Action (i.e., consultative processes to begin
implementation takes time);
x Staff Capability (i.e., need to know when to step in and take action—it is a more intuitive
sense that a person holds than a skill that one can be trained to develop);
x Staff Turnover (i.e., staff turnover has meant additional time is needed to build up to the
“condition factors” of developing team values that foster an environment for adaptive
management);
x Changes in Government Agencies, Policies, Laws, and Programs (e.g., changing
government staff; changing of government through elections brings in new leadership,
policies, etc.);
x Putting Learning into Action in the Field (e.g., difficult to convince authorities of the
importance of being flexible and responding to conditions or situations as they arise);
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 33 33
x Flexibility to Take Action (e.g., need to be realistic, proactive and not always reactive,
and need to be able take advantage of opportunities);
x Cost-Effective Identification of Right Assumptions and Indicators;
x Getting Stakeholder Support and Cooperation (e.g., selling the concept of “adaptive
management”);
x Program Management Structure (e.g., minimizing the layers of program and project
management and top management); and
x Donor Expectations (e.g., the bar is too high and then not able to sometimes meet
expectations).
3.5 How Well Program Management (between USAID and NGO Partners and
Among NGO Partner institutions) Works
3.5.1 Degree USAID/GCP and Partner Relationship is Working Well and Proposed
Improvements
Partners and USAID/GCP staff both indicate that the nature of their relationship is generally
good. Partners noted that responsiveness by the CTO contributes to this and one organization
noted that the relationship is collaborative. One Partner emphasized that the relationship is
supportive and gives them a great deal of latitude to implement project activities to meet
objectives and goals. One Partner noted that the relationship has been evolving, but that there is
still the role of donor and recipient and that they still have to adhere to stipulated rules and
requirements. Yet another Partner noted that the relationship is positive, collegial, and pretty
relaxed, but there is a continuing need for more communication.
Most Partners do not find USAID/GCP program management to be constraining their efforts.
However, Partners note constraints such as procurement mechanisms and time (e.g., for reporting
and support for some analytical efforts).
Partner response to the question about whether USAID/GCP program management seems
resistant to change generally suggested that Partners do not find this to be true (except perhaps
for some issues related to financing certain activities that might not be permitted on government
regulations). One partner noted that USAID/GCP staff members seem resistant to capacity
building across its organization, to issues related to some analytical ideas that staff would like to
pursue, and an inflexibility to go beyond the scope already defined.
USAID/GCP staff perspectives on the nature of the relationships also indicate a general positive
tone. Some staff are actually very positive about relationships that they denominate as
“partnerships” while other staff are more mixed in terms of differences of points of view on the
visions for the goals of the program or the focus on certain activities as well as difficulties in
negotiating work plans. One staff member observed that there are ‘corporate’ issues specific to
all partners including USAID, and these need to be recognized and accepted as operating norms
as much as possible. USAID/GCP staff noted that constraints placed on Partners do exist and
include procurement and spending, staff lag time for technical engagement and follow-up, and
lack of site visits that would provide valuable input into planning and implementation. One staff
3.0 Evaluation Findings
34 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
member posed this statement: “In terms of the overall program and the initial RFA and
competition, there might have been things that Partners feel constrained about now in terms of
what they would have liked to do.” (It would be interesting to hear what those things are.)
USAID/GCP staff members commented on program constraints. These included the current
difficulty NGOs have to work together on policy issues under the “GCP” umbrella as there are
not targeted funds for this. Therefore, while Partners might want to undertake more cooperative
efforts, USAID is not really facilitating the process as much as it could. Another USAID/GCP
staff member observed that the staff are resistant to change only on issues that they do not
control—like the way that the agreements must be awarded and managed according to USAID
regulations.
Additional Details
In general, Partners view their relationship with USAID/GCP is working well and that:
x They can leverage funds.
x There is a huge scope for learning.
x The Team Leader has publicly declared that the GCP is about learning.
x There is not too much micromanagement.
They provide some constructive suggestions about the improving relationship:
x USAID/GCP staff need to visit the field more.
x Quarterly meetings are mostly on administrative issues, whereas they may be more
beneficial if focus centered on technical issues.
x There is almost no feedback on the semi-annual reports.
x Interactions are pleasant, satisfactory, but there is not much substance.
x Find more information sharing and learning opportunities (e.g., tease out top ten threats,
short briefing documents).
x Improve meetings (e.g., more substantive lessons learned in semi-annual meetings, less
administrative information in quarterly meetings).
x There is need for increased USAID/GCP involvement, input and follow-up (e.g., site
visits, more feedback on semi-annual reports if they are going to be required, provide
feedback after a “fire drill”).
x Improve existing and potential relationships (e.g., more communications between
Partners and USAID/GCP staff, determine “felt need” to address commonly held issues).
x Improved program/staff management (e.g., increased internal communications, less
management burden).
In general USAID/GCP staff members believe the relationships are working well. They note on
the positive side that:
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 35 35
x USAID is strong on administrative level (e.g., communication between USAID and
partners is good, low conflict and results in parties getting the information they need to
do their jobs).
x The administrative relationship between USAID and Partners is more consistent and
therefore may be more functional (i.e., all Partners follow the same reporting schedule
and contractual details and all CTOs have same expectations).
x The value is higher with Partners with whom a staff member can interact on both a
technical and management level (not necessarily the same person).
x ‘I really appreciate hearing about issues, successes and failures, throughout the year. I
feel that I can play more of an interactive role with Partners who forward information
from the field throughout the year’ (as opposed to just in semi-annuals).
x In achieving the goal of broadening USAID’s relationship with the NGO community in
Washington, the relationships are working very well.
From a slightly less positive perspective, staff members noted some issues they face with regard
to the relationships:
x USAID staff members devote limited and unequal time to the technical aspects of the
sites and Partner staff have varied backgrounds (management vs. technical) and varied
involvement at the sites.
x ‘The part that is more difficult is the part that we do not control—like the reporting
requirements and USAID limitations on how money can be spent.’
x USAID/GCP staff members also noted that there are always issues on which struggles
might arise, but the only issue mentioned by two staff members was work planning.
3.5.2 Proposed Improvements to Enhance Relationship between USAID/GCP Program
and Missions
Partners and USAID/GCP staff recommended improvements in relationships with USAID
Missions in the following areas:
x Increase interactions between USAID/GCP staff and Missions (e.g., site visits, provide
more information on the LWA mechanism, and encourage that Mission-allocated funds
enhance the work being seeded by the GCP).
x Increase coordination of program with USAID programs (e.g., programs that sustain
development efforts of Missions, ensure that the GCP sites fit into Mission strategy and
priorities).
x Increase interaction with and input by USAID Mission staff (e.g., review work plans, get
clear understanding of Mission concerns and expectations regarding specific approved
activities).
3.0 Evaluation Findings
36 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
3.5.3 Proposed Improvements to Enhance Partner Relationships
x
Partners and one USAID/GCP staff member suggested the following wide-ranging array of
improvements that they believe would make their relationships with their colleague GCP
Leader/Partner better include the following:
x Make Changes in Meetings (e.g., make them less administrative, deal with the
composition of the participants);
x Modify Budget Process (e.g., ensure that it is transparent, invest in development of
learning capacity of other Partners);
x Improve Communications (e.g., would like to know what other Partners are doing);
x Increase Sharing of Lessons Learned (e.g., thematic papers); and
x Work on Time Management Concerns (e.g., balancing meeting with partners and doing
management activities).
3.5.4 Communications Issues—Have They Hurt or Helped the Relationship of the GCP
Regarding the issue of whether communications has been a problem in the GCP, the response
was varied. Two partners said that it is not an issue for them, while one acknowledged that there
had been few communications. One organization believes that communications is a big issue, but
noted that while it might not have hindered the relationship, it might be an area for improvement.
USAID/GCP staff also provided a mixed response. One said that it has hindered partner
relationships. Another noted that it occasionally hinders relationships. Yet, another noted that the
problem might be less of communications with Partners but rather internal staff communications
that may be the source of problems. Yet another emphasized that communications can be
improved and that lack of communications may affect the quality of the questions that they can
ask vis-à-vis the work Partners are doing.
Overall, however, Partners and USAID/GCP staff responded generally positively about whether
and how good communications have helped their relationship. The majority of Partner comments
focused primarily on their key positive communication channel, and the USAID CTO for their
program and willingness to discuss issues as they come up. USAID/GCP staff focused on how
good communication facilitates the work plan negotiating process, makes it possible to explore
technical issues in more depth, helps program management deal with issues as they arise, and
how venues like quarterly meetings keep pathways open and positive.
3.5.5 Reporting Issues
Partners and staff provided an array of ways to improve work plans (e.g., communicate basic
requirements before preparation of the plans), semi-annual reports (e.g., streamline and make
clear the purpose and issues that USAID wants), quarterly meetings (e.g., prepare and distribute
minutes, ensure that follow-up promised is done by all), annual meetings (e.g., have a facilitator
who will work with all), and performance monitoring forms (e.g., revisit and make them more
useful).
3.0 Evaluation Findings
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 37 37
The combined rating for partner assessment of the degree to which they believe USAID/GCP
Program Management is responsive to document review and comment processes was ‘1.9’ (very
close to moderate).
Work Plans
The combined rating of Partner responses to the question about the degree to which they believe
the work plan process is a productive exercise was ‘1.6’ (between moderate and high). Staff
responses to this question were fairly consistent at a ‘1.5’ rating (Note: not all staff provided a
rating, and one staff member rated only the organizations for which they have intimate
knowledge.)
Partners had mixed perspectives on the utility of USAID input on work plans. On the one hand,
two partners noted that the input was particularly useful when the CTO has technical experience
and knowledge of the region and that reviews ensure proposed activities are linked to goals. On
the other hand, other Partners noted that a few things have fallen through the cracks; it would
help if there was someone on staff with a technical background in a given specialized area when
the need might arise; it would be helpful to have suggestions about how to tie projects (of other
Partners) together to foster ideas promoted in work plans; and they have couched the research in
different terms to better demonstrate its value (e.g., in monitoring).
The evaluator notes that there appears to be some contradictory thoughts on the technical ability
of the USAID/GCP staff. Certainly, Mission personnel gave the USAID/GCP staff good marks.
Most Partners seemed to provide the impression that the quality was generally good. One
obviously did note potential gaps in areas of expertise. One pointedly noted, in an interview, that
“all are conservationists”. The views reflect different relationships and personalities and
subjective assessments of quality based on given qualifications that are not elaborated on in the
questionnaire. In general, the evaluator found the staff to be professional, with good technical
backgrounds, some with more experience in some areas than others, and that they had respect for
each other as well as for their colleagues in the Partner organizations. If issues of quality do
exist, they should be discussed openly with the individual or with the Team Leader.
USAID/GCP staff noted that some work plan discussions have been very productive.
Unfortunately, they observed that their feedback on the weakest work plans usually does not
result in productive technical discussions, but rather “formatting 101”. Questions to field
personnel can cause more frustration rather than function as a means to negotiate and
communicate. From the USAID side, one staff member observed that “we are too reactive and
are not involved enough to be proactive in planning of work plans.” She added that sometimes
staff questions are mainly a response to seeing completely new ideas in work plans without
sufficient warning or at least an explanation.
Semi-Annual Reports
Partners and USAID/GCP staff members have different perspectives on the utility of the semi￾annual reporting process for a variety of reasons. For Partners, it is a reporting requirement. For
some, they feel that it helps them better communicate and clarify what has happened in the
project and that it is positive. However, they would like to know pieces that they need most to be
3.0 Evaluation Findings
38 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
able to target information better. Other Partners, however, feel that the staff do not really care
and that if there is any feedback at all, it is typically delayed.
USAID/GCP staff members have a different perspective on the overall, but often-unrecognized
value outside of USAID of semi-annual reports. One staff member admitted that USAID staff
need to be clearer on how they use the semi-annuals reports. Another added that it is important to
note that there is not as much of an emphasis on the semi-annuals as on the work plans because
work plans need USAID approval to go forward with future activities and semi-annual reports
cover completed activities. Other staff comments included that their awareness that they should
be timelier in their responses but that they use the reports extensively, especially if a specific
technical issue arises that needs discussion. Another staff member provided an insight into how
she feels the semi-annual process works best for her: “I tend to meet with my partners after the
submission of the semi-annuals to discuss it. I find this useful to get a sense about how the
reports build on one another.”
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 39 39
4.0 Recommendations
The following section contains recommendations provided by USAID/GCP staff, Partners, and
other USAID personnel interviewed.
This set is comprised of recommendations and/or comments extracted from the evaluation report
and process that have the potential to be used as recommendations and put them into a table for
further participatory input from Partners and USAID/GCP staff. The recommendations from the
draft October version of this document now appear in boxes following these comments. Key
recommendations:
x Get USAID/GCP field staff out to the field (already in process).
x Recognize and manage limited USAID staff time.
x Identify ways to engage Missions more in GCP-funded activities.
x Identify opportunities to have more products shared.
x Explore the appropriate forms and potential for more catalytic and proactive sharing and
stimulus to collaboration to make the GCP a program that creates more synergies and is
more than the sum of its parts.
x Share information about improved tools for identifying, measuring, and reporting results.
x Explore the potential of hiring a dedicated person/consultant part time to follow up with
partners on the most pressing issues from meetings.
x Address the Partners’ lack of understanding about differences between results, outputs
and activities and their subsequent reporting of these to USAID.
x Share lessons learned about adaptive management conditions, challenges and “best
practices” on a more regular basis.
A second set of “reflections and recommendations,” provided by the evaluator, as per request
from some Partners and USAID/GCP staff, appears in the Evaluation Report Notes for
Reference, Note 4. The comments in Note 4 focus on what the evaluator considers to be key,
often more strategic, areas for GCP consideration as they move toward and into GCP II.
4.1 Recommendations from USAID and Partners from Participatory Input Table
Budget Issues
x The program needs a far bigger budget to deliver on its global diversity mission:
¾ Present a greater profile within USAID.
¾ Market the LWA to compete with IQCs that at least one Mission used instead of the
LWA to access resource management services.
¾ Discuss the “branding” issue (i.e., clear identification of the GCP).
¾ Without a doubt a larger budget is needed. To deliver at large scales, there must be a
comparable investment. That said, there should be clarity on USAID’s “global
4.0 Recommendations
40 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
biodiversity” mission (e.g., WWF has its G200; CI has Hotspots).
¾ Nail down more specifically what USAID sees as its mission as part of the
conservation investment landscape.
x Deal with year-to-year funding uncertainty.
x A weakness of the program is that political will for biodiversity conservation within the
US government’s current administration is such that the GCP will never be able to have
the resources it needs. Roles: WWF with many other conservation partners are active
outside of the GCP on this issue; the question they are asking is how can they (within the
rules) be better allied to ensure biodiversity funding is not cut, but reduced.
x Address funding cuts for work at site level in some places (e.g., Bering Sea). Where the
GCP proposals indicated another donor (especially other USAID funds) and the funding
fell through due to budget cuts or politics (not the merits of the proposal), the GCP
should consider funding the short fall.
x USAID/GCP should communicate better about its “shopping cart” approach to selection
of sites presented in proposals for funding:
¾ Note: Action has already been taken on this item by USAID/GCP staff in terms of
communicating what it means whether Partners agree with the approach or not.
¾ In spite of the lack of understanding this approach, the evaluator recommends that the
GCP should not use a “shopping cart approach” but more focus more strategically on
key themes and areas.
¾ USAID/GCP should do a “quick and dirty analysis” on where its portfolio falls on the
spectrum from representative to opportunistic to…. This would complement another
point above about the difference in its portfolio. Each may have pros and cons, but it
would be useful to articulate the concept of the USAID/GCP portfolio more
intentionally and clearly.
x Transparency is needed in the budget process. (One Partner raised this in the
questionnaire. An alternate phrasing of this recommendation: USAID/GCP staff and
Partners should periodically revisit issues of transparency on the budget process and other
issues.)
Staff Related Issues
x Appoint a director (no more “acting”), giving the team senior leadership to engage at a
peer level with other competing programs/bureaus.
x Get USAID/GCP staff out to the field:
¾ This has already begun.
¾ Deal with the lack of field-based knowledge by staff.
¾ Identify a “standard” set of knowledge/protocols/common checklist that all CTOs
should know about sites.
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 41 41
¾ Establish how much time staff would devote to going to the field.
¾ Make it clear to Partners why USAID/GCP staff have such limited time to work on
the GCP by providing general insight on the percentage of time staff have to dedicate
to the GCP on average.
x Increase USAID/GCP staff time and/or identify a clear administrative assistance
mechanism inside of USAID to help facilitate coordination and buffer the USAID staff
time that is already limited.
x USAID/GCP staff should communicate knowledge of activities and programs to
colleagues in USAID:
¾ Communicate what they know about management of core awards, associate awards
and other CAs that are directly negotiated by bureaus and/or missions.
¾ Communicate what they know about biodiversity activities that are done by other
NGOs, the private sector and other governments.
Program Management
x Assess whether the GCP is really catalytic, strategic, influencing other programs, making
other investments more effective.
x USAID should take steps to become more catalytic.
x As individual GCP Partners do their site-specific evaluations, this should be required
information reported back to the GCP.
x Determine what “we” are and promote that strength.
Communications
x USAID/GCP staff should work to clarify many of the concepts and terms they use (i.e.,
increased definitional clarity) to ensure improved communications, lessen opportunities
for misunderstanding, and resolve issues about what unspoken assumptions are guiding
word usage.
x USAID/GCP should ensure the message moves upward in the Agency that the Partners
are not all “tree huggers” and anti-development:
¾ Continue to have GCP brown bags and appropriate briefings to show how the GCP
supports and complements other programs.
¾ Continue to provide more people-oriented “success stories.”
¾ USAID/GCP team should continue to host more talks.
¾ Strategize more with Partners on profiling work with other branches, even if they are
not forums.
¾ The USAID/GCP team should involve Partners, while strengthening teamwork in
how to access/leverage the interest and/or support of other USAID audiences.
4.0 Recommendations
42 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Get “success stories” out to the field. Make this an action item for each quarterly
meeting. Partners should come with short success story, pick the best and email them out.
x Share more GCP products to realize more Program potential:
¾ Add links through the USAID web page.
¾ Initiate a newsletter and/or other publications.
¾ Share inside of USAID and with broader conservation community.
¾ Have a concrete output on this in each Partner’s work plans. Since so much time is
invested in reporting anyway, require partners to go beyond short success stories and
submit one-page executive summaries that follow a common format and can be used
to highlight products and links to Partner resources. Format could change each year to
cover various themes.
x Facilitate communication that will contribute to improved planning and implementation.
Look at knowledge management information.
x Increase communications internal to USAID/GCP staff.
Need/Opportunity for Proactive Sharing, Coordination and Collaboration from All Sides
x Explore the appropriate forms and potential for more catalytic and proactive sharing and
stimulus to collaboration to make the GCP a program that creates more synergies and is
more than the sum of its parts:
¾ Discuss this before deciding on the role of sharing, etc. The discussion should focus
on the difference between “sharing for sharing’s sake” and sharing of mutually
beneficial information since some Partners have pointed out that this works only
when there is a real benefit to all participants.
¾ USAID/GCP can play an important role in identifying the benefits of different kinds
of collaboration in terms of conservation outcomes, and focus efforts around proven,
valuable circumstances and approaches.
¾ Can the GCP dedicate funds for collaboration follow-up from annual meetings with
one of the outputs of the meeting being an agreed upon “effort” with budget,
responsible persons, time frame and outputs outlined and agreed upon by the group?
¾ Provide flexible, additional funding to support follow-up when opportunities arise.
x Program should find a clear identity that draws the sites and Partners together. the GCP
does not capture “outsiders” attention. Would be worth dedicating time to this at annual
meeting.
x Partners must work to coordinate and collaborate better except where mission funding
coordinates implementation. This is particularly important in those cases where Partners
state that this is part of their strategy:
¾ USAID needs to make this easier.
¾ GCP II can help design a process to promotes this.
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 43 43
x Partners should acknowledge USAID in public presentations, discussions or printed
matter:
¾ USAID already does remind Partners but should continue to do so verbally and in
written email form to acknowledge USAID support.
¾ Partners need to acknowledge that this a two-way street for Program identity.
Lack of Adequate Analysis of Lessons Learned
x Get neutral analytic function from a respected organization:
¾ Make a stronger effort to share and make “apparent” the learning that has occurred.
¾ Consider the mechanism, whether a central or decentralized analytic function.
¾ Get commitment from all to yield good results.
¾ Take a good, hard look at how we promote, capture and communicate learning (e.g., a
workshop, a publication does not mean learning unless there is a response).
¾ GCP can ask what forms of learning are most useful and invest intentionally in these.
¾ GCP should recognize that measures of learning are one of the most difficult things to
capture.
¾ GCP should give thought to what “neutral role” means and be clear about the pros
and cons of these in the past. Look at factors that best support functions that can
facilitate/convene, etc.
x Give more attention to accessing external learning from development organizations.
x Ensure greater comparability when analysis of sites is undertaken:
¾ Partners should share completed indicator charts—this would be a first step in
assessing how some comparability can be achieved.
¾ Look at/compare processes used, not compare sites.
x Share information about improved tools for identifying, measuring and reporting results
that make progress toward achievement of results.
x A strong field evaluation is needed to help assess progress made or problems. This should
not be done across the board, but combined with other measures.
x Need to be clearer and more consistent on USAID/GCP support for research and what the
concept of “research” means.
x Capture and retain GCP identity (e.g., provide institutional memory of how the GCP got
created and how it provided cutting edge biodiversity conservation.):
¾ Instead of thinking of it as institutional memory, this can be folded into getting more
of USAID educated and supportive of the GCP and potential complementary efforts.
¾ Discuss “branding”—some donors focus highly on this; others don’t. What are the
desired ends of branding and what does it require? (i.e., avoid intractability of over￾branding).
4.0 Recommendations
44 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Focus on lessons about implementation at larger scales:
¾ Show some on the ground results at smaller scales first.
¾ Take LAB I/II proceedings to the next level. Assess where to take these hodgepodge
collections of lessons and tools.
x Work with Partners to discuss and identify solutions to challenges they have identified
(e.g., organizational capacity, information, law enforcement, changing human behavior,
political will).
x Work with Partners, as appropriate, to address challenges related to working with
traditionally marginalized people. Direct Partners toward groups who are competent at
addressing these challenges.
Difficulties with Meetings
x Ensure that participants leave the GCP meetings with specific ideas (obtained from in￾depth discussions) that they may apply to their own programs. To achieve this, schedule
tightly facilitated discussions of narrowly focused topics of burning interest to at least a
majority of the Partners and USAID.
x Decide the goals of the meetings and who should attend (i.e., more technical people along
with management types).
x Have shorter meeting agendas to allow for sharing of lessons learned. Partners need to
take responsibility for requesting agenda changes since they always have an opportunity
for input into meeting design.
x Change agendas and have more exchange and outcome of concrete ideas. Partner input
on design process is necessary. [Note: This perception of one respondent is contradicted
by the USAID/GCP Team Leader who stated that these meetings are 90%+ Partner￾designed. …However, it is largely one to two Partners who do the design.]
x Reduce the amount of administrative detail and USAID-speak that are the focus of
quarterly meetings and focus more on technical issues:
¾ Consider providing these administrative details by email.
¾ Designate some of the quarterly meetings as technical meetings to draw input from
Partner technical staff.
¾ Have all Partners share five minutes or less regarding something that has worked well
(or poorly) during the last quarter.
¾ At a minimum, USAID/GCP needs a “bottom line” so that “techies” present will
understand the take-home administrative message.
x Focus on results and strategies. USAID should report on three-year progression of
indicators chart for each project to elicit discussion from Partners and USAID about what
the data tell the group.
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 45 45
x Follow-up after meeting discussions:
¾ Seek lowest time alternative (e.g., instead of “will have the GCP staff member
research and get Intranet back up,” say “will have the GCP staff email a limited set of
documents to Partners who request them.”).
¾ Hire a dedicated person/consultant part time to follow-up with Partners on most
pressing issues from meeting.
¾ Note, too, that follow-up is sometimes a matter of resources, e.g., having flexible
funds to provide seed funding for interesting ideas that may help coordinate or make
things happen.
x Get more field staff involved in annual meetings:
¾ Identify those that fit particular meeting focus.
¾ Get field staff from USAID, Partners, and possibly other organizations.
¾ Facilitate a shared sense of commitment to what annual meetings are for and can
bring in terms of added value for specific geographic areas or themes.
¾ Different GCP Partners should take ownership on a rotating basis with some overall
threat that is maintained to ensure continuity.
x Have discussion sessions on an array of topics designed by Partners that have been
identified in the evaluation report to share ideas (e.g., consultations and participatory
activities, participatory appraisals/studies, conservation enterprise development activities,
promoting organizational alliances, environmental education, how to enhance returns on
investments in working with others:
¾ Should not be limited to just the evaluation—have each Partner take a whirl at
focusing attention/meeting on specific issues that are of particular benefit/interest to
them.
¾ Don’t reinvent the wheel on issues—the toughest challenge in annual meetings or any
issue-oriented meeting is to build on what is already out there for tools/learning. This
takes targeted background work.
Issues Relating to Threats
x Have (as a group) ideas about what priority threats that could be better address better if
we combined efforts, or even if combined efforts would be worthwhile strategy for
addressing a threat:
¾ Disaggregate threats and ratings by individual threats as a tool for thinking about the
challenges at any given site.
¾ Distribute a consolidated threats list for all projects.
x Use an “opportunities” approach dealing with a tractable problem rather than just a
threats-based approach. Provide examples of other lens that can capture potential for
action/influence beyond threats-based analysis/conservation.
4.0 Recommendations
46 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
x Determine a way to deal with Program gaps, like covering other geographical and
sectoral issues:
¾ Conduct a thoughtful review of the GCP in the conservation sector, which includes
GEF and other large donor funding into biodiversity conservation and determine what
is most needed.
¾ Consider the opposing recommendation that the GCP cannot and should not attempt
to deal with these gaps since the Program cannot be all things to all sectors.
Reporting Requirements
x Stop changing “goalposts” (i.e., requirements) for reporting.
x Streamline semi-annual reports:
¾ More formal communications are needed between GCP staff and Partners to reduce
the amount of writing required for semi-annual reports.
¾ Require Partners to give short overviews of activities and then report on the whole
picture with specifics.
¾ Consider the opposing recommendation that the reporting requirement is fine if the
goal is to have stand-alone documents.
x Provide Partners with information about how the information requested will be used so
that Partners can focus on meeting specific needs of USAID/GCP:
¾ Request stories and comprehensive “blurbs” on actual progress—these are most
helpful.
¾ Identify a new theme for each semi-annual report in which Partners go into depth on a
common issue agreed upon at the previous quarterly meeting and that may be timely
for USAID and/or the overall biodiversity agenda.
x More advance work on the structure/format of work plans is needed; this has been
discussed in the past:
¾ Provide a model for a work plan that functions as a stand-alone document providing
site context, issues, threats, and planned activities in 10 pages or less. If deeper
information is needed, then have a follow-up meeting for things that cannot be
captured in 10 pages.
¾ Desired and appreciated outputs are explanations of why things have or have not
worked.
x Communicate basic requirements (e.g., budget, percentage of personnel allowed, etc.)
before preparation of work plans.
x USAID/GCP staff should provide timely responses. Free up staff time for this to occur.
x Interact at the appropriate level with field Missions before writing work plans to facilitate
process and ensure that work is within the scope of the Mission strategy. Assess the
timing of the work planning process vis-à-vis home leave schedules of many USG
employees during that time.
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 47 47
Lack of Capacity in the Field
x Address whether capacity is being built in the field, particularly in specific Partner’s
work plans since it is already an overall goal of the GCP.
x The GCP should help finance a strong and well-organized field meeting so that field
people interact with and learn from each other, and so that Washington can learn from the
field:
¾ Consider including field meetings in the annual meeting.
¾ Tie to substantive content of meeting since sites are very different.
¾ Consider effect on overall budget.
x The GCP should help finance all organizations for periodic meetings of their field staff to
share lessons learned and information about their programs. Think about identifying
some key conference that subsets of GCP field staff could attend and present papers. The
staff could stay an extra day to meet on specific GCP issues (this gets out the GCP
message and allows for cross-learning).
Lack of Focus on Sustainability
x Focus more on financial sustainability. Those who have focused more on the issue,
should develop brief case studies on their activities and progress.
x Focus more attention on all forms of sustainability (e.g., social, ecological, political,
institutional, technical).
Achieving Results
x Share understanding of the differences between results, outputs, and activities and how to
report on all three:
¾ GCP should use its influence to encourage greater emphasis in Partner programs on
results.
¾ Meet to discuss results with active participation of all.
¾ Try using simple logframe or something comparable that can be the guts of the work
plan and help ensure a clear pathway from threats to activities to results.
USAID/GCP Working with Other Parts of USAID
x GCP needs to work more within USAID to link to other aspects of development (e.g.,
health, D&G):
¾ Consider the time it takes and the limits on staff time.
¾ Partners can definitely help shoulder this as part of a team.
x Market LWA mechanism. When Mission staff come to DC, USAID staff should continue
(as they have done in the past) to get an hour of Mission staff’s time to give a prepared
PowerPoint presentation on the GCP and the LWA mechanism.
x Brainstorm on how to get Missions more engaged in a GCP-funded activity:
4.0 Recommendations
48 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
¾ GCP staff visiting sites with Partners should make presentations to all appropriate
people in a Mission (not just one technical officer).
¾ Engage Missions in pre-work plan efforts.
x Improve the work plan process for the Mission (the process currently is completed too
late in the year and does not allow Missions to provide more input).
x Find a mechanism to facilitate Mission/Partner interactions—feedback is often sought
from Mission staff by USAID/GCP, however, this passes via USAID/GCP to the
mission, back to USAID and then back to the partner.
x Investigate the potential of the Global Development Alliance program for other
opportunities for networking.
Partners Working with Other Parts of USAID
x Facilitate engagement and encourage openness with Missions and Bureau representatives.
x Raise awareness about LWA mechanisms.
Partner Relationships with Field NGOs
x Improve relationships with local NGOs where problems have been identified.
x Identify appropriate NGOs who can play a critical role in working with local people.
Monitoring
x Meet the challenge under the GCP of balancing work to abate threats as compared to
allocating funds to do research and/or monitoring abatement/mitigations:
¾ Explore, as a group, streamlined monitoring tools.
¾ Support WCS tool development following further measures work.
x Track mitigation/abatement of threats more consistently. Compile and distribute
consolidated list of threats and design a score card for threats abatement progress.
Adaptive Management
x Share lessons learned on a more regular basis about adaptive management conditions,
challenges and “best practices.” Involve the practitioners in this, not just the GCP
managers from partner organizations. Pick two of the quarterly meetings each year and
make this one of the major topics.
4.2 Related Recommendations Not Arising Directly Out of Draft Evaluation
Report
GCP should identify its role/niche among the biodiversity programs supported by USAID
missions and other donors (public and private). Its impact could be much more strategic if it
4.0 Recommendations
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 49 49
distinguishes itself from and complements these other programs. Possible implications or
consequences of this:
x GCP should define a more focused program of site-based and policy activities based on a
set of specific themes or geographic areas, around which lessons can be generated, results
analyzed, and experiences among partners and others shared.
x GCP should exercise more proactive leadership within the conservation community,
actively identifying linkages and synergies among the activities the GCP supports, other
USAID-funded projects, and other donor activities. This, in turn, would provide a
practical basis for increased learning and increased collaboration among participants in
these programs around common objectives. Specific funding under the program might be
made available to carry out these activities, organize learning “events,” and prepare
focused communications/publications on results.
x GCP should seek to make the activities it supports explicitly complementary to what
others (USAID Missions, other donors) are or could be doing.
GCP should be more proactive in exercising the leverage it has as USAID s major global
conservation program to encourage a greater learning and results orientation within the Agency
and GCP partner organizations. One way to do this is to encourage partners to include more
explicit elements for documentation and sharing lessons learned in their proposals or across site
and policy activities. Another method would be to fund specific pan-GCP training activities
along the lines suggested by Cynthia Gill (USAID/GCP Team Leader) in the parameters for GCP
II. The GCP should look at how not only its programs, but its administrative requirements such
as work plans and reporting, can be used to foster this orientation. For example, work plans can
provide a discipline sometimes lacking in partners to set concrete objectives, plan activities to
accomplish these objectives, and manage for results. Reporting, by emphasizing and providing
regular opportunities to focus on results and how the chosen activities are (or are not) leading to
these results, can stimulate an enhanced culture of learning and adaptive management.
GCP should take a lead in articulating and sharing the ways that increased communication,
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration among key players in the conservation community
(USAID, other donors, US NGOs, local partners) can improve conservation results on the
ground. We need to move beyond general platitudes and good feelings to identify the concrete
benefits that can result from different forms of cooperation among other reasons, to support the
efforts of those within the GCP partners who are trying to promote greater cooperation. The
program should then use its convening power and resources to provide appropriate incentives
and encourage specific activities/projects that will realize these benefits.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
50 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
NOTE 1: GCP Principles from RFA 1999
C. Program Principles
I. The following principles will guide the development of this global initiative. These principles
represent the approach that the Center for Environment’s global biodiversity conservation
program will employ:
x Biodiversity conservation must be the explicit objective of proposed programs. The
Center for the Environment will support the approaches that best achieve biodiversity
conservation, whether they are new and innovative or time-tested and proven. In all cases,
proposed activities should have strong, clear links to biodiversity conservation.
x The primary focus of the Center’s program will be in-situ biodiversity conservation. The
Center for Environment’s program will focus on the conservation of biodiversity in its natural
habitats (as opposed to seed banks and other ex-situ conservation approaches).
x The Center may also support certain policy or other initiatives which demonstrate
tangible conservation benefits. In-situ biodiversity conservation may be achieved through
many different approaches. While we anticipate that the bulk of the activities supported will
be site-based, we welcome applications for other initiatives which will achieve tangible, well￾defined conservation benefits. Policies include laws, regulations, decrees, and agreements.
Policy initiatives may focus on work with governments and/or other organizations.
x Programs should focus on globally important sites for biodiversity conservation.
Wherever possible, applicants should clearly identify sites where programs will be
implemented. Applications for Center for the Environment funds must demonstrate the global
priority of the site. Applicants should determine the most appropriate way to demonstrate
global significance. For example, applicants may find it useful to make reference to one of
the widely accepted, peer-reviewed priority setting exercises. Additional, site-specific
information substantiating the value of a particular area is useful, where available. Since all
countries contain valuable biodiversity, additional sites supported by USAID Missions should
be national biodiversity priorities, but not necessarily global priorities. In all cases where
specific sites are not identified a priori, applications should clearly delineate a process,
criteria, and time line for the selection of sites.
x Applications should use a threats-based approach. Applications should clearly identify the
threats (whether they are site-based, regional, national, and/or international) to biodiversity
and clearly explain how threats will be addressed. In cases where it is not feasible to address
significant threats, applications should describe the likely impact of these threats on the site
and/or the proposed activities. The application should also present the most promising
opportunities for conservation. Applications should identify critical assumptions and the
discuss potential consequences if these assumptions prove false.
x Programs should be adaptive. While the initial design of program activities should be
sound, conservation needs are complex and constantly evolving. Programs should therefore
be structured in such a way that they monitor their progress, generate timely information for
management, and adapt the program as needed.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 51 51
x Programs should foster sustainability. Applicants should discuss how conservation
achievements will be sustainable beyond the end of the Agreement. Applications should also
explain how continued financing for ongoing activities will be secured. While it is not
necessary to identify specific sources of continued financing, applications should describe the
approach for identifying and securing this funding. In addition, any programs that involve
extractive use should clearly discuss: (a) the likelihood that extractive activities will be
ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable; (b) how over-harvesting will be
controlled; and (c) how extractive use will contribute directly to biodiversity conservation.
x Programs should be participatory. Applicants should discuss how programs incorporate the
equitable and active involvement of stakeholders in all stages of program design and
implementation. Particular consideration should be given to the inclusion of traditionally
marginalized stakeholders, such as women and indigenous peoples.
x Programs should help NGOs expand their initiatives. Proponents are expected to have
ownership of proposed programs and to invest their own resources in accomplishing the
results defined under the program. Proposed cost-share should be clearly elaborated, along
with other indications of institutional commitment to the program.
x Programs should strengthen in-country capacity. To increase the sustainability of
conservation interventions, strengthening in-country capacity (to manage areas critical to
biodiversity, address policy constraints, etc.) is key. Institutional strengthening may be
needed for both government and nongovernmental organizations. Grants to host-country
organizations, which may be coupled with technical assistance, may be useful in this regard.
x Programs must be results-oriented. Since the goal of the program is biodiversity
conservation, largely through improved management of globally significant habitats, the
programs should articulate how they plan to assess program impacts. Applications should
discuss how they would track performance and report on progress. Efforts to measure habitat
quantity and/or quality are encouraged where appropriate (see performance monitoring
section below).
x Programs should integrate analysis into program design. Since the primary focus of this
program is on-the-ground conservation and funds are limited, USAID is unlikely to be able to
support large applied research programs. However, we do expect that substantive analysis
and efforts to disseminate lessons learned should be integrated as a part of any program.
x Programs should complement other conservation and development activities. Where
appropriate, applications should indicate if there are other relevant conservation and
development efforts. Clearly, this is not required in areas where there are no relevant efforts,
or if existing efforts are ineffective or ill conceived. In particular, applications should
indicate, briefly, how they will complement activities of USAID, other donors, host-country
governments, the private sector, and other institutions.
x Programs should focus primarily on USAID-assisted countries. The Environment Center
has the ability to implement its biodiversity conservation program in both USAID-assisted
countries and other countries which are global priorities for biodiversity conservation.
Assistance to programs in developing countries that are not currently assisted by USAID will
be more limited than assistance to USAID-assisted countries. The applicant should recognize
that implementation of these programs will be dependant upon obtaining a waiver to allow
assistance in these countries. Accordingly, thorough justification for proposed activities in
these countries is required from the applicant. A list of USAID-assisted countries is included
in this RFA.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
52 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
NOTE 2: Description of GCP Sites and Policy Initiatives
Through the Global Conservation Program, USAID supports four policy initiatives and in situ
conservation activities at 21 sites. All sites and activities began in October 1999 with a funding period of
five years except where noted. The six Partners, 21 sites, and four policy activities are:
x African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). AWF’s Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes
program is working to conserve wildlife and habitat extending across state, private, and community
lands in key African landscapes.
¾ Amboseli-Kilimanjaro, East Africa, was one of the first binational conservation areas in East
Africa. Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, and Mt. Longido, Tanzania, are the focal points of a diverse
terrain, which includes the traditional pastureland of the Maasai people. A management plan is
being developed by local and national governments and AWF that includes a mixture of reserves,
community land, and private holdings, creating a large enough area for the survival of lions,
elephants, and other endangered wildlife.
¾ Laikipia-Samburu, Kenya, a semi-arid plateau in the shadow of Mt. Kenya, is another of the
targeted areas in Africa selected for exceptional natural value. The area is of mixed land use
(private farms, community lands and public game reserves), largely agricultural, and yet it is one
of few places in the country where wildlife populations are actually increasing. Laikipia-Samburu
presents a unique opportunity to test different land use, livestock, and wildlife management
systems that could be applied in much of central and eastern Africa, where large wild animals are
found in areas that are increasingly used for pasture and farming. AWF is working to address the
root causes of incompatible land use, such as land tenure, perceptions of wildlife, competition for
water, and economic incentives or disincentives for saving habitat.
¾ Mana Zambezi, is a cross-country management and cooperation initiative in Southern Africa. It is
also an example of mixed land use (communal areas, private farms and public protected areas)
with large animals, such as elephant and buffalo, sharing the same land as the herders and
farmers. The area is critical for wildlife as it is their only access to the Zambezi River. Activities
to monitor and manage the river ecosystem are coordinated in the three countries that share the
watershed, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique.
¾ The Maasai Steppe, Tanzania, is a critically important area for the biodiversity represented in east
African woodland savanna. The ecosystem encompasses 35,000 square kilometers lying east and
south of the Great Rift Valley escarpment. The area includes two national parks (Tarangire and
Lake Manyara) and a forest reserve. Lake Manyara is recognized internationally as a Biosphere
Reserve. Two other critical types of land holdings are community areas (mainly held by Maasai
pastoralists) and institutional holdings. AWF is implementing activities to protect the critical land
units that connect and sustain this conservation landscape. This includes focused attention to key
remaining corridors, dispersal areas, wetlands and catchments. AWF is working with the newly
formed Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) to place a key 44,000-acre land unit (the
Manyara Ranch) at the heart of this landscape under conservation management. (Funding began
in 2001 for five years.)
x Conservation International (CI). CI’s Biodiversity and Corridor Planning and Implementation
Program focuses on corridor planning and implementation in biodiversity hotspots and tropical
wilderness areas.
¾ The Sierra Madre Corridor, northern Philippines is of one of the last remaining forests in the
country. The highly endangered Philippine monkey-eating eagle and other rare species can still be
found in this isolated wilderness. Recent mining claims overlap claims of ancestral land, national
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 53 53
parks and community forests. CI is working to resolve this conflict in the hopes that the forest and
the biological diversity that it holds will be saved.
¾ The rainforests of Guyana are still nearly intact; however, they have little protection from threats
on the horizon. CI is designing a “biological corridor” that would link two proposed sites for
protection, the Kanuku Mountains and the New River Triangle. These two sites are still pristine
forest, supporting large populations of animals that have disappeared from the rest of Amazonia.
Within the corridor, only those economic activities that are compatible with the biological
integrity of the land will be permitted.
¾ The Cerrado and Pantanal are two unique ecosystems found in southern Brazil. The Cerrado is a
large tropical savanna, and the Pantanal is a 150,000 square mile wetland in the basin of the
Paraguay River. Both of these areas contain a great number of species found nowhere else. CI
will continue its work to build consensus for a biological corridor to connect two anchor sites, the
Natural Park of the Pantanal in the west and Emas National Park in the east.
Policy Activity
¾ Enforcement Economics: CI is using an enforcement economics model to analyze enforcement of
protected area and natural resource management regulations in and around protected areas in
three corridors (Selva Maya, Mexico; Irian Jaya, Indonesia; and Northern Palawan, Philippines).
These assessments will generate recommendations for improving enforcement effectiveness in
these corridors, focusing on low-cost investments that yield the greatest improvements in
enforcement. Improving enforcement performance is a prerequisite for the use of tradable
development rights, conservation performance payments, environmental services payments and
other broad-scale economic instruments that can secure an appropriate mosaic of protection and
biodiversity friendly land uses at the corridor scale. The results of these case studies will be
synthesized into a report on enforcement that will be used for global-level policy outreach on
enforcement issues. (Funding began in 2001 for three years.)
x EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW). EWW’s Enterprise Based Biodiversity Conservation project
focuses on conserving the globally significant biodiversity by supporting community-based
enterprises linked to conservation.
¾ Eastern Himalaya, Nepal, home of some 7,000 species of plants, 40% of which are found
nowhere else. Many of these plants are important sources of medicine. This complex ecosystem is
threatened by over-harvesting of valuable plants, over-grazing, and the unregulated collection of
wood and fodder. EWW is developing economic solutions to ecosystem management concerns
through community-based management of forests and the sustainable collection and processing of
non-timber forest products.
¾ Palawan and the Sierra Madre, Philippines, are priority regions for biodiversity conservation.
Although protected areas conserve some two percent of the Philippines land surface, additional
biodiversity-rich areas are found throughout the archipelago in forests managed by local
communities. EWW is addressing the underlying threats to forests managed by communities,
which are largely caused by economic forces and lack of local capacity. (Funding began in 2001
for five years.)
x The Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC is investing in innovative conservation financing
mechanisms and policy initiatives in addition to site-based conservation.
¾ Komodo National Park, Indonesia, encompassing several volcanic islands and surrounding coral
reefs, is widely viewed as the flagship of Indonesia’s national park system. The global
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
54 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
significance of the site is recognized by the UN, which has designated it as both a World Heritage
Site and Biosphere Reserve. Famous as the only habitat of the Komodo dragon (the world’s
largest lizard), the park also contains an incredibly rich coral reef ecosystem. Komodo’s marine
resources face a range of imminent threats, especially from destructive fishing practices.
Emerging decentralization has led to a lack of clear authority for enforcement of natural resource
management laws. TNC is working with an Indonesian national conservation group to help
develop a long-term management plan and strengthen the ability of local authorities to protect the
park.
¾ Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, like Komodo Island, falls within the band of highest coral and
fish species diversity in the world. A rapid ecological assessment of Kimbe Bay counted 860
species of fish and 350 species of coral, four times as many as the Caribbean reefs. The Kimbe
Bay reefs and other marine ecosystems owned by local clans for the most part use traditional
fishing practices. However, recent developments such as rising population in the area and impacts
from agriculture could threaten the ecological integrity of the bay. TNC has taken the initiative to
implement a preventative conservation program that can be replicated in other parts of the Indo￾Pacific.
¾ The Chaco, a dry forest and savanna ecosystem in South America, is a vast wilderness home to
many species of wild cats and other wildlife. In its totality it covers nearly 400,000 square miles
in Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The Chaco has historically been overlooked in conservation
efforts, despite the variety of species found only there. TNC is supporting cross-border activities
to train government officials in ecoregional planning, and activities in the Pantanal. In Paraguay,
work is underway to implement new finance mechanisms such as water fees for watershed
protection services and debt-for-nature swaps.
Policy Activities
¾ Protecting Coral Reefs from Destructive Fishing Practices in the Pacific: TNC is working to
reduce the degradation of coral reef ecosystems and biodiversity in the Pacific region from the
destructive aspects of the live reef fish food trade (LRFT), especially through overexploitation,
the targeting of spawning aggregation sites, and the use of cyanide. TNC is working at the policy
level and with local communities in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The key
objectives of the program focus on making decision-makers and affected communities aware of
the potential impacts of the LRFT if it is not effectively controlled and managed, and to provide
the necessary support to develop and implement those required management controls.
¾ Innovative Financing and Policy Initiatives for Sustainable Watershed Financing through Water
Fees: The project’s long-term goal is to promote the use of water fees as a financing mechanism
for supporting watershed sites of global biodiversity importance. To accomplish this, TNC
initiated a process for working with stakeholders to begin understanding the “value” of water. As
evidenced in the recent social unrest over water shortages and water pricing in Bolivia, China,
and the Middle East; it is imperative that users understand the true value of water as a first step to
changing their usage or increasing payment. From this initial understanding, the objective is to
make the next link to have water users understand the role they play in protecting the watershed
and the biodiversity at the source, including financial support. The project focuses on the
implementation and operation of the Quito water fund in Quito, Ecuador; identifying pilot sites to
leverage the Quito experience; exploring various financing mechanisms for sites and system-level
conservation in watersheds; and increasing the capacity of partners and stakeholders on watershed
policy and management.
¾ Debt-for-Nature Swaps and Other Innovative Financing Initiatives: The goal of this program is to
improve the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of conservation financing mechanisms
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 55 55
such as debt-for-nature swaps (DFNS), as well as institutions—especially environmental funds—
that channel resources to conservation activities. This program includes activities to help execute
debt-for-nature swaps in selected countries. The initial focus was a collaboration among TNC, CI,
and WWF on sovereign debt owed by the Indonesian Government and private sector debt owed
by private Indonesian-based companies. TNC and its partners will evaluate national
environmental funds globally in order to identify lessons learned and good practice from
conservation trust funds throughout the world and apply these to innovative financing and policy
initiatives in Indonesia and other countries.
x Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). WCS is implementing its Biodiversity Conservation at the
Landscape Scale Program to conserve biological diversity in three regions of global biodiversity
importance.
¾ Northwest Andes, Bolivia is one of the most species-rich regions of the world. This area of
approximately 21,230 square miles of the Madidi watershed covers a great range of altitudes on
the eastern flanks of the Andes. At this site, endangered animals such as the spectacled bear,
Andean deer and jaguar are threatened by unregulated logging, livestock grazing, and hunting.
WCS is working with local organizations to institute an ecoregional plan to save these species
and the ecosystems they inhabit.
¾ Ndoki-Likouala, Congo is a landscape extending over approximately 19,300 square miles in the
northwest region of the Republic of Congo. The forest borders on Cameroon and the Central
African Republic. It is an extremely remote region, characterized by a high abundance of some of
Africa’s most endangered large mammals, such as elephants, lowland gorillas, and chimpanzees.
Biodiversity is threatened most importantly by overhunting for bushmeat, facilitated by road
building and transport provided by logging companies. WCS is working with the Ministry of
Forest Economy, private sector logging, safari hunting companies, and local communities to form
and implement a management plan for the area.
¾ Yasuni-Napo Forest, Ecuador covers approximately 7,720 square miles of the Yasuni and Napo
river basins and is home to endangered species of the Amazon, such as the jaguar, South
American tapir, and the white-lipped peccary. These species are threatened most directly by
overhunting, but unrestricted oil and gas prospecting and clearing for agriculture also threaten the
habitat. WCS is working with local ethnic groups, such as the Houarani, public and private sector
stakeholders and local organizations to thoroughly assess and work to conserve the species
diversity and reduce the threats to the area.
x World Wildlife Fund (WWF). WWF’s Ecoregion-Based Conservation Program focuses on large￾scale conservation in six ecoregions.
¾ Forests of the Lower Mekong, the Mekong River, the major river system shared by Laos,
Cambodia, and Vietnam, is an area of astounding biodiversity. Scientists have discovered five
“new” mammal species in the Mekong forests in the 1990s. One of these animals is literally as
large as an ox (the wild Vu Quang ox) but had escaped the notice of science until 1992. The
reporting of a previously unknown species of mammal is an extremely rare event, evidence that
the Mekong is poorly known to science and holds untold biological riches. As enormous as the
Mekong watershed is, it is under serious threat. The near extinction of the river dolphin, for
example, signals a dangerous overexploitation of resources. WWF is working to link critical areas
for conservation in the three countries.
¾ The Bering Sea is one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world. It is the origin of half of the
US fish catch, generating $US 1 billion every year. The sea also provides Russia with half or
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
56 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
more of its catch. Unfortunately, both global warming and over-fishing are seriously reducing the
sea’s productivity and threatening its diversity. WWF are working to engage Russia in a joint
assessment and protection of this vital resource.
¾ The Southwest Amazon Ecological Corridor, containing a large section of the Amazon rainforest,
is home to highly endangered species such as the jaguar and giant river otter. A “biological
corridor” of protection in the Bolivian and Peruvian Amazon will link five national parks,
protecting over 9,000 square miles of contiguous forest between the parks. WWF is implementing
a wide range of activities to secure the corridor.
¾ The Atlantic Rainforest, South America once covered nearly 400,000 square miles in Brazil,
Paraguay, and Argentina. Centuries of clearing for farms and urban development have reduced
the area to less than seven percent of the original forest. WWF is working to consolidate a tri￾national forest corridor covering nearly 4,000 square miles in the Iguazu Falls. The corridor will
unite several of the largest remaining blocks of habitat in the ecoregion, maintaining essential
forests and ensuring the survival of many endangered species.
¾ The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea, Indonesia, is a hotspot for marine biodiversity for the western Pacific and
the world, harboring 450 species of coral (compared to only 60 in the entire Caribbean). Despite
its great biologic importance, the area is under enormous threat from destructive fishing practices
and rampant coastal development. WWF is implementing a large marine ecosystem program to
protect critical sites within the ecosystem and to promote more sustainable fishing practices.
¾ Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India, the Terai Arc spans an area of approximately 49,500 square
kilometers, covering dense forests and tall grasslands along the southern slopes of the Himalayas.
The Terai is a top-priority landscape for tigers and is also inhabited by the second largest one￾horned rhinoceros population in the world. These umbrella species face an array of threats,
ranging from genetic isolation to poaching and wildlife trade that will lead to irreversible losses if
left unchecked. The Terai region also provides the majority of the country’s demand for timber
and other forest products and is the rice bowl of the country and one of the most fertile
agricultural regions in Nepal. The Terai Arc is a landscape vision of conservation and
development that fully incorporates the interests of people as well as wildlife on a sustainable and
long-term scale. (Funding began in 2001 for five years.)
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 57 57
NOTE 3: Selected Details on NGOs Working Under USAID/GCP Funding
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). AWF’s Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes
program works to conserve habitat and wildlife that extend across state private, and community lands in
four key African landscapes. The Heartlands are: Samburu Heartland in Kenya; the Maasai Steppe in
Tanzania; the Kilimanjaro Heartland in Kenya and Tanzania; and the Zambezi Heartland in Zambia,
Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
Conservation International (CI). CI promotes its Biodiversity and Corridor Planning and
Implementation Program in hotspots and tropical wilderness areas under GCP funding. They work in the
Sierra Madre mountain range in the northern region of Luzon, Philippines; the Cerrado/Pantanal region of
southwest Brazil; and the Kanuju Mountains and New River Triangle of southern Guyana.
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW). EWW has been working, in partnership with ANSAB (Asia
Network for Small Scale Bioresources), on its Enterprise Based Biodiversity Conservation project in
western Nepal, focusing on conserving globally significant biodiversity by supporting community-based
enterprises linked to conservation. EWW also uses the same approach in its work in the Sierra Madre of
Luzon, Philippines.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC is working on site-based conservation efforts in Komodo
National Park in Indonesia, Kimbe Bay in Papua New Guinea, and the Pantanal/Chaco region in
Paraguay. TNC also is investing in innovation conservation financing mechanisms and policy initiatives
(most particularly related to water).
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). WCS has been implementing its Living Landscapes Program at
the landscape scale to conserve biological diversity, with primary focus on key wildlife species. WCS is
working in the Ndoki-Likouala, Republic of Congo; the Greater Yasuni-Napo, Ecuador; and
Northwestern Bolivian Andes, Bolivia.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). WWF’s approach is based on its Ecoregion-Based Conservation
Program. It focuses on large-scale conservation in: the Terai Arc of Nepal and India; the Southwest
Amazon of Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru; the Beria Sea of Russia and the United States; the Lower Mekong
Forests of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; the Atlantic Forest of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil; and the
Sulu Sulwesi Seas in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia [Source: Brochure produced by The
Environment Information Clearinghouse]
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
58 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
NOTE 4: Evaluator’s Reflections and Recommendations for USAID/GCP Staff and
Partners, Based on the GCP I Evaluation Process
Submitted by
J. Kathy Parker, Ph.D.
Social Ecologist/
Sr. Institutional Development Specialist
Background
The recommendations below are those of J. Kathy Parker, Ph.D., Social Ecologist/Evaluator of GCP I.
The recommendations follow the same categories found in format of the Participatory Table for Input for
Recommendations used by all USAID/GCP staff and Partners who wished to provide input before the
October 23/24th meetings. [Please note: I did not consider this kind of Table the only or best method to
obtain input, but it was the only one available given the time constraints at the point in the process to
obtain input quickly and via email and/or fax.]
The input from other respondents to the Participatory Table for Input on Recommendations appears in the
report and reflects individual perspectives in aggregated form. As noted in the introduction to that section
of the Evaluation Report, I believe the input of all those who provided it should be taken seriously. The
categories of recommendations that appeared in the original table arose directly from the “Weaknesses”
section of the draft Evaluation Report (and were based on the Questionnaire and interviews).
These categories seemed the obvious starting point since they were issues raised by those interviewed
and/or who provided input into the participatory evaluation. My recommendations follow the set of
categories but deal in many cases with other areas of concern than those in the other table.
Budget Issues
General Observation
Budget issues are always urgent (i.e., constant priority concerns) for good USAID managers. They are
also urgent, from a different perspective, as viewed by those receiving funds. In this case, most of the
recommendations derived from the evaluation process have little relevance except those from USAID,
especially GCP staff. Obviously, most budget issues are USG mandated and allocated internally by
USAID high-level decision makers. However, the budget issues can be affected by advocacy by NGOs as
they speak to congressional members and staffers. So, they are urgent to all and can be dealt with in
different ways by different stakeholders in the remainder of the GCP and as well as during GCP II.
Increased Budget
One way to increase the budget is to more vigorously market the LWA to compete with other contractual
mechanisms that at least one Mission used instead of LWA to access resource management services. In
the past, the size of buy-ins was a measure of the success of many USAID projects. Whether this is still a
key measure in the eyes of a Bureau now is not clear to me. However, it is clear that the EGAT Bureau
wants more service to be Mission driven. If USAID/GCP is only meeting USAID/Washington potential
perceptions that this is the best response the Agency has to address advocacy and pressure from NGOs,
the GCP may survive and may even increase.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 59 59
However, an increased budget raises the bar for all involved to demonstrate that more return on
investment is achieved, that different (rather than more) returns can be justified, etc. If the GCP wants
more money, then it will be necessary to make more strategic linkages within the Agency, respond to
continued advocacy from the NGOs, produce significant results, or—given the time frame for results in
biodiversity—at least promote strong and valid monitoring programs to track progress toward
achievement of results.
Increased Profile as “Flagship”
The budget issue belongs as one of multiple parts that relate to the concept of whether this is really a
“flagship” program. Everyone is aware that in spite of its self-professed role as “flagship” for biodiversity
in the Bureau, the GCP holds only a small portion of biodiversity within the Agency. External visibility,
funding level, getting the message upward in the Bureau, progress toward achievement of success,
Mission buy-in, external acknowledgement by the broader conservation community—all of these play a
role in making the very small “flag” of this currently very small “flagship” larger in the future.
In fact, it may be the strength of the intellectual contributions of the group that will make the GCP a
“flagship.” Look at one of the recommendations that came out in response to request for input into the
Table for Recommendations: TNC observed that “GCP should identify its role/niche among the
biodiversity programs supported by USAID and other donors (public and private). Its impact could be
much more strategic if it distinguishes itself from and complements these programs. Several implications
or consequence of this might be:
x GCP should define a more focused program of site-based and policy activities based on a set of
themes or geographic areas, around which lessons learned could be generated, results analyzed,
and experiences among partners and others shared;
x GCP should exercise more proactive leadership within the conservation community, actively
identifying linkages and synergies among the activities the GCP supports, other USAID-funded
projects and other donor activities. This, in turn, would provide a practical basis for increased
learning and increased collaboration among participants in these programs around common
objectives. Specific funding under the program might be made available to carry out these
activities, organize learning ‘events,’ and prepared focused communications/publications on
results.
x GCP should seek to make the activities it supports explicitly complementary to what others
(USAID Missions, other donors) are or could be doing.”
This in part may mean a restructuring of the staff in terms of time allocation instead of constantly saying
that there is just limited time for this in the larger scheme of what staff members now have to handle.
Obviously, increasing the number of staff would be useful if they are as competent and capable as the
ones who have worked on the GCP to date. A longer-term strategic outlook and action plan requires
immediate attention by USAID/GCP staff and Partners.
From the Partner side, one of the implications also includes the need for more careful and constant
attention to provide attribution to the GCP in any presentations, documents, etc. that are GCP supported.
A related recommendation from the evaluation was that “A weakness of the program seems to be the fact
that the political will for biodiversity conservation within the US government’s current administration is
such that the GCP will never be able to have the resources it needs.” There is little that USAID/GCP can
do about this. One partner indicated that sharing information externally about how this is “moderate
environmentalism” might provide those who make decisions about whether to fund a program like the
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
60 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
Global Conservation Program with useful information. Another Partner added that “…there should be
clarity on USAID’s ‘global diversity Mission’ (e.g., WWF – G200, CI – Hotspots, etc.). Would it be
useful to nail down what USAID sees as its mission as part of the conservation landscape more
specifically?” If the Partners do not have this information, they do need it. I do not believe that the intent
of the wording “to nail down” means to put the program in concrete, immutable form, only to make it
clearer the GCP’s mission, goal, and the diversity within a focus on threats-based in situ conservation to
Partners who seem to be asking for this and likely would want to participate in crafting the message.
Action on this seems appropriate in the short term by USAID/GCP staff.
If a “flagship” is a common vision (and it may not be, but USAID calls it that), then everyone must work
to make it happen. Either the term “flagship” should not be used, at least in public presentations, or it
should be emphasized very strongly that the GCP is the “flagship” of USAID’s central Bureau). If a
“flagship” is just rhetoric that helps the Program within the Agency, then many of the above points are
moot. The size of the “flag” as compared to the rhetoric that this is a “flagship” program will take careful
strategic consideration by USAID/GCP and EGAT as well as by the Partners who have a stake in it as
well. Budget size in this proposed strategic approach might be less an indicator of what the “flagship”
represents than the intellectual contribution it makes to the broader conservation community. I also think
another indicator might be the kind of graphic portrayals of what the GCP means, akin to the exercise at
the outset of the GCP I evaluation might yield some insights about what the “flagship” vision is
individually and perhaps collectively.
Staff Issues
Staff to the Field
USAID/GCP staff members are already making a more concerted effort to get out to the field, therefore, a
quick answer to whether this is a necessary recommendation or not at this point may be moot. Partners as
well as USAID/GCP staff certainly have expressed the added value of site visits (e.g., “would allow GCP
staff to make more substantive comments on reports and most likely talk even more passionately within
USAID when marketing the GCP” and “the more they know firsthand, all the better for more clarity and
less demand for detail in written form”).
However, there are several issues that might bear further exploration vis-à-vis USAID staff visits to the
field under the GCP.
x One is the prioritization of site. Is the site visit for information gathering, for evaluative purposes,
to address a conflictual issue that needs staff intervention? If criteria for site visits have not been
developed yet, they need to be. This explicit criteria development exercise may merit
consideration as part of the short-term action plan development effort that is in progress by
USAID/GCP staff.
x Yet another consideration is what mechanism(s) should be established for the sharing lessons
learned that should be systematically reported upon return from site visits. This can provide key
additional information to “success story” writing efforts or to help identify specific kinds of
information from given Partners to strengthen those stories. It can provide critical input into
future review of work plans. It can provide a record for future staff members. It can provide
insights for anyone who reviews semi-annual reports before TDYs. It can be used in providing
input into the analytical/lessons learned component of GCP II. Again, the development of a
reporting mechanism (anathema to an already overworked staff) requires careful thought about
how to “capture” the essence of each trip to report as systematically as possible on issues
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 61 61
especially related to chronic problem areas in work plan and activity implementation by Partners.
A brief form for completion within a specified number of days on return to the office would
likely suffice. This might also address the recommendation by one USAID/GCP staff member
that there may be a lack of standard knowledge by all Cognizant Technical Officers (CTOs) about
his or her own sites and that the concept of what is “standard” could be defined in terms of at
least a minimum level. (This also could then be linked potentially in some way to performance
evaluation of staff). Design of this should be done through the current “action planning” process.
External Knowledge for Staff
Two of the recommendations raised questions about staff knowledge vis-à-vis other biodiversity efforts
inside and outside of USAID. The recommendation related to the need for staff to know about
management of core awards, associate awards and other Cooperative Agreements (CAs) that are directly
negotiated by Bureaus and/or Missions. The second recommendation related to the need for staff to keep
informed about biodiversity activities that are undertaken by other NGOs, private sector and other
governments.
Among the inputs to the table, USAID/GCP staff indicated that these are “easy fixes.” One step is a short￾term action plan to obtain information from Missions and Partners and others about events in biodiversity
conservation.
My restatement of the issues raised here, however, are:
x What does USAID/GCP staff need to know?
x Why?
x When?
x In what form?
x To do what?
x With what anticipated outcome?
More importantly (and undoubtedly less of an “easy fix”), there needs to be a discussion by staff with
Partners, Bureau and Mission colleagues and others about what they individually and collectively need to
know and why. This kind of recommendation may prove useful in terms of the concern it raises about
lack of staff knowledge. But, the response needs to be crafted relative to what the staff do need to know,
when, what it means, how they will store it, how they will manage it, and how they will apply it to
achieve what end(s). This is a much more complicated response than an “easy fix” of just getting the
information, and I am informed by USAID/GCP that they do understand this. I would caution
USAID/GCP staff not to think about the two initial recommendations in terms of an “easy fix” but as a
potentially substantial undertaking if they do not seriously consider the broader implications of the
recommendation. Certainly knowing what is going on within USAID may be the critical element, but
determining who else might hold this information so that USAID/GCP can tap it regularly would be an
easier “fix” for staff than the recommendations to date suggest. If this kind of information does not exist
in a single place in the Agency, then perhaps the Biodiversity Working Group should give thought to how
knowledge of this kind can be managed and used within the Agency.
In the process of getting input on points where further clarification might be helpful, USAID/GCP
informed me that they have been collecting this information and working to identify end users, etc. I
commend them for that. However, I shall always caution each of us about the “black hole” of information
and the multiple and complex issues of technology, recurrent costs of maintaining data collection and
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
62 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
storage efforts. So, my point about constant strategic consideration still stands. And, I hope that
USAID/GCP staff will continue the work they have done and are doing with this in mind.
Lack of Staff Diversity
While diversity has recently increased, USAID/GCP staff still does not have enough age and gender
diversity. Some may question what “enough” means, and this issue might appropriately be explored.
However, to me, diversity of this staff is not enough. As we all know, greater diversity may not be as
“easy” to manage, but it can contribute to the “social capital” (e.g., the networks, the “voices” that are
brought to discussions, the experiences, the institutional memory, the value of different ways of thinking
and expressing ideas in a multicultural and more diverse environment). I have been informed that efforts
have been made to increase diversity, and I also realize that given the current staff size, there are some
limits. I am convinced that it is something that USAID/GCP is aware of and keeping in mind. Therefore, I
encourage USAID/GCP to continue to work to address the diversity issue when opportunities arise. I
want to emphasize, however, that the issue of personnel quality should guide decisions. But the quality of
a more diversified workforce can make a powerful contribution to perceptions about the Program both
inside and outside of USAID.
Limited Staff Time
The amount of time different staff members make to the GCP at any given point in time does seem to
vary, depending on a wide array of workplace pressures. While the staff may be unable to say “no” to
many if not most of these pressures, they certainly can take action to become more efficient. One key
activity for every staff member is to take a Time Management course. And, it is not a bad idea to take a
course every year. “Working smart rather than hard” can become a very good habit to acquire and
maintain.
Program Management Issues
Assess Effectiveness of Program
A recommendation by one Bureau staff member was “need to assess whether the GCP is really catalytic,
strategic, influencing other programs, making other investments more effective.” This is an important
question, even though the evaluation did not address it directly. Generally, Mission personnel interviewed
seemed to think that the LWA mechanism itself was quite helpful. Even the two Bureau people
interviewed indicated that it made their work more efficient. At least four of the six Partners indicated that
the GCP had been catalytic—WWF in terms of providing funding for extending its ecoregion approach;
TNC in terms of giving it an incentive to be more disciplined in applying its articulated approach; WCS
in terms of its contribution to funding sites and its ability to develop conceptual frameworks and move
more toward the Living Landscape approach; and AWF in terms of providing a link between it and TNC
to adapt new methods that now form the core of their Heartland approach. EWW would probably add that
the opportunity to move into the Philippines has been helpful, however, their approach has been affected
little by the GCP “concept”—EWW has its approach and follows it closely, learning as they go but
fundamentally staying to their own tenets of enterprise-based biodiversity conservation. The fact that
matching funds have been part of the LWA indicates that USAID/GCP has been promoting the leveraging
of other investments. These are quick responses to the recommendation based on the input into the
evaluation.
However, the question may need to be explored in more depth and more systematically over time. A more
strategic outlook and plan (see list on last two pages of this section for more details on the kinds of
strategic issues proposed) needs to be developed to monitor the issues raised in this recommendation.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 63 63
Indicators for the specific points of the recommendation, i.e., what is an indicator(s) for “catalytic;” what
is an indicator(s) for “strategic;” what is an indicator(s) for influencing other programs;” and what is an
indicator(s) for making other investments more effective?”
One way to think about some of these issues is to think about a Program Life Cycle. One excellent book
on program management, entitled Systems Analysis and Project Management by David I. Cleland and
William R. King (1975) provides some potential insights on how the GCP might be envisioned, given its
current age and progression. These are not just “theoretical” concepts. They pose valid program
management questions at a higher Program level than each of the different Partner programs/activities in
the field. While I personally do not like the focus on “failure” that the following graphic portrays, I do
think its value lies in thinking about the following issues:
x Where is the GCP in its life cycle?
x What were its early failures and what was learned from them as start up began?
x What point is the GCP at in its “useful life period?”
x What are the indicators of “useful” (e.g., effective, efficient, catalytic, strategic)?
x Are there different staff levels and needs to address these at different points in the GCP cycle?
x Are there other resources needed during the useful phase that would extend the phase if deemed
appropriate?
x What might chance failures be, (e.g., conflict areas, transboundary management issues, staff
changes)?
x What have we learned from them?
x How have we adapted to them?
x If we have not learned and have not adapted and have not been effective, should we close out?
x Rather than thinking about the last phase in terms of a “wear out period,” I would recommend
thinking about what the threshold indicators would be for “weaning” Partners off of USAID
funding via the GCP? Failure Rate
Program Life Cycle
Early Failures Chance Failures Chance and
Wear-Out Failures
Operating Life (Age)
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
64 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
Increased Engagement with USAID/Missions
USAID/GCP may need to follow up more with Missions than it has to date. Mission visits certainly can
be informative and productive. Providing Missions with “success stories” can be helpful. Sending out an
email, like the recent one notifying Missions that GCP II is being designed and asking for input is a step.
However, it is clear that the lack of response (by the time the October 23/24 meeting occurred) indicates a
need for direct interaction between USAID/GCP staff and Missions, either in person (in-country or when
environment staff are on home leave) or by phone. This is an onerous task but may be the only way to
engage over the short to long term to get input. This will require allocation of staff time and a set of
specific points (sent out in advance) to focus the discussions to get needed input and to allow for Mission
personnel to express their perspectives. The “biorhythm” of the process may be the barrier. Therefore,
USAID/GCP should develop and propose an “action plan” to Missions that tries to ensure adequate time
and better timing (if possible) in the work plan schedule review process for Mission input. Interested
Missions should be contacted directly via phone to get more input to refine the process. If nothing else,
Missions will be aware of that schedule and will have an opportunity to choose whether the schedule
converges with theirs or whether they can provide input at a different point (e.g., during interactions with
Partners at an earlier time in the process).
Communications Issues
General Comments
Communications issues may have been one of the more fascinating sets of “weaknesses” identified in the
Questionnaire where they did appear to a limited to degree. However, they came up much more often in
interviews than the Questionnaire might have suggested. My reading on what I heard was that an array of
communications issues does exist. My observation is that individually, these issues may not reach major
proportions, however, cumulatively they suggest a current of potential concern that USAID/GCP staff and
Partners should think about, keep track of over time, and address as appropriate, when they do arise.
Having said that, let me add my strong congratulations both to the USAID/GCP staff for its willingness to
promote more interactions among Partners at the October 23/24 meeting. Also, let me also congratulate
the Partners for their openness and willingness to sit and talk so openly about their programs and mutual
interests. I have never seen any members of the private sector as willing to share, so I truly believe that
there is a spirit in the GCP that is a strength—and it is one that can be built on as GCP II comes on line.
Lack of Definitional Clarity
At the outset of the evaluation, it was difficult for me to differentiate some of the words being used by
USAID and Partners. This certainly is not a cause of a problem, but it may be more of a symptom of
broader communications issues. For example, Partners and USAID/GCP staff talked about big “P” and
little “p” in describing which Program/program on which they were focusing their discussion points.
More importantly, the issue of the concept of “threats” arose early on when two Partners noted that they
did not know when this particular principle had taken precedence among all the other principles. Was it
merely a reflection that one of the people might not have been at a certain meeting when this was
discussed or was it a general movement through a process where USAID/GCP staff made assumptions
that they did not articulate or articulate clearly to Partners?
There are many other issues surrounding the concept of “threats” in the Evaluation Report, however, in
terms of a recommendation, I would suggest that USAID staff need to be clearer on what they consider
threats. I want to emphasize my perspective that the task is not to put a definition in concrete; however, I
do believe it essential to explore the differences in definition and perception of what “threats” are.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 65 65
Perhaps it seems a redundant exercise, but this is an important moment to revisit a number of issues to
enhance the useful period of the project, now that many activities are on the ground and moving along.
Some have indicated that this may be a semantics issue. However, we all have had experiences where
semantics become the point of unneeded conflict. Words carry a lot of “social content,” and they need to
be thought of in those terms. Being proactive in trying to achieve greater clarity does not mean that
everyone has to agree; they just need to understand where each other is “coming from” in order to think
through the point of view of the other. Thus, the intent here is increased mutual understanding whether
agreement is achieved or even useful. In fact, sometimes disagreement can be a positive, creative and
generating force for thinking through and rethinking issues.
Partner Communications with Missions
I understand very well that the relationship in this effort is most directly between USAID/W and the NGO
headquarters in Washington and New York. However, the relationships that some of the Partners have
with some of the Missions is rated very low by Missions and some of the Partners either do not have a
clue that problems exist or did not acknowledge them to me. The reasons for relationships to be good as
well as bad vary from case to case, so a single recommendation would be imprudent. However, I shall
venture to suggest that Partners should openly and frankly get assessments from Missions about the work
they are doing and how both the good relationships can be improved and the bad ones repaired. Some of
the issues that come out of this kind of effort may never be resolved (or at least perhaps not until staff
turnover in the NGOs or in the Missions), but openness may be one of the key principles that is not listed
but may underlie to some great degree the success of the GCP.
Partners also have a critical role in engaging with USAID/Missions. Some Partners have very positive
relationships with Missions. However, other Partners have moderate to low ratings in the eyes of some
Mission personnel. For those with poor relationships, Partners should take steps to determine how to
repair relationships with Missions as appropriate. The outcome hopefully will reap greater rewards over
the long term for the biodiversity that so many are interested in conserving. Partners, in general, should
make a concerted effort to contact Missions, interact with them, determine the kind and level of
interaction they feel is appropriate given the mechanism under which the Partner is working, and look at
more strategic relationships at the country level than just having an AID/W-funded effort be the focus of
their efforts.
Proactive Sharing Issue
My only suggestions related to this build on the consensus that sharing should arise organically and that
seed funds to support self-identified efforts can increase synergies, catalyze further interactions, produce
some potentially important results and lead to greater conservation over time. I, however, firmly believe
that not all forms of social interaction in the arena need to be collaborative.2
 Some can be in the form of
coordination. Others can be in the form of cooperation. We know that some are even in the form of
competition. Whatever the case, each of these requires different kinds and levels of social interactions
between the organizations and individuals involved as well as require different kinds and levels of
2
 Coordination = Individuals or organizations doing similar or related kinds of work (e.g., studies) independently,
but find it mutually advantageous to understand each others’ work while continuing to maintain independent
individual efforts.
Cooperation = Willingness of the individuals and/or organizations concerned to plan a rudimentary arrangement
for working together for some mutual benefit.
Collaboration = Two or more individuals or organizations working jointly to resolve a common problem or
objective with a shared plan and implementation responsibilities.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
66 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
resources and lead to different kinds and levels of outputs and outcomes/results. Understanding these can
provide a set of criteria that can be helpful in decision making about the levels of support USAID might
want to provide given the nature of the venture and requirements outlined in proposals.
Lack of Adequate Analysis/Monitoring
I firmly believe that having separate learning opportunities may reap great individual rewards. However,
promoting outputs from these learning activities that can add to the cumulating body of knowledge about
biodiversity conservation is essential. Therefore, I support the approach proposed for GCP II.
Comparability
As I noted at the October 23/24 meeting, I think the group needs to give greater thought to issues of
comparability. One person who provided input into the Recommendations Table asked “Why?”. My
answer is that the “learning curve” of the conservation community needs to increase at a more rapid pace.
Using different approaches to conservation is not a negative. It gives an opportunity to see what works
best. But, the question then turns to “what works best, relative to what?” Without some methods, tools,
and techniques to ensure greater opportunities for comparison and contrast of what is working and why it
is working may be one of the greater contributions that the GCP might be able to make over the life of the
program. And methods, including comparative case study methods exist and can be adapted to the GCP
program. Having a minimum data set, for example, across all sites can provide the basis for comparison
and contrast more systematically and result in less of an “apples and oranges” approach to learning. Also
having more detailed data for each site can contribute to the richness and depth of detail needed to
understand the context, structure, function, patterns and processes, etc. that more completely explain what
is happening at a given site as well as provide additional detail for comparison and contrast in the overall
effort to learn.
Measuring/Monitoring
Linked to this is the need for more consistent ways of measuring. For example, what mitigation efforts are
going on, how do we measure them relative to what it is that they are intended to mitigate, what
conservation target is the focus, what has happened to the threat as it has been addressed (e.g., has
addressing it displaced the threat in a way that it causes or elicits other threats or has an unintended
negative impact somewhere else in the system or has it really been mitigated?), and what is it that we
have learned that can contribute to adaptive management as we learn and change and learn more?
Use of Conceptual Model(s) for Testing
I think some of the work that WCS is doing with regard to developing conceptual models is an excellent
step. It certainly helps them set down their “mental model(s)” of how the system in which they are
working functions—what the structure and functions are, what the flows, fluxes, and cycles of resources
may be, what the patterns and processes may be that they need to monitor. Therefore, working more with
conceptual models may be an important contribution over time that the GCP has contributed to in the
Living Landscapes Program that may have a ripple effect with others in the conservation community.
These models additionally provide the added value of bounding the monitoring that needs to be the focus
of their limited resources. And, finally, the models can serve as the based of testable hypotheses that are
the foundation for much of what our learning is all about. Other organizations are on equally important
but different paths. This is just an example of the reasons why this approach might be of particular
interest to watch over time.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 67 67
Being on the Cutting Edge: Knowledge Management/Learning Organizations
Sometimes I wonder whether we want to end out on the “cutting edge” since it can often mean that we are
also at the point of being on the “bleeding edge” to carry the metaphor one step further. This is wonderful
guidance to be given from the upper levels of the EGAT Bureau. However, it is not clear to me exactly
what this means, in terms of the costs of going out to the “edge” and especially keeping up with the
dynamics of the ever-changing tip of the “edge” in this information age. What level of risk and failure the
Agency is willing to accept is not clear either from what little I know. Therefore, it might be a very
interesting exercise to invite (perhaps via an invitation signed by all the Partner organization presidents)
the Assistant Administrator (AA) of the Bureau to a GCP quarterly meeting to discuss the issue. I think it
would be an interesting, engaging, and thought-provoking experience for the AA as well as the GCP staff
and Partners. I would like to emphasize that the intent would be for it to be as focused on the politics of
the guidance and its implications for technical aspects of the GCP as compared to what it means
administratively for the various organizations involved.
Now I will focus on several elements of what the implications of being on the cutting edge might be for
the GCP.
Learning Organization
One of the key elements is for both USAID/GCP staff and Partners to get a much clearer idea (as some
are trying to do) about what it takes to be a learning organization. I suggest that this be the focus of a
discussion in the not too distant future. It does not necessarily require that actions come out of the
discussion. However, I do believe that having greater clarity about what being a learning organization is
and what it takes internally to be an effective one might lend greater understanding by all of what the
challenges are (e.g., kinds of technical assistance that might be helpful) and what GCP II can or cannot do
to promote “learning organization” capabilities (whether USAID provides resources to build those
capacities within the organizations themselves or not).
Formal or Informal Community of Practice
Other aspects of this that may be important for USAID/GCP staff and Partners to discuss are:
x What is a “community of practice?” (defined as a group of people “who share a concern, a set of
problems or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area
by interacting on an ongoing basis.” Wenger, Etienne et al. 2002. Cultivating Communities of
Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press).
x What are the many potential mechanisms for knowledge management?
x Whether USAID and Partners want to develop a more formal or informal structure in which a
GCP might establish itself as a community of practice that might flourish within the broader
conservation community.
Improved Tools for Analysis and Reporting
One Partner suggested that talking about tools for analyzing and reporting should be made a “major goal
and output of the next annual meeting.” I know that most organizations are looking for a “silver bullet”
and have found that none exists. However, there are many new tools that exist and others that are coming
on line that could make important contributions to keep GCP Partners on the cutting edge. I doubt that the
GCP would want to fund exploration of these tools, but I do encourage Partners to continue the search.
And, I want to emphasize my perspective that I hope others keep in mind. Most specifically, we should all
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
68 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
think not just about the tools but also the processes (especially decision processes) in which these tools
should serve as means, not ends.
Lessons Learned from GCP I
Many organizational lessons arose out of this evaluation. To a much lesser degree, technical lessons
learned arose through the Questionnaire and interviews, however, there are many details in the annexes
that might serve as the foundation for further exploration, discussion and development.
There remains a critical need to determine if a mechanism and funding exists for a symposium or series of
technical presentations (with briefing papers provided in advance drawing from materials already
available or beginning to be more the focus of the semi-annual reports) and discussions over the rest of
the GCP I life cycle to systematically ask certain technical questions (e.g., What have we learned about
implementation at larger scales? What do we know and what do we need to know about how to ensure
internal financial sustainability once GCP funding ends?). If there is a question about the identity of the
GCP, this might answer that question and put it to rest. Alternatively, the intellectual residual of this kind
of technical interaction might enhance GCP II’s opportunity to move further out toward that “cutting
edge” that USAID now promotes in its rhetoric.
Difficulties with Meetings
I think that the debriefing of USAID/GCP staff on October 25 made it clear that action plans for the
structuring of new forms of meetings, information sharing and interacting are on the horizon. I also think
that issues related to meetings raised by a number of Partners is being addressed by USAID/GCP and that
there will be earlier development of meeting agendas, follow-up minutes, and follow-up actions on the
part of USAID and reminders for follow-up by Partners as well.
Mainly, I am hopeful that these important opportunities for interactions of Partners and USAID/GCP staff
reach a different level of substantive interaction. They are “high cost” efforts in terms of time out of
everyone’s day(s), so the return on the investment definitely needs to be increased with continuing input
from all involved.
Issues with Addressing Threats
This is an area of continuing focus for the program. Each Partner organization should constantly be
prepared to answer the questions: “What is your strategic approach?” What are your tactics at given
sites?” What progress are you making toward achievement of results? (Defined in USAID’s Automated
Directives System (ADS) as: “A significant, intended, and measurable change in the condition of a
customer, or a change in the host country, institutions, or other entities that will affect the customer
directly or indirectly. Results are typically broader than USAID-funded outputs and require support from
other donors and partners not within USAID’s control.”)
USAID/GCP staff should have the information constantly available and updated so that it can be
presented without delay. The overall questions USAID/GCP staff members need to be able to address are:
“What is the strategic approach of the Program?” “What is the budget and the associated return on the
investment?” and “What progress is it making toward achievement of results?”
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 69 69
Reporting Requirements
Reporting Requirements and Associated Responsiveness and Accountability
I guess that those who object to the reporting requirements as they are now cannot be consoled by the
erroneous thought that major changes are going to be made. I do recommend, however, that clear
guidelines for work plan development be provided, with criteria for evaluation clearly outlined for every
work planning process. It is important for USAID/GCP not to make assumptions that these are well
known and/or understood.
At the same time, USAID/GCP staff members need to hold Partners accountable for their reluctance or
unwillingness to address certain criteria. If any Partner consistently is unresponsive to Principles, such as
gender or sustainability, in their work plan development, GCP staff need to make decisions about whether
funding should be continued or not. If these are the core principles, held by the Program to be among the
necessary and sufficient to achieve conservation of biodiversity, then Partners being funded need to be
held accountable for making positive contributions (as appropriate) to achieving them. Admittedly, there
may be some difficult lines to make these kinds of determinations. There always are. For example, in
some areas, gender issues may be so intractable that a Partner may not be the best organization to work on
them, however, it may be important to direct the Partner to local NGOs who might have more success or
influence.
There simply has to be accountability and if the principles are the guidelines which all seem to espouse,
then these should be what Partners are held accountable to as the process moves forward.
Lack of Capacity in the Field
This is, as several pointed out in their comments section for the Recommendations Table, a field-level
issue. It is one of the many issues that might best be addressed in a field-level evaluation of the GCP
during GCP II. I strongly recommend that a field evaluation be conducted, focusing on selected sites, with
a strong comparative analytical approach.
One issue that Partners need to consider, vis-à-vis field capacity, is how they are interacting with their
associate NGOs in country. There is indication that some Partners do not work toward capacity building
nor toward “letting go,” i.e., weaning of their associates in ways that they can go out on their own and do
the work that they have become skilled at doing. This may be an isolated problem, but it is one that I have
heard spoken about before. I do not know what the reasons might be, however, certainly in the
development community, the idea is to build, cultivate, and promote capacity so that local individuals and
organizations can continue the work that they have been trained to do. If there is any case in the GCP that
this is not the course being pursued by a Partner, it is inappropriate and USAID/GCP should take steps to
discuss the issue with the organization and determine what appropriate steps can and should be taken to
remedy the situation.
Lack of Sustainability
This may have been one of the “weaknesses” in the evaluation that received the least attention from
respondents to the Questionnaire. I do not think it is an issue far from the thoughts of all, but it certainly
did not rise to the top of the list of potential weaknesses. However, it is my belief that if it does not go
higher to the top of priority issues of all within GCP, it will end up being a factor that could contribute to
a potential lost legacy of the Program.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
70 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
If what the GCP has been supporting is not sustainable, then the Program, in the long run will have lost a
great opportunity. Obviously, the relatively small amounts of funding provided under the GCP cannot be
considered substantial enough perhaps to contribute to long-term sustainability. However, the funding
does provide Partners with an opportunity to look at what it takes beyond GCP funding to achieve
sustainability and to put together a more strategic approach to sustainability. This should be one of the
real challenges of each Partner and of the group to come up with more strategic approaches at the sites
funded by the GCP to explore what “sustainability” might look like if you “stumbled over it” in the
field—the “AHA…this is sustainable because…”. It would also be important to determine thresholds
where support (financial, human, etc) is reached such that sustainability at the local level is possible
without these external resources. Obviously, the threshold(s) will be different at each site, but beginning
to identify indicators of what a threshold ideally might be given a set of conditions would move the
Partners further into the realm of focusing on sustainability, whether ecological, financial, social,
institutional or political.
Achieving Results
I have discussed the issue of differences between activities, outputs, and results in the Evaluation Report.
There are two issues related to results that I think should be emphasized here related to results, aside from
the fact that USAID/GCP staff and Partners probably need training on the concepts and how USAID uses
them and judges action by them.
Telling the GCP Story
The first issue emphasizes the value of being able to describe the GCP’s results. The challenge for staff is
to be able to “tell the GCP story”—what you are doing, what you and your associates and other
stakeholders are working to accomplish. If well constructed, the “results story” can serve as a powerful
tool for communications. In “telling your story,” you also help create a shared vision and shared meaning
that hopefully leads to the solution of a complex problem or the achievement of a higher goal. It should
also set bounds on and/or reframe what actions you need to take to achieve the vision of desired results. In
essence, the telling of the story should reshape the way people think about the GCP and biodiversity
conservation in a development organization. (Adapted from: Parker, J. Kathy. 1999. Some Tools for
Strategic Planning, Management, and Monitoring for Results.” Georgetown, DE: The Heron Group,
LLC).
Answering the “So What?” Question
The issue of achieving results also responds to the ever-present “So What?” question. Whatever the
perspective one brings to the GCP or any program, there is always the opportunity for someone to ask “So
What?” And, in fact, it is the question that leaders, Congresspersons, and others ask about whether the
results are at the appropriate level, whether the associated targets are ambitious enough to warrant the
expenditure of x million dollars, etc. The answer is not always easy, but be assured that the USAID/GCP
team has to respond to it, perhaps on a daily basis. It always will be asked, and must be answered in a
meaningful and satisfactory way. Everyone in the GCP wants to achieve results. Being able to articulate
what results are at the appropriate level and consistent with the way the ADS defines them is a challenge
to all. If there is any lack of clarity on this point puts the whole Program in jeopardy in this
Administration that clearly states that it wants “results”.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 71 71
Adaptive Management
This is a tough one to talk about in the abstract. It clearly is as much an art as it is a science. It combines
existing knowledge, new quantitative and qualitative data and information that need to be “translated”
into knowledge, experience, gut reactions, timing, and good luck. While often portrayed as the end step of
a learning process (i.e., the application of what has been learned), it is as much the beginning of a
continuing cycle within the dynamics of positive change that adaptive management strives to achieve.
A number of key elements need to be in place in order to have effective adaptive management. They
include, but are not limited to:
x A well-defined problem on which available resources can be focused;
x A well-developed process for collection of data and information and their transformation into
useable knowledge;
x Analytical tools that help shape prudent decisions;
x Experienced decision makers who can filter out the useful and the not-so-useful input into the
decision making process; and
x Tools, actions and other resources to bring to bear to solve the challenge that has arisen.
The best recommendations I can make on this point are for the GCP to work together to focus more
attention on adaptive management. Share examples of what you have done. Provide contextual
information that will ensure that key details about why the actions taken were relevant to the problem at
hand. [For more on the issue of contextualization, I highly recommend: George Honadle’s book How
Context Matters: Linking Environmental Policy to People and Place.] Share information about decision
support tools that you have used and/or are using. Talk about what has failed. Share references that might
be of general utility. Capture lessons as they are learned. Have a quarterly meeting focus on the issue in
the very near future.
One final aspect of this may be to “step outside the conservation box” and look at literature, like
Honadle’s, and talk to people who have not shaped literature reviews just for a conservation audience. I
acknowledge the value of the latter documents and recognize that they might be more readily available on
the bookshelves of everyone who participates in the GCP. However, I strongly encourage everyone to talk
to those who have strong development and humanitarian field experience, microenterprise expertise, etc.
who work inside USAID and in both the public and private sectors to get more insights.
Proposed Action Plan Topics for Strategic Concerns in GCP II
The following list arose out of my analysis of information from the evaluation process and discussions at
the October 23/24 meeting. The intent of the list, which I submitted, to USAID/GCP in an earlier version
is to focus on more strategic challenges for USAID/GCP staff to consider as they end phase I and enter
GCP II.
1. How to build role of the GCP in Agency—use of Partners for leveraging externally and with host
countries—this specifically deals with making the “flag” on the GCP “Flagship” bigger.
2. Promoting demand-driven learning—how to support some of the transaction costs, tracking whether
the benefits of the support are clear to the partners, identifying agreed upon “champions” and getting
feedback from others about whether they are on track
3. Developing criteria for funding different forms of cooperation, coordination, and collaboration that
ensure productive outputs and make contributions to results desired under GCP II.
Evaluation Report Notes for Reference
72 USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report
4. Working with Partners to look through the USAID lens (including the Principles), but also linking
with Governance, Health, Population and other sectors
5. How does USAID/GCP “tell its story” about in-situ conservation and development links? This has to
have a stronger focus on more direct indicators than are currently required
6. Process to define and track key direct indicator(s) that measure actual progress toward achievement of
success given the goal of GCP II
7. What does it mean for GCP to be “cutting edge”? How does GCP define and convey this part of its
“story” within USAID and how does it measure the impacts?
8. How to better measure program efficiency and effectiveness?
9. How to track progress toward sustainability? What thresholds tell us when we can “walk away” with
some degree of security that efforts at the site are integrated into attitudes and behaviors of local
people? What long- term commitments do external donors have that suggest that the progress will
continue? What signs of internal revenue flows exist that suggest potential for continued progress?
What signs of external revenue flows suggest “dynamic” stability of processes put in place?
10. Steps to ensure that justification is clear and correct that the links between learning and adaptive
management are leading to progress toward achievement of results? How to reconcile progress
toward of achievement of results with learning from failure?
11. How should the GCP promote knowledge management—what role should USAID play; what
processes should be promoted; what kinds of knowledge does USAID/GCP staff need to have to
ensure their continuing ability to respond, assess, and participate in the learning and knowledge
management processes as they unfold.
12. What is/are the threshold levels where continued funding can add value to Partner programs as
compared to when they should be “eased” off USAID funding for a given program such that the
funding can either be allocated to a different site or to another Partner or another kind of effort (e.g.,
learning).
Report submitted to the
United States Agency for International Development
USAID’s
Global
Conservation
Program (GCP I)
Evaluation
Report
Annexes
Under USAID Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00, Biodiversity and Sustainable
Forestry (BioFor) IQC,
Task Order No. 2, entitled Technical Assistance to the Global Bureau’s
Biodiversity Program
Submitted by:
J. Kathy Parker, Ph.D.
Consultant to
ARD–BioFor IQC Consortium
159 Bank Street, Suite 300
Burlington, Vermont 05401
telephone: (802) 658-3890 fax: (802) 658-4247
E-mail: ard@ardinc.com
December 2002
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report i
Glossary
AAM Analysis and Adaptive Management program
ABCG African Biodiversity Conservation Group
ADS Automated Directives System
AIDIS Asociacion Inter-Americano de Ingeneria Sanitario y Medio Ambiente
ANSAB Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources
ARD Associates in Rural Development, Inc.
ARPA Amazon Region Protected Areas
ASC Andean Southern Cone
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
BCN Biodiversity Conservation Network
BSP Biodiversity Support Program
CAR Central African Republic
CBFM Community-based forest management
CD Compact disc
CFA Conservation Finance Alliance
CI Conservation International
CIG Conservation Impact Grants program
CIB Congolaise Industrielle de Bois
CICOAM Centro Internacional de Capacitacion para Organizaciones Ambientalistas y de
Desarrollo
COP Conference of the Parties
CORAL Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes
CORE Communities Responding to the HIV/AIDS Epidemic program
CSC Conservation Service Center
CTO Cognizant Technical Officer
DAO Department of Administrative Orders
DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources
DFO District Forestry Officer
DOI Department of the Interior
EAI Enterprise for the Americas Initiative
EAPEI East Asian and Pacific Environmental Initiative
ECOFAC Regional EU conservation project in central Africa
EGAT Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade bureau
ERBC Ecoregion-Based Conservation
ENR Environment and Natural Resources
ENV Environment and Natural Resources
EU European Union
EWW EnterpriseWorks Worldwide
FADs Fish Aggregating Devices
FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal
FEPP Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progresso
FOS Foundation of Success
FSMS Forest stock monitoring system
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report ii
FUG Forest User Group
GCP Global Conservation Program
GEF Global Environmental Facility
GIS Geographic Information System
GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
HCP Heartland Conservation Planning
HJSS Himali Jadibuti Sarokar Smuha
ICDP Integrated Conservation and Development Project
IQC Indefinite Quantity Contract
ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization
JMCMPCI Jose Maria Cabiraoan Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc.
KP Kathy Parker
LCU Local Coordinating Unit
LAB Learning Across Borders
LGU Local Government Unit
LMMA Locally managed marine areas
LRFT Live reef fish trade
LWA Leader with Associates
LWF Laikipia Wildlife Farm
M&E Monitoring and evaluation
MFSC Ministry of Forests and Soil Conservation
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NA Not Applicable
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
NNN Nepal NTFP Network
NNNP Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (Congo)
NRM Natural resource management
NTFP Non-timber forest products
OPIC Office for Joint Implementation
P Partner
PCSD Palawan Council for Sustainable Development
PMP Performance Measurement Plan
PO People’s Organization
RFA Request for Applications
S Staff
SCP Site Conservation Planning
SCB Society for Conservation Biology
SERNAP National Protected Area Service
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report iii
SMBC Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor
SO Strategic objective
SOW Scope of work
SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community
TLCT Tanzania Land Conservation Trust
TNC The Nature Conservancy
USAID US Agency for International Development
USAID/W US Agency for International Development/Washington Office
USFS US Forest Service
VMPCI VIBANARA Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc.
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
WWF World Wildlife Fund
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 1
Introduction
These Annexes provide detailed documentation that served as the basis for writing the GCP I Evaluation
Report. They include the first level of synthesis for substantiating information in the report. Because of
the size of this part of the overall set of documentation (i.e., the standalone Executive Summary, the Final
Evaluation Report, and the Annexes) for this evaluation, the Annexes too are now fundamentally a
standalone document. That is to say, that the Evaluation Report provides a synthesis of the materials
found in these Annexes. The Annexes provide, in great part, both a synthesis as well as the first level of
aggregation of the data primarily from the Questionnaire used as one part of the evaluation methodology.
Additional details also appear as appropriate. The Annexes do not, however, contain the full evaluation
report, though readers can hopefully draw materials from this for further analysis, discussion, and a partial
historical record of GCP I based on responses by participants in the evaluation.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 2
Annex A: The Global Conservation Program: Background, Partners,
and Sites
History of GCP1
The Global Conservation Program (GCP) began in October 1999 with five-year Leader with Associates
(LWA) agreements with each of the six Partners. It was designed during the last few years of the
Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) with the intent that it would replace BSP as the Global Bureau’s
main biodiversity program. As the only global program within the US Agency for International
Development (USAID) that has as its explicit goal the conservation of biodiversity, it has an important
role within the Agency.
The goal of GCP is to support the best nongovernmental organization (NGO) projects to conserve
biodiversity without prescribing the approaches that NGOs use or the sites where they work. In addition,
as a centrally-funded program, it serves the needs of country Mission biodiversity programs. The funding
mechanism chosen for the GCP, LWA cooperative agreements, addressed both of these functions.
The GCP’s LWA cooperative agreements were some of the first awarded within USAID. The LWAs
were designed to allow bureaus and Missions to create cooperative agreements with an expedited
contracting process. Associate awards cover specific Mission or bureau activities within the scope of the
leader award. The GCP LWAs have served as examples to help set the policies and the mechanics of
managing LWAs within USAID.
As the GCP LWAs were being developed, an indefinite quantity contract (IQC) was also being created to
provide country Missions a mechanism to contract both short and long term technical assistance for
biodiversity and other natural resource management projects. With LWAs signed with six NGOs and
IQCs signed with two firms, it was felt that the different needs of country Missions were addressed. The
IQC would address Mission-driven contracting needs while LWAs would allow Missions to work in
partnership with NGOs with cost-sharing and longer term institutional commitment to the activity.
GCP was designed after extensive interviews and discussions with USAID, conservation NGOs, and
other conservationists. A review of the pertinent literature was also conducted and incorporated into the
request for applications [see the original RFA].
GCP built on lessons learned from BSP. However, although it was clear that BSP was very successful
[see discussion below], there were gaps for GCP to fill. First, the sustainability of BSP was questionable.
The three NGOs that formed the BSP Consortium, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), World Wildlife Fund
(WWF), and World Resources Institute, did not provide any matching funds. Once USAID’s funding
ended, there was no inherent institutional commitment to continuing programs and projects. Related to
this was the fact that because USAID was limited to working through the consortium, USAID did not
have its own relationships with conservation NGOs, and could not, therefore, easily share experiences
with the NGOs or learn from the work that NGOs were doing.
The third gap was that, under BSP, results were reported by the Missions where BSP activities took place.
The Environment Center, therefore, while providing the funds for BSP to exist, could not report results
gained from their funds. At the time of GCP’s creation, there was a new emphasis on results directly tied
to funds within USAID. Therefore, the new program needed to have more of an in situ emphasis so that
the Environment Center could show results for its funding.
 
1
 Drafted for the GCP I report by Teri Allendorf, December 2002.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 3
Finally, the agreement with BSP had to be amended every year to allow Missions’ participation. This was
administratively burdensome on USAID technical staff, and increasingly difficult to accomplish due to
new contracting restrictions on managing mission funds in Washington. It was becoming very difficult to
continue to support Mission programming needs.
In order to address gaps and build on lessons learned from BSP, GCP I was designed to:
x build partnerships between USAID and the conservation community,
x provide direct Environment Center support for in situ conservation,
x co-fund conservation activities with NGOs to increase sustainability of USAID funding, and
x provide an easy and efficient mechanism for USAID Missions to undertake projects with GCP
partners.
The Biodiversity Support Program
The Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) operated from 1988 to 2001 as a consortium of WWF, TNC,
and World Resources Institute, and was funded by USAID. Initially, BSP was established as a five-year
program with $12.8 million in funding through a cooperative agreement with USAID. Ultimately, BSP
received funding from three cooperative agreements with USAID as well as fund transfers from USAID
Missions and regional bureaus interested in participating in the program. BSP’s total budget reached $85
million in USAID funding.
BSP’s mission was to promote conservation of the world’s biological diversity, believing that a healthy
and secure living resource base is essential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. BSP
carried out hundreds of conservation activities in many countries, including 75% of the countries where
USAID works. BSP fulfilled its mission by supporting projects that combined conservation with social
and economic development. Specifically it undertook:
x Analysis of traditional and innovative approaches to biodiversity conservation to determine the most
effective conservation practices;
x Neutral facilitation of processes involving multiple stakeholders, sometimes with competing
interests, and catalyzing partnerships and activities;
x Capacity strengthening of individuals and organizations through enhancement of technical,
organizational, and strategic skills; and
x Technical assistance to partners, including USAID.
BSP was successful at many things, including:
x Working with many partners, including NGOs, governments, communities, donors, academics, and
the private sector, as a neutral facilitator.
x Documenting lessons about different approaches to biodiversity conservation and developing many
concepts and tools in BSP’s library of publications for conservation practitioners and decision makers
around the world.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 4
x Working closely with USAID to enhance its biodiversity programs, particularly within country
Missions.
Some BSP programs were particularly successful, including the Biodiversity Conservation Network
(BCN), the Analysis and Adaptive Management (AAM) program, and the Conservation Impact Grants
(CIG) program.
Biodiversity Conservation Network
BCN was initiated in 1992 with the goal of evaluating linkages between business, the environment, and
local communities by testing a key hypothesis: If enterprise-oriented approaches to community-based
conservation are going to be effective, they must have a direct link to biodiversity, generate benefits, and
involve a community of stakeholders.
Funded by the USAID-led United States-Asia Environmental Partnership (US-AEP), the program
provided implementation grants to 20 community-based projects in seven countries across Asia and the
Pacific. The program, which closed in September 1999, not only documented its conservation impact, but
also generated a significant amount of data, analysis, and experience surrounding the conditions under
which enterprise-based approaches are most effective for the conservation practitioner.
Analysis and Adaptive Management Program
The AAM program developed tools to do conservation better and to understand the conditions under
which certain conservation strategies are most effective. AAM’s work was guided by an analytical agenda
based on what BSP believed to be the five conditions necessary for success in conservation:
x Clarity of conservation goals and objectives;
x Equitable and effective social processes and alliances for conservation;
x Appropriate incentives for biodiversity valuation and conservation;
x International, national, and local policies supportive of conservation; and
x Sufficient awareness, knowledge, and capacity to conserve biodiversity.
Conservation Impact Grants Program
From 1991 to 1996, the BSP CIG program funded applied, field-based conservation research. The CIG
program was designed to have real site-based conservation impacts, build local capacity for conducting
basic conservation research, and share lessons learned across the globe in order to help others do
conservation better. BSP awarded small grants of up to $15,000 on a competitive basis to researchers in
Latin America and the Caribbean, Africa and Madagascar, Asia and the Pacific, and Eastern Europe. BSP
supported a wide spectrum of conservation research that included many academic fields such as biology,
ecology, economics, anthropology, sociology, and public health.
GCP Partners and Where They Work
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF). AWF’s Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes
Program works to conserve habitat and wildlife that extend across state, private, and community lands in
four key African landscapes. The Heartlands are: the Samburu Heartland in Kenya; the Masaai Steppe in
Tanzania; the Kilimanjaro Heartland in Kenya and Tanzania; and the Zambezi Heartland in Zambia,
Zimbabwe, and Mozambique.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 5
Conservation International (CI). CI promotes its Biodiversity and Corridor Planning and
Implementation Program in hotspots and tropical wilderness areas under GCP funding. They work in the
Sierra Madre mountain range in the northern region of Luzon, Philippines; the Cerrado/Pantanal region of
southwest Brazil; and the Kanuku Mountains and New River Triangle of southern Guyana.
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW). EWW has been working, in partnership with ANSAB (Asia
Network for Small Scale Bioresources), on its Enterprise Based Biodiversity Conservation Project in
western Nepal, focusing on conserving globally significant biodiversity by supporting community-based
enterprises linked to conservation. EWW also uses the same approach in its work in the Sierra Madre of
Luzon, Philippines.
The Nature Conservancy (TNC). TNC is working on site-based conservation efforts in Komodo
National Park in Indonesia, Kimbe Bay in Papua New Guinea, and the Pantanal/Chaco region in
Paraguay. TNC also is investing in innovative conservation financing mechanisms and policy initiatives
(most particularly related to water).
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). WCS has been implementing its Living Landscapes Program at
the landscape scale to conserve biological diversity, with primary focus on key wildlife species. WCS is
working in the Ndoki-Likouala, Republic of Congo; the Greater Yasuni-Napo, Ecuador; and northwestern
Bolivian Andes, Bolivia.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF). WWF’s approach is based on its Ecoregion-Based Conservation
Program. It focuses on large-scale conservation in the Terai Arc of Nepal and India; the Southwest
Amazon of Bolivia, Brazil, and Peru; the Bering Sea of Russia and the United States; the Lower Mekong
Forests of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia; the Atlantic Forest of Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil; and the
Sulu Sulwesi Seas in the Philippines, Malaysia, and Indonesia [adapted from : Brochure produced by the
Environment Information Clearinghouse].
Description of GCP Sites and Policy Initiatives
Through the Global Conservation Program, USAID supports four policy initiatives and in situ
conservation activities at 21 sites. All sites and activities began in October 1999 with a funding period of
five years except where noted. The six Partners, 21 sites, and four policy activities are:
African Wildlife Foundation (AWF)
x Amboseli-Kilimanjaro, East Africa, is one of the first bi-national conservation areas in East Africa.
Mt. Kilimanjaro, Tanzania, and Mt. Longido, Tanzania, are the focal points of a diverse terrain,
which includes the traditional pastureland of the Maasai people. A management plan is being
developed by local and national governments and AWF that includes a mixture of reserves,
community land, and private holdings, creating a large enough area for the survival of lions,
elephants, and other endangered wildlife.
x Laikipia-Samburu, Kenya, a semi-arid plateau in the shadow of Mt. Kenya, is another of the
targeted areas in Africa selected for exceptional natural value. The area is of largely agricultural
mixed land use (private farms, community lands, and public game reserves), and yet it is one of few
places in the country where wildlife populations are actually increasing. Laikipia-Samburu presents
a unique opportunity to test different land use, livestock, and wildlife management systems that
could be applied in much of central and eastern Africa, where large wild animals are found in areas
that are increasingly used for pasture and farming. AWF is working to address the root causes of
incompatible land use, such as land tenure, perceptions of wildlife, competition for water, and
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 6
economic incentives or disincentives for saving habitat.
x Mana Zambezi is a cross-country management and cooperation initiative in Southern Africa. It is
also an example of mixed land use (communal areas, private farms, and public protected areas) with
large animals, such as elephant and buffalo, sharing the same land as the herders and farmers. The
area is critical for wildlife as it is their only access to the Zambezi River. Activities to monitor and
manage the river ecosystem are coordinated in the three countries that share the watershed
(Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Mozambique).
x The Maasai Steppe, Tanzania, is a critically important area for the biodiversity represented in the
east African woodland savannah. The ecosystem encompasses 35,000 square kilometers lying east
and south of the Great Rift Valley escarpment. The area includes two national parks (Tarangire and
Lake Manyara) and a forest reserve. Lake Manyara is recognized internationally as a Biosphere
Reserve. Two other critical types of land holdings are community areas (mainly held by Maasai
pastoralists) and institutional holdings. AWF is implementing activities to protect the critical land
units that connect and sustain this conservation landscape. This includes focused attention to key
remaining corridors, dispersal areas, wetlands, and catchments. AWF is working with the newly
formed Tanzania Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) to place a key 44,000-acre land unit (the
Manyara Ranch) at the heart of this landscape under conservation management. (Funding began in
2001 for five years.)
Conservation International (CI)
x The Sierra Madre Corridor, northern Philippines, is of one of the last remaining forests in the
country. The highly endangered Philippine monkey-eating eagle and other rare species can still be
found in this isolated wilderness. Recent mining claims overlap claims of ancestral land, national
parks, and community forests. CI is working to resolve this conflict in the hopes that the forest and
the biological diversity that it holds will be saved.
x The rainforests of Guyana are still nearly intact, however they have little protection from threats on
the horizon. CI is designing a "biological corridor" that would link two proposed sites for
protection, the Kanuku Mountains and the New River Triangle. These two sites are still pristine
forest, supporting large populations of animals that have disappeared from the rest of Amazonia.
Within the corridor, only those economic activities that are compatible with the biological integrity
of the land will be permitted.
x The Cerrado and Pantanal are two unique ecosystems found in southern Brazil. The Cerrado is a
large tropical savanna, and the Pantanal is a 150,000 square mile wetland in the basin of the
Paraguay River. Both of these areas contain a great number of species found nowhere else. CI will
continue its work to build consensus for a biological corridor to connect two anchor sites, the
Natural Park of the Pantanal in the west and Emas National Park in the east.
Policy Activity:
x Enforcement Economics: CI is using an enforcement economics model to analyze enforcement of
protected area and NRM regulations in and around protected areas in three corridors (Selva Maya,
Mexico; Irian Jaya, Indonesia; and Northern Palawan, Philippines). These assessments will generate
recommendations for improving enforcement effectiveness in these corridors, focusing on low-cost
investments that yield the greatest improvements in enforcement. Improving enforcement
performance is a prerequisite for the use of tradable development rights, conservation performance
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 7
payments, environmental services payments, and other broad-scale economic instruments that can
secure an appropriate mosaic of protection and biodiversity-friendly land-uses at the corridor scale.
The results of these case studies will be synthesized into a report on enforcement that will be used
for global-level policy outreach on enforcement issues. (Funding began in 2001 for three years.)
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide (EWW)
x Eastern Himalaya, Nepal, home of some 7,000 species of plants, 40% of which are found nowhere
else. Many of these plants are important sources of medicine. This complex ecosystem is threatened
by over-harvesting of valuable plants, over-grazing, and the unregulated collection of wood and
fodder. EWW is developing economic solutions to ecosystem management concerns through
community-based forest management (CBFM) and the sustainable collection and processing of non￾timber forest products (NTFPs).
x Palawan and the Sierra Madre, Philippines, are priority regions for biodiversity conservation.
Although protected areas exist to conserve some two percent of the Philippines land surface,
additional biodiversity-rich areas are found throughout the archipelago in forests managed by local
communities. EWW is addressing the underlying threats to forests managed by communities, which
are largely caused by economic forces and lack of local capacity. (Funding began in 2001 for five
years.)
The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
x Komodo National Park, Indonesia, encompassing several volcanic islands and surrounding coral
reefs, is widely viewed as the flagship of Indonesia’s national park system. The global significance of
the site is recognized by the UN, which has designated it as both a World Heritage Site and Biosphere
Reserve. Famous as the only habitat of the Komodo dragon (the world’s largest lizard), the park also
contains an incredibly rich coral reef ecosystem. Komodo’s marine resources face a range of
imminent threats, especially from destructive fishing practices. Emerging decentralization has led to a
lack of clear authority for enforcement of NRM laws. TNC is working with an Indonesian national
conservation group to help develop a long term management plan and strengthen the ability of local
authorities to protect the park.
x Kimbe Bay, Papua New Guinea, like Komodo Island, falls within the band of highest coral and fish
species diversity in the world. A rapid ecological assessment of Kimbe Bay counted 860 species of
fish and 350 species of coral, four times as many as the Caribbean reefs. The Kimbe Bay reefs and
other marine ecosystems are owned by local clans who, for the most part, use traditional fishing
practices. However, recent developments such as rising population in the area and impacts from
agriculture could threaten the ecological integrity of the bay. TNC has taken the initiative to
implement a preventative conservation program that can be replicated in other parts of the Indo￾Pacific.
x The Chaco, a dry forest and savanna ecosystem in South America, is a vast wilderness home to many
species of wild cats and other wildlife. In its totality it covers nearly 400,000 square miles in
Paraguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The Chaco has historically been overlooked in conservation efforts,
despite the variety of species found only there. TNC is supporting cross-border activities to train
government officials in ecoregional planning, and activities in the Pantanal. In Paraguay, work is
underway to implement new finance mechanisms such as water fees for watershed protection services
and debt-for-nature swaps.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 8
Policy activities:
x Protecting Coral Reefs from Destructive Fishing Practices in the Pacific. TNC is working to reduce
the degradation of coral reef ecosystems and biodiversity in the Pacific region from the destructive
aspects of the live reef fish food trade (LRFT), especially through overexploitation, the targeting of
spawning aggregation sites, and the use of cyanide. TNC is working at the policy level and with local
communities in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. The key objectives of the program
focus on making decision makers and affected communities aware of the potential impacts of the
LRFT if it is not effectively controlled and managed, and to provide the necessary support to develop
and implement those required management controls.
x Innovative Financing and Policy Initiatives for Sustainable Watershed Financing through Water
Fees. The project’s long term goal is to promote the use of water fees as a financing mechanism for
supporting watershed sites of global biodiversity importance. To accomplish this, TNC initiated a
process for working with stakeholders to begin understanding the “value” of water. As evidenced in
the recent social unrest over water shortages and water pricing in Bolivia, China, and the Middle East,
it is imperative that users understand the true value of water as a first step to changing their usage or
increasing payment. From this initial understanding, the objective is to make the next link to have
water users understand the role they play in protecting the watershed and the biodiversity at the
source, including financial support. The project focuses on the implementation and operation of the
Quito water fund in Quito, Ecuador; identifying pilot sites to leverage the Quito experience; exploring
various financing mechanisms for sites and system-level conservation in watersheds; and increasing
the capacity of partners and stakeholders on watershed policy and management.
x Debt-for-Nature Swaps and Other Innovative Financing Initiatives. The goal of this program is to
improve the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of conservation financing mechanisms such as
debt-for-nature swaps and institutions—especially environmental funds—that channel resources to
conservation activities. This program includes activities to help execute debt-for-nature swaps in
selected countries. The initial focus was a collaboration among TNC, CI, and WWF on sovereign
debt owed by the Indonesian government and private sector debt owed by private Indonesian-based
companies. TNC and its partners will evaluate national environmental funds globally in order to
identify lessons learned and good practice from conservation trust funds throughout the world and
apply these to innovative financing and policy initiatives in Indonesia and other countries.
Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)
x Northwest Andes, Bolivia, is one of the most species-rich regions of the world. This area of
approximately 21,230 square miles of the Madidi watershed covers a great range of altitudes on the
eastern flanks of the Andes. At this site, endangered animals such as the spectacled bear, Andean
deer, and jaguar are threatened by unregulated logging, livestock grazing, and hunting. WCS is
working with local organizations to institute an ecoregional plan to save these species and the
ecosystems they inhabit.
x Ndoki-Likouala, Congo, is a landscape extending over approximately 19,300 square miles in the
northwest region of the Republic of Congo. The forest borders on Cameroon and the Central African
Republic. It is an extremely remote region, characterized by a high abundance of some of Africa’s
most endangered large mammals, such as elephants, lowland gorillas, and chimpanzees. Biodiversity
is threatened most importantly by overhunting for bushmeat, facilitated by road building and transport
provided by logging companies. WCS is working with the Ministry of Forest Economy, private sector
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 9
logging, safari hunting companies, and local communities to form and implement a management plan
for the area.
x Yasuni-Napo Forest, Ecuador, covers approximately 7,720 square miles of the Yasuni and Napo river
basins and is home to endangered species of the Amazon, such as the jaguar, South American tapir,
and the white-lipped peccary. These species are threatened most directly by overhunting, but
unrestricted oil and gas prospecting and clearing for agriculture also threaten the habitat. WCS is
working with local ethnic groups such as the Houarani, public and private sector stakeholders, and
local organizations to thoroughly assess and work to conserve the species diversity and reduce the
threats to the area.
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
x Forests of the Lower Mekong at the Mekong River, the major river system shared by Laos, Cambodia,
and Vietnam, is an area of astounding biodiversity. Scientists have discovered five “new” mammal
species in the Mekong forests in the 1990s. One of these animals is literally as large as an ox (the wild
Vu Quang ox) but had escaped the notice of science until 1992. The reporting of a previously
unknown species of mammal is an extremely rare event, evidence that the Mekong is poorly known to
science and holds untold biological riches. As enormous as the Mekong watershed is, it is under
serious threat. The near extinction of the river dolphin, for example, signals a dangerous
overexploitation of resources. WWF is working to link critical areas for conservation in the three
countries.
x The Bering Sea is one of the richest marine ecosystems in the world. It is the origin of half of the US
fish catch, generating US $1 billion every year. The sea also provides Russia with half or more of its
catch. Unfortunately, both global warming and overfishing are seriously reducing the sea’s
productivity and threatening its diversity. WWF is working to engage Russia in a joint assessment
and protection of this vital resource.
x The Southwest Amazon Ecological Corridor, containing a large section of the Amazon rainforest, is
home to highly endangered species such as the jaguar and giant river otter. A “biological corridor” of
protection in the Bolivian and Peruvian Amazon will link five national parks, protecting over 9,000
square miles of contiguous forest between the parks. WWF is implementing a wide range of activities
to secure the corridor.
x The Atlantic Rainforest, South America, once covered nearly 400,000 square miles in Brazil,
Paraguay, and Argentina. Centuries of clearing for farms and urban development have reduced the
area to less than seven percent of the original forest. WWF is working to consolidate a tri-national
forest corridor covering nearly 4,000 square miles in the Iguazu Falls. The corridor will unite several
of the largest remaining blocks of habitat in the ecoregion, maintaining essential forests and ensuring
the survival of many endangered species.
x The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea, Indonesia, is a hotspot for marine biodiversity for the western Pacific and the
world, harboring 450 species of coral (compared to only 60 in the entire Caribbean). Despite its great
biologic importance, the area is under enormous threat from destructive fishing practices and rampant
coastal development. WWF is implementing a large marine ecosystem program to protect critical
sites within the ecosystem and to promote more sustainable fishing practices.
x Eastern Himalaya, Nepal and India. The Terai Arc spans an area of approximately 49,500 square
kilometers, covering dense forests and tall grasslands along the southern slopes of the Himalayas. The
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 10
Terai is a top priority landscape for tigers and is also inhabited by the second largest one-horned
rhinoceros population in the world. These umbrella species face an array of threats, ranging from
genetic isolation to poaching and wildlife trade that will lead to irreversible losses if left unchecked.
The Terai region also provides the majority of the country’s demand for timber and other forest
products, and is the rice bowl of the country and one of the most fertile agricultural regions in Nepal.
The Terai Arc is a landscape vision of conservation and development that fully incorporates the
interests of people as well as wildlife on a sustainable and long-term scale. (Funding began in 2001
for five years.)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 11
Annex B: Scope of Work
Work Description
The consultant will undertake work in Washington, DC, and New York City, New York, and from her
home office of record for ARD, Inc. in support of the Core Task Order under the BioFor IQC, USAID
Contract No. LAG-I-00-99-00013-00 Task Order No. 2, entitled Technical Assistance to the Global
Bureau’s Biodiversity Program. The Scope of Work for this assignment is found below.
Scope of Work
Task 1—GCP I Evaluation
The purpose of this participatory evaluation is to help GCP Partners and USAID constructively reflect on
the program’s strengths, weaknesses, successes, and failures. The GCP cooperators include AWF, CI,
EWW, TNC, WCS, and WWF. These LWA cooperative agreements under the GCP are new mechanisms
designed to allow additional flexibility to facilitate the participation of USAID overseas missions.
Additional information on this program will be made available to the consultant during the execution of
this task order.
The intent of the exercise is to improve ongoing program implementation, cross-institutional
collaboration, and initial planning for GCP II. The evaluation is not intended to comprehensively evaluate
on-the-ground impact through primary data gathering. The program began in late 1999; however,
implementation was slow in the first year due to low budget levels. Specifically, the intent of the
evaluation is:
1. To identify and assess recommendations by participating organizations for improving the current
program;
x To assess how well GCP is addressing threats at sites;
x To assess how well the principles guiding the program (from the RFA) are integrated into the
program;
x To assess program management (between USAID and NGO partners and within NGO partner
institutions);
x To identify opportunities to improve learning in GCP, particularly across institutions;
x To document how partner approaches are evolving, and how GCP facilitates or contributes to this;
2. To serve as a platform for planning GCP II;
x To incorporate the recommendations identified for improvements in the current program and
translate these into recommendations for GCP II; and
x To identify gaps and opportunities in the GCP program as the primary biodiversity conservation
program for USAID’s central technical bureau.
Audience
The primary audience for this evaluation is GCP management, including all implementing partners and
USAID. Specifically, this includes AWF, CI, EWW, TNC, WCS, WWF, the USAID Biodiversity Team,
the USAID Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) Office Director, and USAID Missions where
GCP programs are managed. These are termed GCP Partners and USAID hereafter. A secondary audience
for the evaluation is the broader conservation and development community. This audience will be reached
through a written document that will be available to this broader audience on request.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 12
Approach, Timeline, and Level of Effort
Overall, the role of the consultant is to be one of facilitator and evaluator to the fullest extent possible.
Whereas USAID welcomes and values the insights of the consultant, the purpose of this evaluation is to
help GCP partners and USAID constructively reflect on the program’s strengths, weaknesses, successes,
and failures for the purpose of improving ongoing program implementation, cross-institutional
collaboration, and the planning of GCP II. That being said, USAID does not expect this to be a consensus
process. USAID further anticipates that the final report will accurately portray the diversity of views of
GCP Partners and USAID, and will reflect the opinions of its authors.
Three of six partners have expressed interest in conducting an internal institutional evaluation. The
consultant will meet with these partners to see if these concepts can be reconciled into the timeline and
approach presented, and to what extent these ideas can be integrated into this evaluation. If there is no
satisfactory method of integrating this approach into the evaluation to be performed under this scope of
work (SOW), these ideas should be captured and integrated into Task 2—GCP II planning phase.
The consultant will:
1. Meet (or work virtually or by phone) with partners and USAID to finalize the SOW (May),
2. Review selected relevant documentation (May-June),
3. Develop questionnaires and select methods for analysis of inputs into the evaluation (May-June),
4. Meet (or work virtually or by phone) with partners and USAID to explore answers to questions (June￾August),
5. Participate in a GCP round table (July),
6. Complete draft of evaluation (September),
7. Discuss evaluation at fall GCP forum (October), and
8. Finalize evaluation (October-November).
The maximum overall level of effort for this assignment is 80 workdays.
Roles, Responsibilities, and Personnel
The contractor will be responsible for consultations with GCP partners and USAID. Consultations in
Washington DC should be done face-to-face to the extent possible; other consultations may be done
virtually or by phone. USAID does not expect to be involved in the consultations, nor in the drafting of
the report; however staff will participate on initial input and review, and comment on outputs and draft
documents produced as final documentation. Partners will also participate in providing input into the
design and implementation of the process, reviewing draft documentation, and interviewing with the
evaluator. It may be appropriate, however, to organize one or more meetings for information gathering or
discussions among partners. ARD, Inc.’s discussions with USAID left this open to the SOW development
phase, and on-demand. We have an approved workshop facilitator and coordinator from the home office,
Rebecca Ignatoff, available to support these efforts.
The evaluation team will consist of:
x Senior-level Institutional Development Specialist (Kathy Parker),
x Home Office Senior-level Institutional Development Specialist (Allen Turner), and
x Mid-level Facilitation Specialist/Workshop Coordinator (Rebecca Ignatoff).
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 13
Illustrative Questions to be Addressed
1. To what degree is GCP addressing threats at sites?
x Are threats for each site clearly identified at the scale the program is implemented?
x Do work plans articulate what threats will be addressed and how?
x To what degree are work plans addressing key threats?
x Do reports document how well threats have been mitigated?
x Do other sources of information demonstrate that key threats are mitigated?
2. To what degree does the program address the principles guiding the program (from the Request for
Applications)?
x Does GCP maintain an appropriate balance between in situ and policy activities?
x Does GCP target high priority sites for biodiversity conservation?
x To what degree are threats addressed (covered above)?
x To what degree are programs adaptive? Do they monitor progress, generate timely information for
management, and adapt the program as needed?
x To what degree are programs, using extractive methods, monitoring for ecological, social, and
economic sustainability?
x To what degree are programs planning for long term financial sustainability?
x To what degree are programs incorporating equitable and active involvement of stakeholders in all
stages of program design and implementation? Was consideration given to the inclusion of
traditionally marginalized stakeholders, such as women and indigenous peoples? How many
projects include stakeholders as part of the conservation process and what type of participation (on
consultation to co-management spectrum) is used? Are these appropriate choices?
x To what degree are programs strengthening in-country capacity, both human and institutional? Is
the focus on capacity building sufficient and appropriate?
x To what degree are programs results-oriented? How should monitoring for the program as a whole
evolve? Is habitat quantity and/or quality monitored at sites?
x How does the program as a whole, each institution, and each site integrate analysis into the
program? How are lessons learned captured and communicated?
x To what degree do programs complement other conservation and development activities in country?
What mechanisms make this possible?
3. What are gaps and opportunities in the GCP program as the primary biodiversity conservation
program for USAID’s central technical bureau? This topic will largely be covered under Task III in
the SOW; however, the analysis of GCP should explicitly address the question. Are there functions of
USAID’s Biodiversity Support Program that should be integrated into GCP?
4. What recommendations from this evaluation should inform the planning for GCP II?
5. How effectively is the program managed? To what degree are the relationships across the
GCP/USAID partnership working well?
x Between USAID and USAID missions?
x USAID and NGO partners?
x NGO partners and USAID missions?
x NGO partners and other NGO partners?
6. How can learning in GCP improve, particularly across institutions?
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 14
7. How are partner approaches evolving, and how does GCP facilitate or contribute (or hinder) this?
Documents to be Reviewed
To be provided by USAID and identified during the SOW finalization stage, these are presumably work
plans, reports, and partner documentation as appropriate.
Proposed Evaluation Outline
The evaluation should be no longer than 50 pages in length and should include the following sections:
x Executive Summary/Key Findings,
x Introduction and Background,
x Program Overview – Program Strengths and Weaknesses,
x Assessment Results (multiple sections),
x Management Assessment,
x Recommendations for current GCP, and
x Recommendations for future GCP II.
Task 2—GCP II Planning
Fundamentally, this part of the effort is to be determined. At the moment, the theory is that the consultant
will have a limited role in the planning of GCP II. Clearly, the evaluation process will be designed to
ensure that it can provide useful information for GCP II. Also, the consultant will facilitate planning
discussions between USAID and GCP partners, and survey relevant parties if more information is needed.
These activities will be identified during the course of the evaluation and discussed among ARD, Inc.’s
evaluation team. Representative activities could include:
x Incorporating the recommendations identified for improvements in the current program and
translating these into recommendations for GCP II; and
x Identifying gaps/opportunities in the GCP program as the primary biodiversity conservation
program for USAID’s central technical bureau.
Reporting Responsibilities
The consultant will report directly to ARD, Inc.’s Senior Technical Advisor for the task order, Mr. Allen
Turner, on all technical matters, and to Mr. Ed Harvey on administrative matters.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 15
Annex C: Evaluation Approach and Questionnaire
Evaluation Approach
This was designed as a process evaluation as compared to an “impact” evaluation. Without funding to do
field assessments at this time, the evaluation had to reflect a process of obtaining information primarily
from the partners and looked more at processes (e.g., learning, inter-institutional relationships, evolving
approaches to addressing threats) than on actual impacts at this point.
The evaluator attempted to be as highly participatory as possible. Contacts with GCP staff, Partners, field
NGO staff (in one case), USAID Mission staff, and USAID bureau staff serve as the basis of input into
the analysis and reporting of this evaluation. Interviews, questionnaires, discussions, follow-up phone
communications, and visits to offices were all geared to obtain input. Sharing questions and answers
during the evaluation to increase communication on given issues became part of that participatory
process.
The evaluator worked with the GCP staff, Partners, USAID Missions, and bureaus to facilitate input into
a learning process approach to evaluating, self-assessing, and drawing conclusions.
This evaluation will focus, in part, on the degree(s) to which progress has been made and, in part, on the
reasons for progress and/or lost ground. One of the more difficult aspects of this evaluation was to try to
determine a mechanism that would provide some notions about how well things are going out in the field.
[NOTE: Many partners were reluctant to participate in a self-reflective effort though this was not intended
as an exercise to identify a lack of progress and therefore drop a program. Others participants were
rightfully concerned about the amount of time a detailed analysis might take away from staff efforts to be
“doing the work” rather than “writing about it.”] The purpose primarily was to have participants reflect on
where they are and perhaps why in the process of addressing threats.
In order to ensure the kind and level of confidentiality participants wish to maintain for any given
interaction, some Questionnaire responses will not be attributed in the text.
The threshold for beginning to draw out and synthesize lessons learned to date seems to have arrived from
the perspective of GCP staff and the Partners, perhaps due to their existing experience and current
situations. This evaluation attempts to identify what lessons might have been learned. But, in many cases,
the evaluation may serve to provide relevant questions that can be explored as GCP evolves in the coming
years.
This evaluation will provide a document to serve as a platform for the design of GCP II. While this
evaluation focused primarily on GCP I, the process itself began to draw all participants into the state of
beginning to look to a vision for the future and the kinds of activities and actions that might be most
important to achieving that vision. So, while many of the points that are included in the document focus
on GCP I, it becomes pretty obvious which of the many points raised have implications for the future.
These will obviously serve as the “springboard” for discussions about GCP II that will begin in October.
This evaluation will also provide an opportunity for the evaluator to offer reflections, observations, and
options during the course of the evaluation as well as in this report. The reflections of the evaluator will
clearly be identified (“Evaluator Perspective”) and can be used for what they are worth by GCP and its
Partners as they continue to work together to use a threats-based approach to conservation of biodiversity.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 16
Methods for evaluation
The following is an illustrative list of evaluation methods employed during the course of this effort. The
most appropriate method employed at any point in time depended on nature of the evaluative question and
the stage of process.
x Interviews (face-to-face and via phone and E-mail);
x Joint meetings with GCP partners as appropriate (e.g., July roundtable);
x Systematic Questionnaire—please note that the July 16 version of the Questionnaire was given to
all USAID/GCP and all Partners. Partners had certain questions to answer. GCP staff had other
questions to answer. The evaluator provided input based on document review to Partners for further
elaboration. Some questions in the Questionnaire were left as optional for response if a Partner or
staff member wanted to pursue a particular line of thought. The whole set provides (hopefully) a
vision of the kinds of questions that needed to be answered to respond to the various intents and
purposes of the evaluation;
x Development and application of “evaluation lite” (for USAID Mission personnel; a select set of
questions focused on specific field-related elements of the GCP to elicit more general observations
about the strengths and weaknesses of the program from a field perspective);
x Content analysis of documents—with focus on specific questions; and
x Synthesis and integration of input from all sources.
There are all levels of subjectivity in the evaluation process. In effect, this evaluation simply attempts to
make sense of what seem to be common trends in threats, challenges, etc., to provide USAID with a sense
of whether progress is being made toward achievement of results.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 17
GCP I Evaluation Questionnaire
Respondent’s Name ________________
Organization/Site ________________
Degree of Confidentiality Requested by Respondent:
x Full disclosure is okay: Yes/No
x Partial disclosure: in sections to remain confidential, please write in all CAPS
x Full confidentiality: Yes/No
NOTES:
1. Questions in bold require an answer for this evaluation.
2. Questions in italics are optional for responses but included for your thought and consideration.
3. Questions with [KP] refer to the role Kathy Parker will play in using documents you have produced to extract
information for this evaluation form. You will have an opportunity to review the responses provided by Parker
for your revision and inclusions in your final evaluation response.
4. Questions with [P] refer to those questions that Partner/Leaders will respond to directly.
5. Questions with [S] refer to those questions that GCP staff will respond to directly.
6. Many questions may seem like they could be lengthy, but please use your own judgment about providing
detailed answers or just bulleted comments or illustrative examples (but please note when your approach is to
merely use illustrative examples so that it is clear that it is not a definitive exposition on any given topic).
I. Threats Addressed
1. [KP] What is your approach to addressing threats?
2. [P] To what degree do you believe you have clearly identified threats for the sites under your
GCP-funded efforts at the “appropriate” scale? [Please note, this question does not ask for a
site-by-site rating. It asks for a cumulative score for all the sites under GCP-funding. You
may want/need to get field input about their response relative to their site, but the question
requests a cumulative score for your overall GCP program. It will be incumbent on you to
make what you believe is a fair assessment even if there is a wide range from site to site. If
you wish to include site-by-site ratings, feel free to do so. That level of information will be for
your learning as an organization and use with your GCP backstop if you are so inclined.]
Scale: High = 1
Moderate = 2
Low = 3
Not at all = 4
Not Applicable = 5
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
3. [P] To what degree do you believe your activities have made progress to date (i.e., given
where you would hope to be at this point in the program) toward addressing priority
threats? [Please select a list of no more than two of two highest priority threats at your each
of your GCP-funded sites. Rating as per #2.]
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 18
Site Priority Threat Scale of Progress
a.
b.
c.
4. [KP] What do you believe are the greatest challenges you face in addressing threats at each
site at this point in time?
Site Priority Threat Associated Challenges
a.
b.
c.
5. [P] What kind of analytical processes/tools have you used to identify direct priority threats (e.g.,
illegal logging) and systemic conditions (e.g., poverty, maldistribution of income). Analytical
processes and tools might include any of a range of activities including stakeholder consultations,
conflict resolution efforts, law enforcement, market constraints assessment, public awareness and
input) have you used to identify threats at each of your sites? If “not applicable” is an
appropriate response, please so indicate with “NA.”
Site Analytical Tools/Processes Priority Threat Conditions
a.
b.
c.
6. [P] What mechanisms have you employed to ensure that your site threats analysis has been
rigorous?
7. [P] What have you learned about the threats-based approach that you want to convey to
USAID, based on your program and site-level experience to date?
8. [P] How do you define “large scale” (or your variation on the theme) at which you work under
GCP-funding?
9. [P] What do you believe are the most challenging aspects of working at the “large scale” (as per
your definition)? And for each challenge listed, please include a brief description of “why” you
consider it to be a challenge.
Challenge Why 
a.
b.
c.
10. [P] What do you believe are the greatest benefits of working at the “large scale” (as per your
definition)? And for each benefit listed, please include a brief description of “why” you consider
it to be a benefit.
Benefit Why 
a.
b.
c.
11. [P] To what degree do you believe you have worked with the traditionally marginalized
people at the sites under your program with GCP funding to identify the linkages between
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 19
priority threats and activities? [Please note that an overall rating is requested here, not site￾by-site. Rating as per # 2.]
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
12. [P] What are the most effective approaches you have used to get input from traditionally
marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and activities to address
threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
13. [P] What have your greatest challenges been vis-à-vis getting input from traditionally
marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and activities to address
threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
14. [P] What have your greatest returns on investment at each site been vis-à-vis getting input
from traditionally marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and activities
to address threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
15. [P] In what ways do your programs complement other conservation and development activities in
the countries where you work under GCP funding?
16. [P] To what degree do you think you have made progress to date toward mitigating priority
threats under your GCP-funded program (i.e., compared to what you would have hoped to
achieved by now nearly three years into the program)? [Overall rating as per # 2 above.]
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
17. [P] Please provide some illustrative examples of how you have begun to successfully mitigate
key threats at sites. Please define/characterize the nature of the “success” relative to each
mitigation effort.
II. Principles Integrated
19. [P] To what degree did the overall set (i.e., not principle by individual principle, nor site by
individual site) of original request for application (RFA) principles have an effect on the design of
your program? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc,. of your
response.
20. [P] In what way(s) did the original RFA principles have an effect on the design of your site
activities? Please provide a general assessment response here.
21. [P] To what degree have the original RFA principles had an effect on the implementation of
your program? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response. THINK ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF WHETHER ANY OF
THE PRINCIPLES HAVE BEGUN TO ASSUME MORE IMPORTANCE (FOR ANY
REASON) AS THE PROGRAM HAS UNFOLDED SINCE ITS INCEPTION.
22. [P] What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links between
your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and strong in your planning?
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 20
23. [P] What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links between
your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and strong in implementation
24. [P] What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links are explicit,
clear, and strong in monitoring and evaluation (M&E)?
25. [P] What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links between
your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear and strong in your adaptive
management efforts?
26. [P] What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links between
your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear and strong in your reporting
efforts?
27. [P] Has there been a problem in the balance between in situ and policy activities (yes/no)? If
“yes,” in what ways do you consider this a problem for your program and site activities?
Please explain.
28. [P] To what degree do you believe your policy initiatives under GCP demonstrate
tangible conservation benefits to date? [Overall rating only as per #2. Also, please
provide illustrative examples if you wish.]
Policy Country Benefit 
a.
b.
c.
Please explain each rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response. For example, if you anticipated tangible results in four or five years, you may want
to provide that as context to the reason for you answer as you might assess it to date.
29. [KP] If your policy initiatives under GCP funding have demonstrated tangible
conservation benefits, please provide examples about both policies and benefits (or
provide references that document this for review).
30. [P] If tangible conservation benefits have accrued, to whom (e.g., stakeholders) or what (e.g.,
species, ecosystem) do they accrue?
31. [KP] What ways are you ensuring sustainable changes through your GCP-funded
program?
i. Ecological
ii. Technical
iii. Economic
iv. Social
v. Institutional
vi. Political
32. [KP] What are the indicators of internal financial sustainability (e.g., internal revenue flows)
that you are monitoring at the site level? How is each defined and what is its measure?
Please look at question 33 to differentiate between the concepts of “internal” and “external”
insofar as possible. These are two different approaches to financial sustainability that are
being looked at; each has its value.
Indicators Definition(s) Measure(s)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 21
33. [KP] What are the indicators of external financial stability (e.g., debt-for-nature swaps) that
you are monitoring at the site level? How is each defined and what is its measure?
Indicators Definition(s) Measure(s)
34. [P] To what degree do you believe you have been promoting participation of an
appropriate array of stakeholders in the implementation phase of your GCP-funded
program? [Overall rating as per #2 above.]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
35. [P] To what degree do you believe you are addressing gender issues in the implementation of
your GCP-funded program? [Overall rating as per #2]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response. Please provide context of your approach given that in some places it may be
extremely important to spend financial and human resources to address gender issues to meet
site objectives, while at other sites it may be less important given the nature of the issues,
populations involved, and site.
36. [P] What kinds of participatory practices/approaches do you find most appropriate in your
field efforts ranging from more passive input such as consultation to more active involvement
such as co-management? This is intended to identify any that might be generic to any given
point on a spectrum of participation as you define it. However, please provide specific
examples of what you consider to have been particularly “successful” practices (and please
explain how you define “success” for each example).
37. [KP] What kinds of site-level local capacity has already been developed through your
programs promoted under GCP?
38. [KP] Please identify any specific capacity building efforts that you specifically have made
available to traditionally marginalized groups. What results do you believe have occurred
that you can specifically relate to the capacity they developed?
39. [P] Please provide examples of how people and/or organizations are applying their new
capacity to address threats at the site level.
40. [P] What kind(s) of results-oriented impacts have you made to date in the work you have
introduced through the GCP program?
41. [P] Provide some site-specific examples of what you consider to be success in your activities
with regard to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration (definitions included below). The
following set of characterizations outlines the various kinds and levels of interaction between
organizations and programs and helps differentiate the nature of the spectrum from lower
level interaction to higher level collaboration you may have achieved. [Please note that other
kinds of interactions probably do exist, including competition, however, use these three for
this effort.]
Coordination: Individuals or organizations doing similar or related kinds of work (e.g.,
studies) independently, but find it mutually advantageous to understand each others’
work while continuing to maintain independent individual efforts.
Cooperation: Willingness of the individuals and/or organizations concerned to plan a
rudimentary arrangement for working together for some mutual benefit.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 22
Collaboration: Two or more individuals or organizations working jointly to resolve a
common problem or objective with shared plan and implementation responsibilities.
III. Learning and Adaptive Management
42. [P] In what way(s) does your program encourage the integration of analysis into activities
and adaptive management at the site level?
43. [P] What are some of the key lessons your organization has learned about gathering internal
experience to contribute to understanding of lessons learned? What has resulted from
“capturing” these internal lessons?
44. [P] What ways are you, as an organization, exploring to improve your ability to “capture”
internal lessons?
45. [P] What ways have you used under GCP funding to access learning that has occurred
external to your organization?
46. [P] What are some of the most critical issues for which you believe you need to be accessing
external learning?
47. [P] In what way(s) do you think the lessons you are learning are being most effectively
disseminated internally?
48. [P] In what ways do you think the lessons you are learning are being most effectively
disseminated to your associate organizations (including NGOs, local governments, the
private sector, etc.)?
49. [P] In what ways do you think the lessons you are learning are being effectively disseminated
by USAID to the broader conservation community?
50. [P] Should USAID GCP be promoting more synthesis of lessons learned?
51. [P] Should USAID GCP be promoting broader dissemination of lessons learned through the
Program?
52. [P] What mechanisms/tools/approaches are you using to draw conclusions or lessons from
the monitoring information you have obtained?
53. [P] What are the key constraints you confront when you try to draw conclusions?
54. [P] Is habitat quantity measured at all your sites (yes/no)? Which sites? If not, why not?
55. [P] Is habitat quality measured at all your sites (yes/no)? Which sites? If not, why not?
56. [P] If you are using extractive methods as part of your activities to conserve biodiversity, how
are you monitoring ecological, social, economic, and sustainability issues? With what
results?
57. [P] What conditions/factors do you believe need to be in place to have an effective
adaptive management approach?
58. [P] What are your greatest challenges vis-à-vis instituting and maintaining an adaptive
management approach? Please provide site-specific examples, as appropriate, to
explain.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 23
IV. Inter-Institutional Relationships
59. [P/S] To what degree do you believe the USAID GCP and Partner relationship at the
Washington level is working well? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
60. [P/S] What improvement(s) do you believe would make the relationship between USAID and
Partners better? Why? [Bulleted responses will suffice.]
61. [P/S] To what degree do you believe your relationship(s) with USAID missions is/are
working well? Please list country and then scale. [Rating as per #2.]
Country Scale 
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
62. [P/S] What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with the USAID
Missions in the countries where you work with GCP funding better? Why? [Bulleted
responses will suffice.]
63. [P] To what degree do you believe your relationship with local stakeholders at GCP-funded sites
is working well?
64. [P] What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with your local
stakeholders better? Why?
65. [P] What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with your colleague
GCP Leader/Partners better? Why? [Bulleted responses will suffice.]
66. [P/S] Has the issue of communications hindered the relationship between Partner and
USAID GCP in any way (yes/no)? Please explain with illustrative examples only.
67. [P/S] Have good communications helped the relationship between you and USAID GCP in
any way (yes/no)? Please explain with illustrative examples only.
68. [P/S] In what ways might the following means of communications between Partners and
USAID/GCP be improved? [Bulleted responses will suffice for those where you have
something on which to comment. For others, just leave unanswered.]
a. Work plans
b. Semiannual reports
c. Quarterly meetings
d. Annual meetings
e. Performance Monitoring Forms
f. ________________
V. USAID and Partner Program Management
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 24
69. [P] To what degree do you believe USAID GCP Program Management is responsive to
document review and comment processes? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
70. [P/S] To what degree do you believe the work plan process is a productive exercise between
USAID/GCP and partner organization? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your
response.
71. [P/S] To what degree do you believe your program has been accountable for effective program
management under GCP funding to date? [Rating as per #2.]
Please explain rating if you feel it contributes to context, understanding, etc., of your response.
72. [P/S] In what ways is USAID/GCP program management most effective in interacting with
LWA partners based in Washington?
a. Planning
b. Policy development
c. Other _________________
73. [P/S] In what ways do you believe USAID GCP Program management is constraining
partner efforts? Please provide illustrative examples.
74. [P/S] In what ways, if any, does USAID/GCP program management seem resistant to
change? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
75. [P/S] How would you characterize the nature of the relationship between your organization
and USAID GCP Program management? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
76. [P/S] In what ways, if any, does (your) partner program management seem resistant to
change? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
77. [P/S] When USAID provides input on your work plan, is it useful? If not, why not?
[Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
78. [P/S] When USAID provides feedback on your semiannual reports, is it useful? If not, why
not? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
VI. GCP I Potentials
79. [P/S] What are the fundamental strengths of the overall GCP at this point in time?
80. [P/S] What do you believe the fundamental weaknesses of the GCP are at this point?
81. [S] What are the gaps in the GCP, based on your experience, as the primary biodiversity conservation
program for USAID’s central technical bureau? How might these gaps best be filled? By whom?
82. [S] What are opportunities might the GCP take advantage of at this point in time, based on your
experience? How might these opportunities be realized? By whom?
83. [P/S] Do you believe USAID’s GCP has made a contribution to the conservation of biodiversity? Why?
Why not?
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 25
84. [S] Were requests for certain GCP services lower than anticipated? If so, which ones?
85. [S] At the country level, is there a need for GCP to educate Missions more about any currently under￾requested services?
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 26
Annex D: Analysis of Responses to Questionnaire
I. Threats Addressed (Questions #1-17; #18 omitted)
1. What is your approach to addressing threats?
Analysis: The approaches, as articulated by the Partners, speak for themselves. Each brings something
unique. Perhaps the area of potentially most interest for GCP I is the evolution of the approaches since
1999.
Selected lessons related to the evolution of Partner approaches to addressing threats:
x AWF found that it was possible to incorporate and adapt conservation planning tools being used by
another Partner (TNC) to serve its needs better in the field. They have also re-injected a stronger
integration of biophysical with socioeconomic issues over time.
x EWW has used substantially the same approach it had refined through its work under BCN and
Ford Foundation funding. However, as the organization learns from application of its process, it
takes that learning to its other sites.
x TNC fundamentally has the same approach that it has had since the mid- to late 1990s. However,
under GCP I, TNC has had a more rigorous application of this approach.
x WCS has developed the Living Landscapes Program and designed and launched their Landscape
Species Approach to site-based planning and implementation. Within the program, WCS has
developed much more robust conceptual models for testing, stronger monitoring, and more adaptive
management.
x WWF has used fundamentally the same approach and tools, however, GCP funded activities that
have allowed WWF to test the approach and tools at more sites. WWF believes that it is more
humble about some things, but it is also more confident about others.
Evaluator Perspective: The diversity of Partners and their approaches is one of the strengths of GCP.
Their individual, potential in situ conservation may be high over time. This diversity and potential should
not be diminished. However, there is also a potential weakness if the individual contributions do not add
up to something greater than the sum of their parts. It is not clear in the GCP I RFA whether a “collective
contribution” was high on the list of priorities among the Principles. The only mention of it was the
penultimate principle in the RFA: “Programs should complement other conservation and
development activities. Where appropriate, applications should indicate if there are other relevant
conservation and development efforts. Clearly, this is not required in areas where there are no relevant
efforts, or if existing efforts are ineffective or ill conceived. In particular, applications should indicate,
briefly, how they will complement activities of USAID, other donors, host-country governments, the
private sector, and other institutions.”
Examples of Partner answers are categorized as follows:
AWF: Heartlands Program
AWF is “developing strategies and making commitments to the long term application of innovative
methodologies to specific, working African landscapes where actions can be coordinated to favor the long
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 27
term survival of their wildlife resources.” They work with both ecological and social integrity and operate
at a landscape scale. AWF believes that “conservation landscapes… are intended to be flexible and
adaptable, functioning on the ground, able to address threats as they arise with appropriate incentives and
policy interventions.” Since 1999, GCP has allowed AWF the opportunity to implement with adaptations
the TNC planning process. They now have what is called the Heartlands Conservation Planning. Using
this iterative process, they think about targets, then threats, then how to measure. For AWF there also has
been an evolution of their approach over time in terms of reinjecting socioeconomic considerations along
with biophysical.
CI: Biodiversity Corridors
According to CI, threats are categorized as follows:
x Biological,
x Social,
x Economic (“forces and incentives that play a decisive role in driving land use and infrastructure
development at the corridor level”), and
x Legal Assessment (e.g. property rights, land tenure, jurisdictional conflicts).
Examples of threats faced by CI programs include the following in Brazil:
x Threat: Agribusiness production eliminating the Legal Reserves and Permanent Preserved
Area’s/Conservation System inside the proprieties—biodiversity loss, siltation, erosion, water
conservation and fire practices. Approach: Under Brazilian law, private landowners must preserve
at least 20% of pristine areas of Cerrado located inside their private properties, and this law is a key
issue for biodiversity conservation within the landscape figure. CI works to improve enforcement
capacity, economic alternatives and overall education.
x Threat: Law enforcement poorly applied in the Corridor areas. Approach: Provide training and
technical assistance for better planning and land management.
x Threat: Lack of environmental education in the project areas. Approach: Provide community and
municipal education to increase awareness and appreciation of value of conservation.
EWW: Community Enterprises
EWW’s “approach to biodiversity conservation focuses exclusively on creating market-based incentives
for local conservation activities through sustainable resource use and enterprise development. Enterprise
options that add value to the resources and change destructive practices while allowing communities to
earn a decent income from sustainable levels of materials harvested must be established. Community
enterprises are only effective at conserving biodiversity when they are directly linked to use of in situ
biodiversity, involve a community of stakeholders, generate short term and long term benefits, and are
linked to a property rights system.” EWW uses a “hotspots” approach to set conservation priorities.
The “monitoring and evaluation (M&E) methodology employed integrates biodiversity impact
monitoring with enterprise activities by incorporating the long term success of community enterprises into
M&E activities... The information is used by locals in developing resource management strategies, plans,
and activities that integrate conservation and sustainable use of natural resources into community forest
management plans.” Since 1999, there is no appreciable change in EWW’s approach except lessons
learned at each site are brought into thinking at other sites.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 28
TNC: Ecoregions with “Platform Sites”
“The mission of The Nature Conservancy is to preserve the plants, animals, and natural communities that
represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” The
approach, as outlined in “Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success (2000),” is:
“To fulfill its long term vision and achieve its goals, The Nature Conservancy employs an integrated
conservation process comprised of four fundamental components:
x Setting PRIORITIES through ecoregional planning;
x Developing STRATEGIES to conserve both single and multiple conservation areas;
x Taking direct conservation ACTION; and
x MEASURING conservation success.”
The process of developing strategies—site conservation planning or conservation area planning—is
driven by the identification of conservation targets and the threats that affect these targets. This is
sometimes known as the “5 S” approach: Systems (conservation targets), Stresses, Sources of Stress
(stresses + sources = threats), Strategies, and measures of Success that derive from the conservation
targets and threats. Recently, TNC has been adding two additional “S”s to this process: Stakeholders and
Sustainability.
Other aspects about the approach include a strong emphasis on:
x Partnering and capacity building at the local level. This has been part of TNC’s general approach for
years.
x Private approaches to land conservation have had some good successes through the years, especially
in parts of Latin America.
x Use a non-confrontational approach.
x Identify and work with a broad array of stakeholders.
A particular area of focus/comparative advantage is the development of long term financial mechanisms
and strategies at sites and across national protected area systems. Since 1999 TNC has used the
Conservation Approach (in general and as applied to GCP). This approach was in place beginning about
1997 and has gone through rethinking and rewording but remains fundamentally the same. Major
evolution since start of GCP or since 1999 relates not to the approach but to TNC’s application of the
approach. In fact, GCP has been very helpful at Kimbe Bay and in Paraguay in providing an opportunity
for TNC to carry out this approach at these sites.
WCS: Living Landscape Program
We begin with the understanding that you cannot address threats unless you are explicit about what is
threatened. Within the Living Landscapes Program, we view threats through the eyes of a complementary
suite of area-demanding wildlife species. This Landscape Species Approach allows us to explicitly
identify, prioritize, and address threats to specific species and their habitats that together serve as a
landscape scale conservation umbrella. Since 1999, the Living Landscapes Program has provided a very
robust model, rooted in reality. The model has evolved over last two years with needed wildlife as its
cornerstone, and evolving monitoring techniques and adaptive management.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 29
WWF: Ecoregion-Based Conservation Program
Ecoregion-Based Conservation is “a strategy targeted at the Global 200 which adopts a conservation
arsenal that includes science, economics, education, policy advocacy, capacity building, planning, and
community-based conservation. As ecoregions are biologically coherent, it is possible to set more
meaningful and strategic biodiversity conservation goals—focusing on the sites, populations, ecological
processes, and threats that are most important for the ecoregion as a whole, rather than for some political
unit within it. Operating at an ecoregional scale will help achieve conservation results that are
ecologically viable, conserving networks of key sites, migration corridors, and the ecological processes
that maintain healthy ecosystems.” WWF’s “ecoregion-based approach… engages a wide array of
stakeholders in an effort to develop long term, broad-scale conservation plans.”
“The key to ecoregion-based conservation is to establish goals and action plans through comprehensive
and rigorous integration of ecological and socioeconomic information and expertise. This large scale,
more integrated approach will enable WWF to better assess both the proximate and root causes of bio￾diversity loss and to design policy and management interventions at appropriate levels. Moreover, it
allows WWF… to better link the field with what needs to be done at national and international levels, to
better link the field with policy work, and to build new partnerships in carrying out this work.”
Since 1999, the approach has evolved in the sense that WWF is using most of the same tools, but new
testing at new sites because of GCP. WWF is more humble about some things. They are more confident
about other things. One example is the work in the southwest Amazon across two countries who were
able to work together to build a powerful vision.
2. To what degree do you believe you have clearly identified threats for the sites under
your GCP-funded efforts at the “appropriate” scale?
Scale: High = 1
Medium = 2
Low = 3
Very low = 4
Not Applicable = 5
Analysis: Organization self-ratings2
 were:
x Three organizations rated themselves overall at 1 (high);
x One organization rated an overall at 1.5 (moderately
high);
x One organization, having subdivided their sites, averaged 2 (moderate) based on one site
at a 1 and the other rated at 3;
and
x One organization with multiple ratings averaged 1.5-2.0 (moderate to moderately
high).
 
2 Each organization provided a different approach to answering this question. Some just gave an overall rating for their whole
portfolio of GCP-funded sites. Others provided a rating for each site. One individual, thinking through all the major
components for one site, gave a series of ratings for how the organization had addressed each threat.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 30
One organization (that rated itself [1] on all its sites) stated that as they conducted and completed their
planning and threats identification process, they had identified opportunities for engaging stakeholders in
potentially income-generating activities or other incentives for conservation.
Another organization (that rated itself [1] on all its sites) stated that it had initiated the majority of its
GCP-funded activities before they implemented their organizational planning process. Once this process
was complete, they adapted some of its existing activities to align with their planning process.
One organization stated that one lower rating was not due to the lack of a threats assessment having been
conducted. In fact, the assessment is complete but lacks widespread review to date.
One organization rated itself moderately high, in part, because the project did not fully articulate
inconsistent government support as a threat. However, at its other site, they learned from this experience.
One organization with a wide array of sites provided a diversity of perspectives on where they are at their
process of threats assessment. One individual gave a rating, but categorically stated that it was a rating of
(1) if you only look at biological threats assessment. Another indicated what may be a more common
problem than was identified by others, i.e., the enormous scale of the area made it difficult to assess
threats fully. Another focused on ratings for identifying individual threats and came out with a wide array
of how well (or not) the issues had been identified to date.
Evaluator Perspective: Some of the selected lessons learned related to these ratings may state the obvious,
but sometimes the obvious may have been taken for granted. Therefore, here is a short list of issues raised
by Partners that might be of value:
x Comprehensive and thoughtful processes to identify threats can also be used to identify
opportunities to work with stakeholders to mitigate and/or abate those threats.
x As existing or new planning and assessment processes are applied, there will likely need to be a
realignment of activities to abate newly or differently defined threats. This is part of what adaptive
management involves.
x Technical experts may have completed threats assessment, however, without widespread review, the
assessment process should be considered incomplete.
x Not including critical threats can undermine the overall value of a threats assessment. However,
learning from the process can be shared at other sites for more effective threats assessments.
x Threats assessments that include only biological threats should not be considered complete.
x The scale of the area where the assessment is undertaken affects the ability to ensure that an
assessment is full and complete.
x Disaggregation of threats and ratings by individual threats provides a useful tool for thinking about
the challenges at any given site.
Also, the issue of “threats” needs to be constantly revisited. No definition should necessarily be put in
concrete. However, more or improved communication about the nature of the threats identified should be
undertaken to provide more context and consideration of the actions proposed to address them.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 31
3. To what degree do you believe your activities have made progress to date (i.e., given
where you would hope to be at this point in the program) toward addressing priority
threats (please select a list of no more than 2 of 2 highest priority threats at your each of
your GCP-funded sites? [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis: Summary of organization self-ratings on degree of progress made to date toward addressing
priority threats listed by them:
x One organization listed four threats at its sites: all four rated at a 2 (moderate
progress);
x One organization listed six threats at its sites: three rated at 1 (high progress); three
rated at 2 (moderate progress);
x One organization listed four threats at its sites: three rated at 1 (high progress); one
rated at 2 (moderate progress);
x One organization listed six threats at its sites: one rated 1 (high progress); one rated 2
(moderate progress); four rated at 3 (low
progress); and
x One organization list five threats at its sites: two rated 1 (high progress); one rated
1.5 (moderate to high progress); one
rated 2 (moderate progress); one rated 2
with the specific notation that this was
only that high if one looked at the
biological aspects of dealing with the
threats; and
x One organization list five threats at its sites: one rated at 1 (high progress); four
rated at 2 (moderate progress).
The array of threats included but was not limited to:
x Land subdivision,
x Lack of awareness,
x Illegal logging,
x Unsustainable levels of hunting or fishing,
x Weak management capacity to difficult transboundary issues,
x Challenges from the government, and
x The size of the region where threats are being addressed.
Evaluator Perspective: Here again, we encounter a potential for further discussion about what a “threat”
is. Would the last one appropriately be considered a threat or a challenge as many Partners “defined” the
concept of challenges in response to the question in the next subsection?
Several issues of potential importance arose during the evaluation of the self-assessment process for this
question.
x The question about what constitutes a priority threat may appropriately be raised. Annex E outlines
a set of definitions of the concept of “threat” provided by many of the Partners during interviews.
Looking at those definitions and the illustrative ones above, it is probably safe to assume that all
these are threats. However, the issue of “priority” may only be one of the context in which the threat
occurs. For example, lack of awareness would likely be considered a general threat across all sites.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 32
However, in one case, it might assume a degree of priority that affects threat abatement efforts
inordinately. Therefore, understanding the context in which “threats” are addressed needs to be
clearly articulated to assure GCP that any given threat is indeed a priority for that context.
x During the course of this evaluation, the evaluator contacted selected USAID Mission staff to
discuss a range of issues related to the value of the LWA as a contractual mechanism to strengths
and weaknesses of GCP overall to the ratings of progress made by Partners at sites in their
countries. In order to maintain anonymity of the Partners in sections where the evaluator promised
that self-reflection answers would not be made public, it is now difficult to directly identify where
perceptions of USAID Mission personnel differ from that of the Partners.
x In order to maintain confidentiality as promised, rather than say that x Mission officer rated this
Partner at y level for z site, I shall only point to a few issues that Mission personnel raised that
might be of general value to reviewers of this document. While USAID/W is the primary point of
contact, it is important to remember that they are linked as one organization. Field officers may like
the mechanism and the funding being committed to conservation in the countries where they
currently work, but they may (and often do) see things differently than USAID central bureaus.
They have different pressures and priorities that they may want to try to meet through more
cooperation, coordination, and/or collaboration with Partners even though the funding for activities
does not come directly from them. Please note, the following comments do not pertain to all
Partners. In fact, only one Partner’s ratings were to some greater degree different than how Mission
personnel rated it. Several others were slightly different. And, for one the Mission rating was
exactly the same as that of the Partner. And, by the way, Mission personnel did pass along a few
compliments as well. Mission comments include:
a) Mission would like to be more collaborative, but the Partner seems to feel that there is some
sort of competitive relationship.
b) Mission believes that this Partner is the least cooperative and not focusing on key threats.
c) Mission believes the Partner is cordial but maintaining distance. USAID is not sure what the
problem is, since they are working on complementary issues in the same country under
different funding sources.
d) Mission is dissatisfied with the focus on “processes” and lack of completion of work
promised in the first year work plan.
e) Mission rates much lower because structures promised have not even gotten to the point of
starting to be formed.
f) One Mission rates all Partners at a high to moderate level, but one concern expressed about
two out of the three is the way they deal with their local NGO partners (e.g., relationships not
clearly defined, funding from big donors goes to Leader but rarely to local, relationship either
ends in tumultuous fashion or conversely they find it hard to let their local partners go it
alone).
Information about specific comments on specific Partner activities at given sites can be obtained as
follows (listed in priority order):
x All Partners might find it most constructive to contact the Missions in the countries where they
work to have an open and candid discussion about the Mission’s opinion about the work the Partner
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 33
is doing and why the Mission’s perceptions might be different than the Partner’s (e.g., different
criteria for rating, like lack of communication).
x Contact Kathy Parker for a brief overview of the comments made by Mission personnel.
Evaluator Perspective: Even though this is a central bureau program, Partners who do not have good
interactions, honest and open communication, and real performance may jeopardize their programs in
some way if they do not improve relationships with USAID Missions.
4. What do you believe are the greatest challenges you face in addressing threats at each
site at this point in time?
Analysis: The following pulls together the illustrative array of challenges outlined by Partners in the
Questionnaire. While not a complete list, it serves to show the nature and magnitude of challenges that
Partners face as they try to address threats at their sites at this point in time. These challenges undoubtedly
will be dynamic as threat abatement activities move forward.
While all these challenges are valid, it is difficult to identify more than a few sets of challenges that seem
to be of more slightly more consistent concern to Partners in response to this Questionnaire. Those that do
seem to be more of a focus are:
x Organizational capacity,
x Information,
x Law enforcement,
x Changing human behavior, and
x Political will.
One gap in the list of potential challenges listed is that of biophysical challenges. This particular set of
issues may not have shown up for any number of reasons, including how Partners define the term
“challenges,” their confidence in their ability to address biophysical threats, their current staff that may
tend to be stronger in many cases on the biophysical side, etc. Categorized examples of answers given
include:
Economic Challenges
x Funding activities;
a) Bringing on GCP resources when starting up new activities. We haven’t been able to leverage
as much funding as hoped. Frankly, anything less than about $1 million doesn’t really get
people beyond just hiring staff and providing supplies, and is difficult to really achieve
landscape-level impact. And, as a new program is introduced, there is always the concern
about raising local partner and stakeholder expectations (AWF);
b) Getting catalytic support to assist more communities to obtain resource tenure, develop
biodiversity management plans and establish new community enterprises (EWW);
c) Ensure funding diversification (EWW);
x Agribusiness interests in the Cerrado of Brasil (CI);
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 34
x Markets;
a) Creating market-based incentives for local conservation activities (i.e., linking enterprise
development to biodiversity conservation incentives (EWW);
b) Increasing value added for community resources (EWW);
c) Identifying and linking with existing markets for non-forest timber products (NTFPs) in
Nepal (EWW);
x Addressing the expansion of economic ad subsistence activities of community members (EWW);
x Financial instability (TNC).
Sociocultural Challenges
x Behaviors;
a) Illegal harvesting operations (EWW);
b) High levels of anthropogenic disturbance (EWW);
c) Introduce an alternative that complements the strict conservationist approach of traditional
environmental NGOs (EWW);
d) Overcome fear that tenure will be taken away in Philippines (EWW);
e) Need for local fishers to adapt to new fishing techniques/cultures in Komodo (TNC);
f) Due to the death of an elder, the Ruango community reopened four of the reefs under closure
last month. As with many of the local communities in this area, the custom is to harvest
resources from the reef to prepare a feast in honor of the elder. The team will visit the Ruango
community to facilitate the re-closure of the reefs.” (Semiannual report, July 2002) (TNC);
g) Unsustainable hunting and involvement of authorities in commercial trade in Congo (WCS);
x Environmental Education in the Cerrado of Brasil (CI);
x Public Awareness in the Cerrado of Brasil (CI);
x Working as an enterprise-focused organization within the conservation community (EWW).
Political Challenges
x Transboundary issues including how to deal with differential benefit flows and policies in different
countries. A major part of the challenge is identifying national leadership who knows how to deal
with conflict. (AWF);
x Political Will (WWF);
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 35
a) Gradual but slow willingness by government to give communities a meaningful size forest
user group (FUG) area to manage and control (EWW);
b) Address underlying threats to forest degradation, which are largely due to economic forces
and lack of local capacity, to implement community-based forest management (CBFM) in the
Philippines (EWW);
x Stakeholders;
a) Outsider influences, especially continued political support for illegal logging, and other
illegal means that undermine the intent of CBFM in Philippines (EWW);
b) Working with private landholders (TNC);
x Local control;
a) Ensuring that communities have economic control over resources (EWW);
b) Obtaining political support for community forestry (EWW);
x Security problems making it difficult to keep up biological monitoring as originally planned
(EWW);
x Government change;
a) Paraguay change in government (TNC);
b) Government instability in the Solomon Islands and reversals there on issuing permits for the
live reef fish trade (LRFT) (TNC).
Institutional Challenges
x Organizational Capacity;
a) Developing organizational capacity (EWW);
b) Organizational staff development with a clear vision in Kimbe Bay (TNC);
c) Recruiting staff that can handle the enterprise, biodiversity, and politic of the project in
Philippines (EWW);
d) Lacking organization and coordination to implement CBFM program in Philippines (EWW);
e) Lacking local groups and government officials to complete documents such as annual work
plan in Philippines (EWW);
x Institutional instability (TNC);
x Building constituency for collaborative management (WWF);
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 36
x Legal;
a) Law Enforcement (CI);
b) Vigilance and enforcement to keep fishing boats from outside the immediate area of the park
from entering to fish in Komodo (TNC);
c) Weak regulatory capacity in Bolivia and immigration/unclear tenure (WCS);
d) Park borders not enforced in Ecuador and unclear jurisdiction (WCS);
x Information;
a) Monitoring sustainable harvest levels in Nepal (EWW);
b) Making biodiversity monitoring sustainable in the long run and on a large scale (i.e., in over
30 communities across multiple regions of the Philippines and Nepal) (EWW);
c) Generating scientific information for sustainable management of biological resources
(EWW);
d) Lacking exchange among people at the site level to learn lessons from other places,
increasingly hampered with increased security problems in Nepal (EWW);
e) Availability of information/data on which to base strategies to address threats (TNC);
f) Trying to figure out whether to “cut bait” and run or give activities more time (WWF).
Evaluator Perspective: First, since the concept of what a “challenge” is turned out to be a fuzzy one, a
number of the Partners noted that to them challenges are things beyond their control. One USAID/GCP
staff member added a perspective that I quote here: “My interpretation is that there are two categories of
challenges, those challenges that make it difficult for the NGO within its institution to implement a threats
approach and those challenges that make it difficult to mitigate threats at a site.” Further exploration of
these perspectives would be interesting.
Second, one gap in the list of potential challenges listed is that of biophysical challenges. Several
reviewers asked for an explanation of the term. Potential biophysical challenges might be how to deal
with invasive species in a given area; how to determine the appropriate scale for a landscape or ecoregion
approach; how to address the impacts of natural disaster; how to deal with wildlife conflicts with humans;
how to deal with the nature of the ecosystem structure and functions in a given area; what mitigation
measures should we take for slope stabilization after road construction occurs; how do we deal with
pollution, etc. Pollution in this case might be the threat, but the challenge might be how to deal with it
most effectively and efficiently.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 37
5. What kind of analytical processes/tools have you used to identify direct priority threats
(e.g., illegal logging) and systemic conditions (e.g., poverty, maldistribution of income)?
Analytical processes and tools might include any of a range of activities including
stakeholder consultations, conflict resolution efforts, law enforcement, market
constraints assessment, public awareness and input.
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Sierra Madre Biodiversity Corridor (SMBC)/Philippines: Technical focus group meetings with
logging, mining, and upland agriculture;
x Experts and local communities, economic studies, consultations and analysis of secondary
information both spatial textual (CI);
x Within the framework of the Landscape Species Approach (conservation targeted at a
complementary suite of area-demanding wildlife species) we use one-on-one meetings with
stakeholders, Delphi-like experts groups, and multi-stakeholder workshops to identify threats and
organize them causally. The WCS field team then combines them within landscape-specific
conceptual models. At two sites we have done field surveys to compile local and partner
information on threats (both their geographic extent and significance). As background, and possibly
most importantly, we are constantly observing, questioning, and seeking information from a
diversity of sources to assess threats. (WCS)
6. What mechanisms have you employed to ensure that your site threats analysis has
been rigorous?
One example of a Partner answer follows:
We use two mechanisms to add rigor to our threats analyses:
x Our use of conceptual models helps not only identify threats but forces us to make explicit their
causal interdependence. The process of creating conceptual models helps to make the threats
analysis rigorous. In addition, peer and stakeholder review of the conceptual models allows for them
to be improved.
x The Landscape Species Approach selection process employs a formalized ranking system with five
criteria, one of which is an aggregate assessment of threat that combines measures of severity,
urgency, area affected, recovery time, and probability of occurrence. An illustrative example:
For additional information on the use of the Landscape Species Approach to rank threats please read
Bulletin 4 (http://wcs.org/media/general/Bulletin4.pdf) and Bulletin 5
(http://wcs.org/media/general/LLP.Bulletin5.English.pdf). (WCS)
Severity
(0-3)
Urgency
(0-3)
Area affected
(0-4)
Recovery time
(0-3)
Probability
(0-1) TOTAL
Habitat fragmentation 1 1 3 2 .25 2
Hunting for medicines 3 2 3 3 1 45
Hunting prey species 2 3 3 1 1 24
Total = (Urgency+Recovery)*Severity*Area*Probability
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 38
7. What have you learned about the threats-based approach that you want to convey to
USAID, based on your program and site-level experience to date?
Analysis: The set of “lessons learned” is particularly rich not only in terms of the lessons that can be
shared but also in their diversity of lessons. Perhaps it is the sharing that is most important, since analysis
of the diversity showed no sets that were mentioned multiple times. Categorized examples of Partner
answers follow:
Threats-Based Approach
x If used rigorously, we have found the threats-based approach helps to keep field staff, communities,
and other stakeholders (government, other NGOs, etc.) focused on the resource management aspects
of the work. Work with remote, poor communities can easily drift into unintended areas (education,
health, disaster relief, etc.) and become reactionary to the crisis of the month, rather than strategic
and proactive to counter conservation and economic security issues together. The clearly articulated
threats helped the field teams to be able to ask, “how will the planned activities this month help us
address the threats and produce the intended project results?” This was especially important to
organizations like EWW and Asociacion Inter-Americano de Ingeneria, Sanitario y Medio
Ambiente (ANSAB) that is seen more as a development organization and not a traditional
environmental organization. (EWW)
x We have also learned that one can identify with a high degree of confidence some top threats. In
many cases threats are well know and action and work on the threats will be a long term effort, but
the important thing is to start addressing the threat rather than overanalyzing it. (EWW)
x More field-level perspective is needed. (EWW)
x From Paraguay experience: While the threats-based approach is a useful way to address
conservation issues, to be able to adequately address threats, they often must be broken down into
subcategories. For example, deforestation in an area may be caused by any number of actions or any
number of stakeholders. So, the threat may be deforestation caused by clearing for pasture,
deforestation caused by clearing for agriculture, and deforestation for logging. The strategies to
address these various threats stemming from deforestation would be different based on the end
cause of the threat. (TNC)
x From Kimbe Bay: A threats-based approach needs to be undertaken in a holistic manner, looking at
both the marine and terrestrial systems. There needs to be an acknowledgement that to undertake
marine/coastal conservation we must look beyond the marine system and be prepared to implement
strategies that address terrestrial-based threats in order to be successful in marine conservation.
(TNC)
x An important lesson learned from the threats-based approach is that it encourages a focus on the
high threats and ignores the so-called low threats. But the low threats are sometimes also important
and deserve attention. (TNC)
x From Komodo: We found that assessment of causal linkages is useful to identify where and how
interventions can have an effect on the threat status, and where monitoring can be done. Assessment
of causal changes also helps to explain why we are doing what we are doing. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 39
x The threats-based approach is a good idea, one that we have been using informally for years. We are
now formalizing our analyses for use as appropriate at other WCS sites. It is also useful to consider
whether important factors are being ignored by a “threats-only” approach: factors that might instead
by identified more easily as opportunities. These can be as important as threats in some situations.
(WCS)
x It is helpful if threats are geographically identified and quantified in some meaningful manner.
(WCS)
x Approach needs to include threat identification, use of conceptual models, and use of monitoring
frameworks. (WCS)
x A lot depends on the people designing the effort.(WWF)
x A threats-based approach is very different than a needs-based approach. (WWF)
x In many ways, the threats-based approach is more subjective in terms of where you make a decision
to take action. (WWF)
x There has been gradual recognition in the conservation community that threats are on all different
scales (local, national, etc.) that are beyond the ecoregional. (WWF)
x There is a need to determine how big scale activities need to be (i.e., the scale of interaction and
impact in the Bering Sea is highly related to things happening in the European Union). (WWF)
Tools
x The HCP process is highly aligned with the threats-based approach and we have moved toward
working at the landscape-level while focusing on threats to conservation targets. As demonstrated in
annual GCP work plans and activity reports, we have moved toward implementing activities with
the main focus of addressing priority threats to conservation targets in our work sites. (AWF)
x There are good tools out there already for engaging in site planning that yields better threat
planning. AWF really does believe that there should be a set of “industry standards” possible to set
now. (AWF)
x It is critical to always go in and find out expectations, how much conservation is going on, and what
their own role might best be (e.g., facilitator, facilitator/implementer, capacity builder, etc.). (AWF)
x A systemic threat analysis before beginning the work is a very precious tool. (CI)
Stakeholders
x Great care needs to be used in the vocabulary surrounding the issue of “threats.” When the words
“human induced” threats are used, it sets up a potential dynamic between Partners and locals, and
even though the intent is not to alienate people, it does. Some adaptations need to be made, and they
are working on it in the Heartlands Program as their experience broadens and deepens. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 40
x GCP has allowed AWF to launch into Samburu and Zambezi. Now they are trying to figure out
adaptations. This is a particularly important aspect of the “scoping” phase during which they engage
stakeholders. (AWF)
x There is a consistent application of tools in the Heartlands Conservation Project (HCP), as the
programs within have similar elements across each. HCP has a well-defined approach, especially
regarding stakeholders. (AWF)
x The tools need to be refined for application in Africa. We’ve had different results in different
situations; some where people had the perception that AWF considered the people to be the
“threat.” (AWF)
x Common threats do exist (e.g., there is always human/wildlife conflict). (AWF)
x Total involvement of various stakeholders (to include other interest –private entities with direct
interest into the area (forest area) in threat analysis through consultations is a better way of
assessing the threats. This can be reinforced by economic studies where in the result of the
economic study is also presented to the public for validation and confirmation. (CI)
x Threats analysis is particularly useful in the context of getting various stakeholders to participate in
identifying them. As far as the “project” was concerned, we had identified priority threats and were
addressing them, but it is important to hear what other possible partners are thinking, as it may
provide clues about what is important to them and how to address the issue. (WCS)
x Another challenge is how to engage with the industrial sector (logging companies). (WCS)
Information
x We continue to grapple with where and when to get socioeconomic information built in along with
biophysical. The scoping phase helps do that. AWF has some good expertise. They are committed
to documenting, enterprise mapping, and socioeconomic analysis (not as a separate from the
biophysical elements). Some of this work has been paid for through GCP funding and some has
come from AWF organizational funding because of AWF’s commitment to integration. (AWF)
x Our experience says that the action research mode of project work is more practical and effective.
Since the communities are the ultimate stakeholders of the biodiversity, their participation right
from the analysis of the threats is very important. Before raising their awareness level and having
them on board for the project implementation, if one starts off with sophisticated analysis and fine
tuning from the very beginning, it will create a difficulty in securing community participation and
support in the project implementation because this appears to the communities as an academic
exercise rather than practical work. So, it’s better to start addressing the threats and its root causes
with a simple participatory analysis. When the project takes off, there should be a monitoring
system to track the project progress and ensure the project activities are gearing toward addressing
the threats. In the mean time, detailed analysis of cause and effect and fine-tuning of the analysis
can be done to pin down the project strategies and activities with the greater level of confidence.
(EWW)
x We make use of existing data and try to obtain more. (EWW)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 41
x A threats-based approach needs to be supported with data that is able to quantify the threats and the
impact on the target systems. (TNC)
x A project based on threats analysis must monitor threats over time to evaluate the effectiveness of
the project in preventing, controlling, and mitigating the threats. (WCS)
x Set a focus or priority setting in large, complex sites. We have developed a wildlife focus. (WCS)
Implementation/Management/Staffing
x Learned who some good intermediaries are in terms of enterprise development. (AWF)
x Continuous field staff that is involved in park management should stay updated on the occurrence of
new threats that were not anticipated. For instance, in Komodo we recently found that a market for
dried manta gills is developing. (TNC)
x There is a need for adequate funding to scale up. (AWF)
x There is a need for adaptive management. (WWF)
x There is a need to recognize the difference between addressable threats and those things around
which you have to just manage. (WWF)
Political/Institutional Issues Related to Threats
x Tremendous instability of economic situation at national levels (e.g., labor has recently become
cheaper in Argentina, therefore there is more illegal logging in Argentina than before). (WWF)
x Addressing institutional development—it can change from day to night, so change is a constant
factor of concern. (WWF)
Sustainability
x Moving beyond such an approach and being a mentor vs. an implementer ensures sustainability.
(CI)
Always Keep in Mind
x Destruction is going on as we speak. (EWW)
x Jump in and try to counter it. (EWW)
8. How do you define “large scale” (or your variation on the theme) at which you work
under GCP-funding?
Examples of Partner answers include:
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 42
x As AWF thought about where they would work, they considered several levels (i.e., continent-wide,
park level). They determined, however, that at the in-between point they could work at an
operational level with a more complex land matrix. They started out with the WWF ecoregions
concept. Then AWF added pragmatic criteria for operating/working landscapes. (AWF)
x They have tried to be realistic as they have approach enterprise efforts within this matrix because of
shifting land use and land tenures in Africa. They have to assess the extent to which people have a
vision of economic growth and wildlife conservation as compatible. (AWF)
x Large scale includes all relevant geographic areas beyond an immediate community. (CI)
x A scale large enough to ensure the long-term persistence of ecologically functioning populations of
area-demanding species such as elephants, white lipped peccaries, tapir, and bongo. Our large scale
sites normally range from 10,000-100,000 square kilometers. (WCS)
9. What do you believe are the most challenging aspects of working at the “large scale”
(as per your definition)? And for each challenge listed, please include a brief description
of “why” you consider it to be a challenge.
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Getting the stakeholders to work toward a common objective is a challenge because people and
institutions have different perspective and objectives. (CI)
x Knowing how large the conservation area needs to be is a challenge. When conservation lands are
too small, wildlife/human conflicts will increase and put wildlife species at risk. (WCS)
x Another challenge is reconciling disparate land uses and different scales of jurisdiction, power,
values, and management. As the area gets larger, so too does the number of land users and uses.
(WCS)
10. What do you believe are the greatest benefits of working at the “large scale” (as per
your definition)? And for each benefit listed, please include a brief description of “why”
you consider it to be a benefit.
x The greatest benefit of working large scale is saving more species because the approach is more
holistic, thus ensuring sustainability. (CI)
x It is a scale appropriate for area-demanding species. If we can conserve these species we will be
most likely to conserve a full complement of wildlife at densities sufficient to serve their ecological
functions. (WCS)
x Conservation at this scale is most likely to ensure long term conservation of wildlife, since there are
many uncertainties and change over time. Therefore, margins for error must be incorporated to
allow for seasonality, inter-year differences, long cycle and/or irregular disturbances, climate
change, changes in threats and pressures, etc. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 43
11. To what degree do you believe you have worked with the traditionally marginalized
people at the sites under your program with GCP funding to identify the linkages
between priority threats and activities? [Please note that an overall rating is requested
here, not site-by-site, as per # 2 above].
Analysis: Organization self ratings were:
x Three organizations rated themselves overall at 1 (high);
x One organization rated itself overall at 2 (moderate);
x One organization that subdivided sites, rated one at 1 (high) and one at 3
(low); and
x One organization that subdivided sites rated at two at 1 (high), two at 1.5
(moderate to high), and one at 2
(moderate).
Selected Lessons Learned:
x Marginalizing forces can include a wide array of actors, including but not limited to:
a) Governmental laws,
b) Civil conflict,
c) Outsiders (e.g., immigrants, private industry),
d) Society, and
e) The conservation community itself.
x We need input from the marginalized, but it is important to target the appropriate communities,
groups, etc.
x There may be a particularly important role for local NGOs to play in working with Partners to
address issues related to the marginalized.
x Marginalized people are often not the significant threat. Some Partners often work with them as part
of the solution to address other greater outside threats.
x Local people and communities frequently are heterogeneous in their interests and actions,
unorganized, live and work at a scale different from conservation needs, and they do not always
perceive commonality with or a need for a conservation threat approach.
Examples of Partner answers include:
x The government traditionally has marginalized communities included in the project, in terms of
resources they receive, their tenure status, and how they are allowed to use forest resources.
Marginalization has also occurred through civil conflicts for both sites. Each stage of the project
activities is done directly with the communities and in both cases it was consultation with the
marginalized groups that produced the priority threats that have gone into proposals and work plans.
The identified threats were then validated with biological, social, and political data.
x Most traditionally marginalized people live in such low densities and with such simple technology
that they are rarely the source of environmental degradation. More often, marginalized peoples are
further marginalized by immigrants and the practices of the private sector. In most cases, we have
found that the rights of marginalized peoples need to be protected from outsiders rather than the
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 44
environment protected from marginalized peoples, and it is to assist in the former that we often
engage when these rights are compatible with or beneficial to conservation objectives.
x We have found that one group that we have been working with is not traditionally marginalized by
society per se but they have been marginalized by the conservation community. We are beginning to
engage them in more constructive dialogue to work with together.
x Many of the priority threats that affect conservation targets are resultant from human activity, and
oftentimes from traditionally marginalized peoples and their subsistence lifestyles. Only through a
participatory conservation planning process, which includes inputs from traditionally marginalized
people, can we address priority threats at these sites.
x The poor population in the area is small. The most relevant community is about to be targeted. The
future work will support social biodiversity use since use of medicinal plants is a main livelihood
source.
x The plans developed during year one were largely based on scientific expertise. These served as
baseline documents for the project and helped establish conservation targets for these two
geographic areas. Since that time, more community-based work has been carried out to learn more
about people’s use of local natural resources, and to promote sustainable use concepts among them.
Specifically, local NGO partners have carried out socioeconomic studies that involved local and
indigenous populations at two different sites. These studies coordinate with USAID Mission funded
projects and also a Global Environmental Facility (GEF)-funded project.
12. What are the most effective approaches you have used to get input from
traditionally marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and
activities to address threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
Analysis: The following pulls together an illustrative array of effective approaches proposed by the
Partners. [NOTE: Not all Partners have used all of these approaches. However, the ones listed respond to
the question concerning the approaches they have individually found to be effective under a given set of
circumstances.] Again, it is not a complete list of effective approaches, however, it demonstrates the
range of activities that have proven successful from Partner perspectives to date. Partners can provide
more details on any given approach of particular interest. The approaches fall into the following
categories: The categorized examples of Partner approaches include:
Consultations and Participatory Activities
x Stakeholder consultations and participatory planning exercises. In developing the HCP process, we
have emphasized the importance of being participatory and inclusive with the stakeholders who
have an interest in conservation of resources in the areas where we work. In many of these
landscapes, local communities, who are made up marginalized subsistence pastoralists,
agriculturalists and small-scale farmers, depend on the same natural resource base as wildlife
(forage, woody vegetation, water). It is critically important that the human socioeconomic landscape
is taken into consideration at the earliest stages of HCP planning and implementing threat abatement
activities. An example of how the HCP process has engaged traditionally marginalized people can
be seen by our conservation planning in Zambezi Heartland. Members of local civil society were
invited to participate in this meeting, and one representative at this meeting was a highly respected
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 45
chieftianess from Zambia. As we begin to implement our HCP strategies, local communities
become our major customer and partner and become more engaged in the process. (AWF)
x Open-ended group discussions that are facilitated by a conservation/economic development
professional. For example, in the Philippines, a meeting was held with representatives from 26
community forest groups. There were a string of complaints on Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) issuing wood extraction permits to outsiders and their frustration in
getting DENR to honor the groups’ CBFM agreements. This meeting helped to articulate the threat
of inconsistent CBFM paperwork processing by DENR. Activities to address this threat are now
being approached at a provincial level, rather than each group approaching their local DENR
official one by one, a strategy that was having little effect and did not bring the problem to DENR
officials that have the power and inclination to address the issue province-wide (and eventually
nationwide). (EWW)
x Long conversations/semi-structured interviews with community residents in Paraguay so as to better
understand their situation and problems. (TNC)
x Community consultations and participation in Kimbe Bay. (TNC)
x Meet with marginalized people often and listen to them. (WCS)
x Participatory workshops. (WCS)
Participatory Appraisals and Studies
x In Nepal, under the community forestry mechanism, ANSAB follows an integrated approach to
make sure that the concerns of all the stakeholders are addressed and inputs from them are taken.
This approach includes individual household surveys, focus group discussions, participatory
resource inventory, socioeconomic surveys, participatory planning, etc. Household surveys are done
to get information and inputs from individual households. Focus group discussions are held to
gather inputs from interest groups, especially marginalized people. In participatory surveys and
planning, marginalized people’s inputs are systematically gathered and their concerns are given
much priority. (EWW)
x These conversations in Paraguay have been followed by participatory rural appraisal evaluations.
The objective of these evaluations is to derive consensus among residents regarding future
action/initiatives. (TNC)
x One-on-one discussions with village leaders in combination with frequent meetings with
conservation-minded villagers have been useful to gain insights on the socioeconomics of the
village. These socioeconomics are usually linked to resource use. Only after consulting with village
leaders could we effectively communicate with other members of the community on Komodo.
(TNC)
x Our main mechanisms in the Mekong are surveys in villages and talking with locals. (WWF)
Conservation Enterprise Development
x One way to engage traditionally marginalized peoples is to develop economic incentives for
conservation. Livelihoods of people that live in many wildlife areas in Africa are closely linked with
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 46
resource use that oftentimes comes into conflict with wildlife. Through developing enterprise
activities, local communities can benefit from tourism revenues and will have an incentive to
conserve wildlife and their habitat. (AWF)
x ANSAB experience and studies have identified that there are some sub-sectors that have potential to
benefit marginalized people more than any other sections of the society. Among those, NTFP is the
most important subsector to channel the benefits to the poorer section of the society; even the
landless can have access to these resources, ensuring social justice. Therefore, ANSAB has given
highest priority to the NTFP subsector while developing enterprises and income generating
activities. (EWW)
Natural Resource Management Planning
x We have engaged various partners, primarily local communities, in activities of natural resource
management (NRM) planning at our sites. We have used NRM planning to incorporate the needs
and aspirations of communities and to truly include them in conservation planning. Only when local
people understand the value of conservation to their own livelihoods will they be willing to
participate in conservation initiatives. (AWF)
x Participatory gap analysis and integrated planning have been effective in Brazil. (CI)
Involvement
x We are involving the local communities in the Philippines at all levels of project implementation
(from planning to the designing of strategy and framework). (CI)
x Community leaders in Paraguay have been involved in these discussions and evaluations in an
attempt to involve them in any action to be taken. (TNC)
x We work via their appointed or elected representatives, including them in workshops with other
stakeholders on water issues. The key is that all stakeholders are involved. (TNC)
x Gender has been mainstreamed in Nepal. (WWF)
Organizations/Alliances
x ANSAB’s work in helping to form community forest user groups (FUG) and then federating the
FUGs has proved very effective in getting input from marginalized people and implementing
activities that address the threats. The FUG structure allows the community to directly focus on
their resource management issues while taking into account economic and subsistence activities.
(EWW)
x WWF, working with its vision process, has played a role in bringing about local partnerships,
alliances, and memorandum of understanding (MOUs). (WWF)
Communications
x We present results of analysis at the community level using spatial information (maps) and showing
the extent and the potential effect of the threat. (CI)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 47
x Encouraging transparency is another effective approach. (CI)
x Site visits help to have a direct dialogue with the people. (CI)
Environmental Education
x The Living Planet Club has worked well—it teaches children about environment. A Young
Scientists Program is also important because it takes traditional knowledge seriously in the Bering
Sea area. (WWF)
x We use community awareness and personal interactions.(TNC)
Actions
x The best thing about the project is that some people have been given land in Nepal. (WWF)
x WWF has really pushed to get forest plans done. (WWF)
13. What have your greatest challenges been vis-à-vis getting input from
traditionally marginalized people to identify the linkages between threats and
activities to address threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
Analysis: The following pulls together an illustrative array of challenges outlined by the Partners.
Again, it is not a complete list, however, it demonstrates the range of challenges that Partners have
encountered to date. Partners can provide more details on any given challenge of particular interest
and how they may have worked to overcome the challenge beyond their illustrative answer here. The
categorized Partner answers include:
Nature of Working with Marginalized People
x The Heartlands Conservation Program (HCP) process identifies priority threats that oftentimes
emanate from human activities, so local communities are put on the defensive. The early stages of
HCP planning need to provide opportunities to look at potential remedies in the presence of these
resources for improving use, access, and and economic returns from marginalized people. (AWF)
x We are challenged to get marginalized people’s full cooperation, especially when they are involved
or being used by interest groups in destructive activities such as illegal logging, hunting, and mining
in the Philippines. (CI)
x Another challenge is working in remote areas where the marginalized people live. (CI)
x Many rural communities in Paraguay are not organized, which results in infighting among residents
and various interest groups. (TNC)
x Being careful to listen to them is a major challenge in the effort to work with marginalized people.
(WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 48
x Traditionally marginalized people generally have problems in characterizing and quantifying threats
in a way that facilitates comparison and analysis. (WCS)
x We need to recognize economic conditions of locals (i.e., many are dying of hunger). (WWF)
Politics/Power Elites
x Local politics in Nepal and heavy handed. Sometimes even corrupt community members put
pressure on other community members to keep quiet about some threats and/or discourage open and
transparent participation of all community members. For example in the Philippines, CBFM groups
have been pressured by a local politician to let illegal logging take place or a CBFM board member
may refuse to explain the finances of the group and drain loan capital that was intended to go to
enterprise development and forest guarding. The GCP has provided an outlet for the marginalized
people to voice complaint about such actions, but it also typically means a setback for the group as
the local politics work themselves out. (EWW)
x Because of their socioeconomic condition in Nepal, including their educational level, community
traditions, and the social system, marginalized people are dominated and suppressed by elites.
Empowering them to raise their voice and ensuring their full participation in social gathering is the
greatest challenge in getting the input from them. To overcome this challenge, ANSAB holds
household surveys and focus group discussions with interest groups so that they can freely express
their concerns, opinions, and inputs. In participatory planning as well, their concerns are raised and
given priority. (EWW)
x Challenges include a loss of traditional leadership within communities in Kimbe Bay, and a lack of
community and/or government support. (TNC)
x One great challenge for us on Komodo is explaining that stocks are actually overfished to local
policy makers, as they are still getting false information from the central government that there still
is a huge untapped potential in Indonesian waters. (TNC)
x They are not accustomed to having a voice, and are sometimes represented by individuals (often
outsiders) who serve their own interests or the interests of a minority faction within the group.
(WCS)
x It is necessary to work through appropriate authorities in the Mekong to make any progress. (WWF)
Awareness
x Making the local people in the Philippines understand the impact that our work has on their lives is
a challenge. (CI)
x Many communities in Paraguay lack access to basic services (health and education) and as a
consequence, they have no understanding of the importance of protecting their natural resources and
maintaining an ecological balance. (TNC)
x People’s perception and lack of understanding of the environment in Kimbe Bay is a challenge.
(TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 49
x Traditionally marginalized people often have a better understanding of the linkages between threats
and activities than others. They often have a greater understanding of how an ecosystem works than
urban dwellers or stakeholders. The problem is not in the identifying, it is in how they can afford to
not continue their own threatening activities. That is why in the water valuation approach we look
for ways to provide the financial incentives necessary for these people to change their use of land
and water. (TNC)
x Lots of outreach is challenging. (WWF)
x We have problems making sure staff in the Bering Sea effort are on same wave length. (WWF)
Attitudes of Local People and Professionals
x Marginalized peoples, like all cultures, are not homogeneous. Even if they are a community of place
(i.e., they live together) they may not be a community of practice (i.e., different families do different
things to make a living), and they are rarely a community of interest (i.e., their desires and values
vary across households or individuals). Believing that all households, men and, women in a
community of marginalized peoples have the same needs and wants is the most common source of
failure working with marginalized peoples. (WCS)
x Marginalized peoples by definition discount the future and have a short planning horizon.
Moreover, their traditional practices are seldom conservative. These two issues combined mean that
marginalized people are seldom focused on biodiversity conservation unless it directly impacts their
livelihood security in the immediate term. (WCS)
x Having the unique local NGO in Bolivia to work with people was very helpful. (WWF)
x Real sensitivity among many at national level about working with international organizations
working with minorities. (WWF)
Costs for Conservationists and Marginalized People
x It is often difficult to train and convince rural people of the benefits that conservation and/or
development projects can bring to their community as many have had bad experiences and broken
promises with past government implemented projects. As a result, NGOs in Paraguay must invest in
an initial startup time in gaining the confidence of the community. (TNC)
x Another challenge is to convince community members that establishing or strengthening community
infrastructure in Paraguay is a first step. Then a community must be convinced that in the long term,
conservation and an ecological equilibrium are necessary elements for improving the quality of life.
(TNC)
x You need to spend the necessary time and manpower in order to gain the trust of the people with
whom you are working. (WCS)
Capacity/Skills
x Limited capacity and skills of local people; Poor understanding of expected conservation outcomes;
Limited knowledge of the interventions and opportunities that exist to benefit from outside
traditional and cultural systems. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 50
Security Concerns
x In Nepal, the increased activities of the Maoists and their conflict with His Majesty’s Government
are making it more difficult to get input from traditionally marginalized people. In many areas it is
prohibited to enter forest areas and/or hold large gathering meetings. The project has worked to
overcome this issue by holding smaller gathering in the villages and holding meetings in towns,
rather then at village sites, but with the realization that this makes it harder for some members of the
community to participate. (EWW)
Information
x It is difficult to monitor conservation impact with marginalized peoples, (e.g., concerning livestock
and their relationship to biodiversity conservation). (AWF)
Evaluator Perspective: Some of the wording of Partners’ answers makes it seem like the challenge is to
“make” marginalized people understand or “make” them do something as compared to “working with”
them, which may be a more fruitful attitude and guide to action. Note that this is personal observation by
Parker.
While the issue of attitudes is critical to assess, perhaps the more important challenge is the behaviors that
people exhibit that may contradict the attitudes or words that people use.
We often underestimate the cost of participatory practices. It certainly is time consuming for the
conservationists and consequently costs more to undertake this kind of approach. However, many often
underestimate the high cost of participation by stakeholders. Working to get women involved, while an
important principle in GCP, costs women in terms of time away (from the 18-hour work day, the time
they might be collecting firewood, or the time they might be their part of the division of labor in the
household).
14. What have your greatest returns on investment been at each site vis-à-vis
getting input from traditionally marginalized people to identify the linkages
between threats and activities to address threats? [Illustrative examples only.]
Analysis: The following pulls together an illustrative array of the great returns on investment by getting
input from traditionally marginalized people. Again, it is not a complete list, however, it demonstrates the
range of returns that Partners have observed to date (even though one admitted that it is very early in the
process at some sites to begin seeing significant results). Partners can provide more details on any given
challenge of particular interest and how they may have achieved returns on their investments beyond their
illustrative answer here. The examples of categorized Partner approaches include:
Results Achieved
x Kitendon corridor demarcation (Kilimanjaro Heartland): This corridor forms a critical link for
wildlife (namely elephants) moving between Mt. Kilimanjaro Forest, Kilimanjaro National Park
(Tanzania), and Amboseli National Park in Kenya. AWF mobilized the local government officials,
the district commissioner, and the village government to protect this vital trans-frontier link for
elephants and other migratory species. AWF facilitated the process and the exercise. The corridor
has now been officially authenticated as a trans-frontier passage for wildlife. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 51
x In the Philippines, EnterpriseWorks/Philippines worked with a local reporter to expose and
publicize complaints of VIBANARA Multipurpose Cooperative, Inc. (VMPCI) CBFM members in
“Community-based forest management promises remain unfulfilled in Region 2,” a two-part article,
January 10 and 24, 2002, Malaya. Due to the articles, the DENR central and regional offices
became aware of the problems within the organization and have deployed a DENR team to
investigate the allegations of misuse of resources. In the Jose Maria Cabiraoan Multipurpose
Cooperative, Inc. (JMCMPCI) CBFM, the pressure from the local government unit (LGU) to
harvest timber, even within understocked areas, has been avoided twice. With the help of the
EnterpriseWorks/ Philippines contracted forester, the CBFM group was able to show that the actual
timber stand of the two proposed cutting areas could not meet the required 80 cubic meter stand
after harvesting, thereby concluding that the area cannot support harvesting operations without
severely damaging the ecological health of the sites. EnterpriseWorks/Philippines was able to check
the practice of ‘table tree inventory’ of the DENR field office, saving 100 hectares of the CBFM
area from further denudation. If the marginalized people of the VMPCI and JMCMPI communities
had not felt comfortable in talking and working with the EnterpriseWorks/Philippines staff, this
development could not have happened. (EWW)
x Locally Managed Marine Areas in Kimbe: Locally managed marine areas have enabled local
communities to make their own rules and manage their own reef systems based on the threats they
have identified themselves. For example, most of the communities have identified destructive
fishing practices and over fishing as common threats. Strategies identified by them include reef
closure and ban on destructive fishing practices. The closure of reefs under the locally managed
marine regimes has also enabled the communities to see some benefit of conservation through the
enhancement of fish stocks. (TNC)
Actions Undertaken
x NGOs in Paraguay have also been able to achieve direct contact with community leaders (in some
cases, this is the first time that this contact has ever been established). Through this contact,
communities have undertaken organized planning and activities. This process has motivated people
to take action to improve their lives. Community participation in recent years has resulted in
improved roads, school construction, and community waste disposal reservoirs. Through the
projects in Paraguay, NGOs have improved communities’ management abilities and have
contributed to a more fluid relationship with authorities through the community councils. (TNC)
x The willingness of poorer landowners to protect water sources by putting their land in
environmental easements and to agree to conduct best management practices in exchange for
financial incentives. (TNC)
x Governor approval of environmental work in Bering Sea ecoregion was a great “return on
investment.” (WWF)
Models/Replication
x Chiawa (Zambezi Heartland): AWF has ensured a willingness to engage with private sector
operators in this area and requests have been made to see other areas where private sector
involvement has lead to economic development along side conservation activities. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 52
x In Nepal, ANSAB’s work in organizing so many FUGs and working with them and the local
forestry officials to settle longstanding resource disputes has allowed communities to move beyond
conflict and unsustainable use to productive economic development and resource management like
the Malika Paper Making Enterprise in Kailash, Bajhang. The enterprise, sustainable resource
management, and biological monitoring all involving local marginalized people is now being used
as a model to get other FUGs and government officials working more effectively together to
manage the resources. (EWW)
x The investment of education and awareness in Kimbe Bay, together with the benefits of locally
managed marine areas, has resulted in other communities wanting to duplicate the same locally
managed marine areas as a strategy to address the threats they see as impacting on their livelihoods.
(TNC)
x Living Planet Club for environmental education is being expanded to other areas in the Bering
ecoregion. (WWF)
Improved Technical Processes and Management
x We have better identification of appropriate intervention to address threats as well as better
identification of the resources needed in the Philippines. (CI)
Different Kind or Level of Participation
x Kirisia forest conservation (Samburu Heartland): AWF has facilitated community involvement in
preventing illegal exploitation of forest resources in this area. Local communities are now involved
in reporting conflict areas, and in the monitoring of some wildlife species. (AWF)
x It helps that all stakeholders in the Philippines agree on a particular approach to get the best overall
result. (CI)
Local Response Changed
x In both the Philippines and Nepal, the local people and LGUs appreciate that outside organizations
finally recognize that they have valuable contributions in the area of resource management and that
the organizations are working with them to balance their conservation end economic security needs.
(EWW)
x Focus group discussions and threats analysis meetings and exercises have given the greatest return
in getting inputs from the traditionally marginalized groups. When the project activities resulted into
their economic empowerment and education, the level of their enthusiasm increased (for example,
for marginalized women and men in Bajhang). (EWW)
x Communities in Paraguay feel more involved and develop an appreciation for the environment
when they participate in activities such as campaigns to defend protected areas and/or protection of
wildlife during car races in rural area. (TNC)
x We are building partnerships with the native community in the Bering Sea ecoregion, and we have
gained permission from native corporations to get into their meetings because of trust that has been
built. (WWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 53
Getting More or Different Local Input
x We facilitated the creation of FUG federations and forums like Federation of Community Forestry
Users in Nepal (FECOFUN) district offices, the Nepal NTFP Network (NNN), and the Himali
Jadibuti Sarokar Smuha (HJSS). These have given a great return in getting inputs from the
marginalized people to formulate and implement policy favorable to them. (EWW)
x We are learning what local people perceive as threats. (WCS)
x Input has been high and helps with information, ground-truthing, and testing assumptions. (WWF)
15. In what ways do your programs complement other conservation and
development activities in the countries where you work under GCP funding?
Analysis: While this is an optional question, four Partners responded to it. Partner responses indicate that
a number of interactions are going on in countries where they have GCP-funded activities that achieve a
variety of outcomes. Examples of categorized Partner answers include:
Work with USAID Program
x In Kenya, we have had good interactions with USAID/Kenya’s Communities Responding to the
HIV/AIDS Epidemic (CORE) project and have been able to leverage enterprise and conservation. It
is a conservation program that sits within the overall USAID development anchor. (AWF)
Work with Host Country Government
x Our GCP project is complementing the conservation efforts of Nepal’s Ministry of Forests and Soil
Conservation (MFSC) and its local offices by advancing community forestry activities to manage
and conserve forest resources. Furthermore, with learning from the grassroots implementations,
wider consultations, and policy analysis, ANSAB generates policy recommendations and provides
these directly to MFSC as well as other stakeholders. (EWW)
x The main objective of Nepal’s Tenth “Five-Year Plan” is to reduce poverty. Under GCP funding,
ANSAB has created many forest-based enterprises that have complemented the government
programs targeted at reducing poverty. ANSAB has chosen very remote areas in the country where
almost all people live below the poverty line. The government is facing a lot of difficulties in
implementing effective poverty reduction program. ANSAB’s linked enterprise development
activities have created many jobs for the locals, opened up local value addition activities, generated
group funds for social development, and brought in cash incomes to the collector communities to
solve their cash need and raise their living standard. By channeling the cash incomes of enterprise
development activities, the project has benefited the other development programs like educational
programs and health and sanitation programs in the country. (EWW)
Work With Other International Organizations
x In the Philippines, our GCP activities complement DENR efforts, the Palawan Council for
Sustainable Development (PCSD) in Palawan and several bilateral conservation and development
programs including the International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO) and the Deutsche
Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ). (EWW)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 54
Work with Other Conservation Organizations
x In some cases, such as in northern Congo, there are no other conservation and development
activities. WCS/Congo does collaborate with ECOFAC (a regional EU conservation project in
central Africa) in Odzala on logistics such as obtaining and storing aviation fuel and sharing data
and environmental information. Working with other partners such as ECOFAC has occasionally
given us leverage that we might not have had by ourselves. (WCS)
x We work with other players to develop integrated plans to foster collaboration and complementation
of resources. (CI)
Work with Organizations that Complement Skills
x WCS has a wildlife-focused view of conservation and as such tends to work with other
organizations with different skills to ensure that our combined activities either complement each
other or at least do not have perverse adverse impacts. This is true of our work with CARE in the
Madidi region of Bolivia, and with Fondo Ecuatoriano Populorum Progresso (FEPP) in Yasuni,
Ecuador. (WCS)
16. To what degree do you think you have made progress to date toward
mitigating priority threats under your GCP-funded program (i.e., compared to
what you would have hoped to achieved by now, nearly three years into the
program)? [Overall rating as per # 2 above.]
Analysis: The rating for all Partners combined is slightly less than 2 (moderate), suggesting that they have
had what they consider to be basically moderate success. The sets of ratings follow:
x Three organizations rated themselves at 2 (moderate);
x One organization rated itself on two sites at one at 1 (high), one at 2
(moderate);
x One organization rated three of its sites at one at 1 (high); one at 2
(moderate); and one at 2.5
(moderate to low).
Selected Lessons Learned:
Progress toward mitigation of threats has been achieved by:
x Working with more organized stakeholders (e.g., communities),
x Developing partnerships to leverage funds, and
x Working with key government agencies.
Problems that affect progress toward mitigation of threats include, but are not limited to:
x Lack of adequate funding,
x Lack of capacity at field level,
x Political and socioeconomic contexts, and
x Outside forces (e.g., industry).
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 55
Examples of Partner answers by category include: [NOTE: Partners provided the following illustrative
responses. In the Questionnaire, they did not link any given mitigation effort to a given threat.]
Progress
x The different stakeholders are now starting to work toward common development as well as
conservation objectives as detailed in the MOUs, memorandum of agreements (MOAs), and
integrated resource management plans.
x We and our local partners have made progress on mitigating priority threats in that the target
communities are better organized and have greater options to stop, avoid, or reduce destructive
practices that are a threat to the forest resources.
x Through the process we have worked with local officials to enforce and fine companies for illegal
logging.
x GCP support continues to focus appropriately on process and building partnerships that will ensure
positive future conservation impact, and progress here has indeed been good. As our funding
portfolio and presence in these sites is strengthened (by better leveraging GCP investment with
other donor support), so too will our ability to deliver on strategies that are aimed at
conserving/abating a broader range of conservation targets/threats across these landscapes.
x We have worked with key agencies to integrate conservation issues into development plans. This
increases awareness and provides a stronger basis for making more environmentally sensitive
decisions.
Problems
x Success has been moderate because the field technicians are generally poorly technically prepared
to handle the proactive role they can play. Capacity building takes time.
x While we had hoped to have more funds in place by now, this is a highly political issue and takes
time. It is also a multi-tiered, multi-year process. During this time, there have been elections in
every site location, which has meant restarting many of the processes with the newly elected
officials. However, the point of the project is that it is not dependent solely on elected officials, and
the other stakeholders that have been involved through the process are actually helpful in getting the
new officials up to speed.
x We are certainly nowhere near our ultimate goal of landscape scale impact or comprehensive
coverage of targets and threats, but we are in line with what we laid out in work plans given the
modest level of GCP investment. Over a limited time period of three years, our progress to date has
been as expected, with variation also as expected based on field condition, complexity of partners,
prevailing policy, and political and sociopolitical context.
x Reductions in funding set one of our projects back a year, but we have begun to make progress.
x We have made slow progress on mitigating some threats that were determined to be the greatest
threats in the overall rankings. Mitigating these threats is going to take longer then expected because
of the political, economic, and industry sensitivity of the threats which have been brought about
through local industry development.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 56
17. Please provide some illustrative examples of how you have begun to
successfully mitigate key threats at sites. Please define/characterize the nature of
the success relative to each mitigation effort.
Analysis: The following categorized answers outline an illustrative array of ways that Partners have
begun to successfully mitigate key threats at sites. The array is wide, and there are no “silver bullets” that
come out these answers as may be expected. The threats vary, the conditions in which they exist vary, the
approaches to addressing threats vary, and the solutions vary. The most relevant finding from the list is
that a variety of “how to’s” exist, however, each must be explored for its validity in a given situation.
Laws, Regulations, Rules
x ANSAB’s success in expanding individual FUG areas in Nepal (i.e., increase in hectares that a FUG
controls in contrast to the forest being a free-for-all) has meant more responsible forest management
plans can be implemented and local communities can keep outsiders out. This has mitigated the
threats of destructive collection of NTFPs (due to outsider intrusion, absence of local ownership,
and unscientific collection) and encroachment by migrating herds. Since the Nepal GCP project
began, 18,688 hectares of forestland have been handed over to 34 communities for improved
management. (EWW)
x At the national and international level for Komodo we have been extending the effectiveness of no￾take zones as a tool to abate overfishing. This led to an officially endorsed zoning plan that includes
no-take zones. The zoning plan also takes into account traditional fishing grounds and other
functions of the World Heritage Site Komodo National Park, such as protection of biodiversity and
pristine ecosystems, and generation of revenue for the local economy through ecotourism. (TNC)
x Working with the Tacana in Bolivia to establish formal land tenure has created a large buffer for
Madidi National Park to reduce immigration and resource degradation on its eastern borders. (WCS)
x Antipoaching activities have reduced the illegal commercial trade in bushmeat in northern Congo.
Changes in logging company employee rules have created a significant disincentive for employees
to engage in the illegal bushmeat trade. (WCS)
Analysis
x We have begun research on conservation targets and the use of landscapes by conservation targets
(e.g. elephants in all four GCP landscapes). (AWF)
x We have analyzed watershed issues in GCP sites. Further intervention is planned in Maasai-Steppe.
(AWF)
x We use a bottom-up participatory problem/threat analysis and planning in the Philippines. (CI)
Mapping
x We use mapping to define critical wildlife corridors. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 57
x The GIS satellite mapping provided by the project lead the local government of Mineiros to produce
an environmental evaluation, which will eventually include a sustainable development plan and an
environmental conservation plan, including potential tourism sites. This increased knowledge in
development is also motivating the local authorities to increase the capacity of law enforcement, as
well as control and monitoring systems. (CI)
Planning and Resource Management
x NRM planning improved rangeland management in Samburu in important areas with a potential for
increase in wildlife population numbers. (AWF)
x We have reduced the conflict between people and their livestock with wildlife through water
management strategies in Kilimanjaro. (AWF)
x One of the farmers located near the Cerrado Emas National Park, through his discussions with one
of the wild pigs researchers, has decided to provide land for a peccary farm. This approach has
resulted in decreased crop damage. More importantly, he has become a pioneer in wildlife
management in the corridor area. (CI)
Workshops, Demonstrations, and Education
x Our training workshops for community leaders have resulted in their new roles as “environmental
leaders” in Guyana. (CI)
x The farmers in the Cerrado Emas National Park buffer zone in Brazil realized, by viewing satellite
images, the seriousness of the soil erosion in their area. As a result, they established an erosion
control program and a rational zoning and land use code, defining areas of required forest cover.
This program has experienced great success. (CI)
x Although the threat of destructive fishing practices and overfishing is not considered high when we
take the holistic approach to marine and terrestrial threats, it is relatively high for the marine-based
threats. We have taken a proactive approach to abate the threat through education and awareness
and the facilitation and support for the establishment of locally managed marine areas (LMMAs).
LMMAs have enabled the communities to establish closed areas and ban fishing techniques such as
the use of dynamite. LMMAs that have been monitored have shown that the fish stocks have
increased or have been stabilized as a result of the reefs being closed to fishing. (TNC)
Strategy Identification and Implementation
x Identifying corridor conservation strategies and implementing those strategies has lead to a recent
formal declaration of Kitendon corridor, community mobilization, and organization for business
development in corridor areas. (AWF)
Partnerships
x Building partnership in project implementation has established a common agenda with other players
doing conservation works in the Philippines. (CI)
Information Management
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 58
x Establishing a common database system and an integrated plan with other players (government
agencies, LGUs, and NGOs) has improved planning and monitoring in the Philippines. (CI)
Applying Pressure
x In the Philippines, mitigation has happened on a small scale. 100 hectares were conserved from
logging, planned enterprise activities were stopped in other Region 2 CBFM areas when regulations
were violated or funds were not accounted for, and wood extraction by outsiders was challenged on
Palawan. Through the project, improved coordination with DENR is putting more pressure on
illegal logging (see June 15, 2002 semiannual report for the Philippines). In the short term, illegal
loggers will try to locate other areas outside the project and this is why the federating of CBFMs
and bringing the issues to a higher political level is also being emphasized. (EWW)
Promoting Best Practices
x Concerning the conversion to agriculture or silviculture in Kimbe Bay, the activity to mitigate the
threat is only beginning. We are approaching this by ultimately pushing for best practices for
developed oil palm plantations and pushing for no more new developments in oil palm. We are
initially taking an indirect approach by supporting an economic case study. At this stage, we are not
in a position to say if this strategy is going to be effective, but based on the experience in the
Solomon Islands and elsewhere, we are confident that the strategy of an economic case study will
abate the threat of conversion to agriculture. (TNC)
Enforcement and Incentives
x Using the stick-and-carrot approach we help both with the enforcement of the ban on blast fishing
on Komodo and we develop alternative livelihoods to steer fishermen away from destructive
fishing. We hardly have any occurrences any more of blast fishing, and that shows in an increase of
live coral cover. (TNC)
x Discussions are beginning with oil companies in Ecuador regarding the establishment of a finance
program to mitigate indirect impacts of the oil industry on protected areas in the Amazon. (WCS)
Evaluator Perspective: Indeed, as one reviewer noted, the mitigation measures need to be more closely
linked to specific threats at specific sites. The question here only asked for illustrative examples.
Therefore, to get that depth of information, further exploration of the issue would be required. Evaluation
at the site level would probably be a much more effective and productive way to assess the validity of this
kind of information.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 59
II. Principles Integrated (Questions #19-41)
19. To what degree did the overall set (i.e., not principle by individual principle,
nor site by individual site) of original RFA principles have an effect on the design
of your program? [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis:
x Two organizations rated at 3 (low), and
x One organization rated at 1 (high).
Explanations: Some organizations that rated the effect of the principles on the design of their programs
noted that the principles are consistent with the organization’s own and therefore did not effect design
much in one way or another. Thus, these organizations could build on, not be molded directly by, the
GCP principles.
The one organization that rated the level at high (1) made an important observation in terms of the degree
to which USAID/GCP integrates the RFA principles so that they are implicit rather than explicit to others.
This perspective is that non-conservation organizations considering project implementation issues that
relate to conservation objectives may want to use the RFA principles as a helpful awareness and guidance
tool.
20. In what way(s) did the original RFA principles have an effect on the design of
your site activities?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x The goal of this organization is biodiversity conservation, which is accomplished through a focus on
people. Therefore, we don’t have a specific threats-based approach. As a result, we had to shift how
we assess a situation and the activities that we design. (CI)
x The RFA reflected the threat-focused, landscape scale approach already championed by WCS and
thus built on, rather than molded, our program and activities. (WCS)
21. To what degree has the original RFA principles had an effect on the
implementation of your program? [Rating as per #16]
Analysis: The combined average for all Partners is about 2.3 (slightly lower than moderate effect).
x Two organizations rated at 1 (high),
x One organization rated with an average of all 2.5 (moderately low),
x Two organizations rated at 3 (low), and
x One organization rated at 3.5 (low to no effect).
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 60
Explanations: All of the Partners generally agreed that the RFA principles are consistent with the ones
they themselves hold.
However, the two organizations that rated the effect of the principles as high did so from the perspective
of how convergent the principles are with what they do, and with how close in alignment the principles
are with those the organization holds.
The organization that rated the effect of the principles lowest agreed with the above comments but added
one potentially useful point. They noted that USAID itself has shown no real follow through on the
“results oriented” principle and does not seem to require a differentiation between results and activities in
reporting.
22. What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links
between your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and
strong in your planning?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x We use analysis and integration of spatial as well as economic information (secondary and primary
data) to establish baseline information for planning. We establish GIS-based information systems
and integrate other stakeholders database system for integrated planning. (CI)
x WCS offered the same answer for questions #22-26: We ensure strong and explicit links between
biodiversity conservation and our project planning, implementation, M&E, reporting, and adaptive
management by designing and undertaking our projects based on a strategy we call the Landscape
Species Approach. For more on the Landscape Species Approach, please see Bulletin 2
(http://wcs.org/media/general/LLP.Bulletin2.pdf). We define our conservation objectives as
landscape species, intended to act as surrogates for the full complement of biodiversity at the site.
Our project planning and implementation then focuses on threats to these species, and on habitats
and resources they require. Monitoring has not yet been fully designed, but it will include
monitoring of these landscape species and the threats to them, as well as other biological,
socioeconomic, and project performance-related indicators. Finally, we plan to adapt our
management actions in light of this monitoring. Therefore, all plans, actions, evaluation, and
adaptations are derived from carefully selected focal species that are intended to represent the
biological diversity of the site. This ties all we do directly to conservation of biological diversity.
(WCS)
x EWW also offered the same answer to questions #22-26: The links between biodiversity
conservation and program are made explicit by resource survey work, assessment of sustainable
yields of products, compliance with FUG (Nepal) and CBFM (Philippines) requirements and
monitoring of the forest resources to keep in compliance with FUG and CBFM requirements, and
enterprise sustainability objectives. The GCP-indicators reports help to keep the projects focused
and provide for uniform reporting for all the groups. A detailed biological monitoring plan for
Nepal was submitted to GCP (M&E) but now the EnterpriseWorks/ANSAB and Enterprise
Works/Philippines programs are working to see how M&E can be more streamlined. The number of
groups and “project scaling-up” is indicating that detailed M&E for every group will not be
sustainable over the long term. When the enterprise activities are using in situ biodiversity, then the
conservation link is very explicit and the enterprise will suffer and fail if the resource base is not
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 61
managed in a sustainable way. For enterprise activities that provide an alternative to forest products
harvesting (i.e. cacao planting on denuded lands; alternative high value crops on denuded lands to
provide alternative income to timber and NTFP harvesting in the Philippines) then the biodiversity
conservation links have to be more closely monitored. (EWW)
23. What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links
between your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and
strong in implementation?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Participatory, bottom-up planning (CI), and
x Building partnerships in project implementation. (CI)
24. What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links
are explicit, clear, and strong in M&E?
CI answered that they generate enough baseline information (biological and economic) to develop the
monitoring and evaluation system. They note that this should also be a participatory process.
25. What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links
between your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and
strong in your adaptive management efforts?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Participatory planning and management (CI), and
x Stakeholders consultations. (CI)
26. What are the mechanisms and/or approaches you use to ensure that the links
between your program and biodiversity conservation are explicit, clear, and
strong in your reporting efforts?
CI answered that they establish good indicators.
26. Has there been a problem in the balance between in situ and policy activities
(yes/no)? If “yes,” in what ways do you consider this a problem for your program
and site activities? Please explain.
Analysis: Basically, the three Partners that responded said “No.” All, however, acknowledged the need
for appropriate policies and awareness of the policy context in which they work. One Mission
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 62
representative noted the need to be strategic and threats-based, taking advantage of windows of
opportunity but not having everything hinge on policy.
Examples of Partner and USAID staff answers include:
x Program policies are not always appropriate to the site condition. Program policies are usually
prepared based on general perception, thus, they do not always capture site-specific realities. (CI)
x No, since both are necessary and important, the field teams work on both with a greater emphasis on
doing in situ activities and using experiences from this work in policy activities. Both countries (but
to a much greater degree in the Philippines) feel they would like more time is in affecting positive
change in policy from the national level down in order to put more pressure on local actors to
adhere to the forest policies that are already in place. In Nepal, there have been contentious issues in
distributing rights and responsibilities among communities, the government, and private companies.
To address policy concerns of grassroots, a mechanism of involving primary stakeholders from
grassroots to national level has been developed and promoted (e.g., FECOFUN, HJSS). (EWW)
x No. The WCS emphasis is to achieve conservation success on the ground at biologically important
sites, while testing and demonstrating strategies to do this that can be applied in many other places.
Despite the emphasis on site-specific success, we recognize the importance of the larger policy
environment to this, and seek balance in our efforts. This means significant investment in working
with governments, interagency forums, and with US agencies. (WCS)
x Policy shift—policy does matter. There is a need to be strategic and threats-based. If major
opportunity is policy then focus on it. Windows of opportunity open and you need to jump in and
word hard. But don’t have everything hinge on policy—be realistic. (Doug Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
28. To what degree do you believe your policy initiatives under GCP demonstrate
tangible conservation benefits to date? [Overall rating as per #2.]
Analysis: The combined rating for all Partners on the degree to which they believe their policy issues
under GCP demonstrate tangible conservation benefits to date is 1.6 (i.e., moderately high).
x Three organizations rated themselves at 1 (high),
x Two organizations rated themselves at 2 (moderate), and
x One organization rated itself at 3 (low).
The political process is typically slow but Partners provided examples such as the following to illustrate
where tangible conservation benefits occur:
x Establishment of a national park;
x Working not to develop policy but enforcement of existing policy to stop illegal logging;
x Educating politicians, bureaucrats, and other stakeholders to create respect and acceptance of new
policies and therefore build a strong basis for sustainability and not policies that will change as
frequently as the governments do;
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 63
x Working with the government to design their regulations and work on indigenous land titling that
involved precedent-setting NRM planning;
x Working to develop private nature reserves (important because you can count the number of
hectares);
x Working with law enforcement to “connect up” laws on the 3 nations involved in the endangered
spaces program;
x Making appropriate contacts with key government officials and signed MoUs when appropriate; and
x Bringing together local partners to engage in transboundary efforts on the ground.
Explanations:
One of the organizations that rated itself at a high (1) level provided an example of its approach: “Overall,
our policy efforts are aimed at creating and maintaining an enabling environment for all stakeholders to
support the outcomes being targeted by our program. One important outcome is the establishment of a
protected area in country. Another organization provided examples of where their work on enforcement
of laws on community-based forest management has helped stop illegal harvesting.
Another high (1) rated organization explained in detail the challenges of the policy process achieving
tangible benefits. They stated, “The main goals of the project are to develop policies that should hopefully
lead to conservation benefits starting in year five. However, getting to the policy changes is no simple
task! In this project the process of getting to the policy is paramount. It would be much more simple to
find some friendly politicians to create a new law, but then what? In this project, we are taking the time to
educate not only the politicians and the bureaucrats, but the other stakeholders as well, so that there will
be respect for and acceptance of new policies, creating a strong basis for sustainability and not policies
that will change as frequently as the governments do.”
Yet another high (1) rated organized noted two examples of where they have achieved tangible
conservation benefits. These efforts include working closely with the government to design their
regulations on forestry management plan requirements while incorporating habitat and species
conservation requirements in such plans, and working on indigenous land titling that involved precedent￾setting NRM planning.
The moderate (2) rated organization acknowledged that basically it is too early to really determine
tangible conservation benefits, but there has been some groundwork laid and examples of opportunities
taken such as working to develop private nature reserves and working with law enforcement to “connect
up” laws of the three nations involved in the endangered spaces program.
The organization that rated itself low (3) on the scale explained its approach to policy by stating,
“Overall, we have relied more on local-level efforts and intervention, and have not focused on policy
initiatives. In this arena, we have made the appropriate contacts with key government officials and signed
MOUs when appropriate. One area that we have made tangible progress in is bringing together local
partners to engage in transboundary efforts on the ground.”
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 64
Evaluator Perspective: Concerning the Partner answer about the establishment of natural reserves, I
assume that it is important to the Partner for monitoring purposes but also for reporting to donors in
quantitative terms.
Concerning the Partner answer about working with law enforcement to “connect up” laws in three
nations, I assume this means to make them more consistent from country to country or to make them
enforceable in one country like they are in the country of origin) laws from the 3 nations involved in the
endangered spaces program;
29. If your policy initiatives under GCP funding have demonstrated tangible
conservation benefits, please provide examples about both policies and benefits
(or provide references that document this for review)
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Please refer to performance monitoring report (Nepal, November 15, 2001) and semiannual report
(Philippines, June 2002) (EWW);
x See answer to question #28 (TNC);
x Answer same as #28. (WCS)
30. If tangible conservation benefits have accrued, to whom (e.g., which
stakeholders) or what (e.g., species, ecosystem) do they accrue?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x The first and biggest beneficiary in the Philippines are the local people because they are the direct
beneficiaries of what the ecosystems provide. (CI)
x From #28 above (we assume you are asking about tangible benefits derived from policy
initiatives), tangible benefits have accrued to vulnerable species (e.g., gorillas, elephants, bongo,
and chimpanzees) to critical habitats (e.g., the Goualogo triangle, bais forest clearings, and
portions of the Lac Tele reserve), and to the Tacana people. (WCS)
31. What ways are you ensuring sustainable changes through your GCP-funded
program?
i. Ecological
ii. Technical
iii. Economic
iv. Social
v. Institutional
vi. Political
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 65
Analysis: Partners provided a wide array of examples about how they are working to ensure sustainable
changes through their GCP-funded program. The following categorized Partner answers illustrate part of
that variety:
Ecological
x We link community groups to government and other local services and assist them with learning to
access economic support for resource management and economic development in the Philippines. In
Nepal, we assist groups with securing forest royalties that can be used for conservation and
community development and with marketing forest products through a private limited company. We
conduct biological inventories and assessments and do biological monitoring as well as lobbying for
forestry officials to get more involved in forest monitoring and enforcement. (EWW)
x TNC’s threats-based and ecosystem-scale approach is aimed at maintaining and sometimes restoring
functioning ecosystems. See “Conservation by Design” document. (TNC)
x We work at a landscape scale (see #10) with a focus on carefully selected focal species that
represent large and diverse extents of habitat and the integrity of ecological functions. (WCS)
x The strength of ecoregion conservation (based on four basic principles of biodiversity conservation)
is that it provides an approach with the spatial and temporal scales that support long term viability
of the six LWA ecoregions. The vision which attempts to capture representation, resilience, and
maintenance of viable populations relies on multiple levels of strategies sharing these same
principles but evolving different packages that reflect different contexts (e.g., working with local
communities to build in the Bering Sea region). (WWF)
Technical
x We use the same strategy as given for our ecological answer, but emphasize linkages with
universities, the private sector, research institutions, and other NGOs. (EWW)
x “Convened the inaugural meeting of the Conservation Finance Alliance (CFA) attended by 18
organizations. Members of the CFA will collaborate on relevant conservation finance activities
including future versions of the Guide” [July 2002 semiannual report, page 57]. (TNC)
x “…TNC will continue to promote the pilot projects and the lessons learned, as well as provide
technical information in North/South and South/South forums.” [July 2002 semiannual report, page
64] (TNC)
x We ensure sustainable change by learning, testing, and incorporating new strategies and methods
from other conservation sites. We work with an in-house quantitative analyst. We keep an open and
self-critical mind in design and performance, with monitoring built into the project system. Great
emphasis is put on building the technical capacity of nationals to design and implement
conservation projects and actions. (WCS)
x Capacity building is encouraged through project activities such as training in community-based
monitoring of biological phenomena as well as in key threats such as toxins in the Bering Sea.
(WWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 66
Economic
x By emphasizing alternative, compatible livelihood activities, we address the development needs of
communities while diverting them from destructive enterprises. (TNC)
x We assess our economic impact and conduct impact tracking system each year. (EWW)
x The Komodo project in particular is emphasizing alternative, compatible livelihood activities to
address the development needs of communities while diverting them from destructive enterprises.
These are a couple of examples, others include the seaweed culture and LRFT hatcheries that are
described in the work plans and annual reports. Economic sustainability is also behind our
interventions in the Pacific on the LRFT. Results of the socioeconomic study will be shared with
community leaders to determine compatible economic and conservation activities for the area. “The
project has started to attract private sector investments such as PT Samudra Mina, who has bought
the product from these pelagic fishers and has expressed its interest to invest further in the
installation of more fish aggregating devices (FADs) and in providing fishing gears and outboard
engines for the fishers. A cold storage facility for fisheries products was also recently erected by
private investors in Labuan Bajo.” (July 2002 semiannual report, page 34) (TNC)
x We assess sources and means of sustained financing for conservation efforts including trust funds,
resource revenue funds (timber and oil), private sector management (logging concessionaires), and
conservation-generated revenues (tourism). (WCS)
x WWF offered the following examples of Conservation Finance Actions (CFA) meant to increase
long term financial sustainability:
a) Terai Arc Conservation Fund: To provide a sustainable, transparent and efficient mechanism
for funding the Terai Arc Conservation project. The goal is to establish a $20 million
endowment to provide long term funding for the project.
b) South West Amazon Trust Fund for the Amazon Region Protected Areas: To provide recurring
cost funding for the Amazon Region Protected Areas (ARPA). This recently approved fund
will improve the flow of funds to the protected areas by developing efficient and transparent
administrative systems.
c) Debt-for-nature swaps in Bolivia.
d) Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI), Fundacion Puma: Continued challenges to make
it fully functional, but the groundwork is there once political hurdles are overcome.
e) Bering Sea, Kamchatka Protected Areas Conservation Trust Fund and Kamatchka Wild
Salmon Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund: To provide medium term funding for the four
most outstanding nature reserves in Kamatchka by protecting its resources during Russia’s
transition into market economies.
f) Overall: To use economic tools for site-based solutions through an economics support initiative
(coordinated through project management). The initiative provides training and mentoring in
learning how to “speak” economics and use economics tools to ask questions and provide
information that is used to leverage policy changes (e.g., valuating the flood in the Mekong or
conducting land use studies to inform oil palm development in New Guinea [joint with TNC
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 67
and CI]). The end results are staff and partners trained in economics and relevant information
that incorporates biodiversity and informs policy changes.
Social
x We assess economic, social, and biological sustainability issues to come up with optimized
economic activities and resource management, and we conduct impact tracking system each year to
assess social conditions. (EWW)
x “Socialization” in Asia and the Pacific has an Indonesian origin and refers to building
awareness/support/constituency building, particularly at the community level and among local
NGOs. (TNC)
x We make sure that analysis of the social context is built into project design. In addition, we work in
close collaboration with selected communities so that they can carry on certain actions. (WCS)
x We addressing development needs through Integrated Conservation and Development Project
(ICDP)-style activities that are compatible with conservation (e.g., Terai Arc and Forests of the
Lower Mekong). In Nepal, there is the by and large success of Bardia and Annapurna to build on –
challenge (as in all ecoregions) is promoting these activities at the scale needed. (WWF)
x WWF builds constituencies (Bering Sea) and creates Living Planet clubs to build a cadre of future
stewards within native communities. (WWF)
Institutional
x We increase the transfer of roles and responsibilities to local institutions. (EWW)
x We conduct an institutional development needs assessment and encourage the institutional
strengthening of locally lead conservation organizations. (TNC)
x Through close collaboration, including capacity building, with protected area services (all sites),
other ministry-level departments, universities (Ecuador and Bolivia), and the private sector
(Congolaise Industrielle de Bois [CIB] logging in the Congo). (WCS)
x We working with partners to building capacity through strengthening local institutions, particularly
in Atlantic forests where funds support local partners in achieving parts of the overall vision.
(WWF)
Political
x We work closely with local, regional, district, and national forestry officials to promote effective
implementation of community forestry laws. (EWW)
x 50 community leaders (20 from the Pantanal area in the fiscal year 2002) in the Paraguayan
Pantanal and Chaco are empowered with an understanding of environmental legislation (sensible
use of the environment and resources, identification and report of ecological offences, etc),
necessary steps toward obtaining their title deeds, and their rights and obligations as landowners.
(July 2002 semiannual report, page 44) Political support and sustainability is, of course, one of
the objectives of “socialization” in the Asia-Pacific context. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 68
x We make efforts to build constituencies among local people and institutions, national decision
makers, and international inter-governmental or buyer groups who can exert influence. (WCS)
x Using vision, we generate commitment and increase the accountability of government entities.
For example, in Atlantic forests we launched a vision with NGOs and governments in a public
ceremony that drew international attention to Paraguay, which we continue to use. In the forests
of the Lower Mekong, we are working with government ministries to encourage adoption of
developing planning, gaining buy-ins from planners early on to hopefully ensure biodiversity
concerns are a part of the “blueprint” for making resource-use decisions at ministerial and
regional planning levels. (WWF)
32. What are the indicators of internal financial stability (e.g., internal revenue flows) that
you are monitoring at the site level? How is each defined and what is its measure?
Please look at question #33 to differentiate between the concepts of “internal” and
“external” insofar as possible.
AWF provided the following illustrative examples of potential internal financial sustainability
mechanisms:
x Funding from tourism activities.
x Tanzanian Land Conservation Trust (TLCT) and Manyara Ranch: AWF’s investment in the
development of TLCT is a new concept in most places. GCP funding will help monitor how this
Trust effort evolves. The financing framework of the TLCT is such that each of the initiatives under
its auspices feeds back a segment of profits into the Trust to fund the costs of the umbrella body.
The majority of profits are fed into benefit-sharing mechanisms for the beneficiary communities.
The Manyara Ranch initiative is the pilot area for the Trust, and the feasibility of this as part of the
Trust financing mechanism will be closely monitored during this project. For the Manyara Ranch,
financial sustainability is to be tackled through :
a) Establishment of professional commercial management of the ranch resources. The “Manyara
Trust Lands: Management Zone Concept Plan” (December 2000) summarizes the results of a
professionally facilitated stakeholder group gathering that looked into the resource base
across the ranch and potential for sustainable development.
b) Development of related wildlife-based enterprises. AWF’s second program area, the
Conservation Service Center (CSC) program, operates from the Arusha office, and its multi￾disciplinary team will be applying their specialist expertise to enterprise development in and
around Manyara Ranch during the period of this project. There is an active private sector
willing to invest, and some resilient markets for wildlife products, so the potential for success
here is high. (Source: Global Conservation Program African Wildlife Foundation,
Conservation of Resources in African Landscapes [CORAL] LWA Award, Maasai Steppe
activity: Concept clarification responses, May 25, 2001).
x Samburu: wildlife-based enterprises. “Sachedina has helped the Laikipia Wildlife Farm (LWF)
design a number of wildlife-based enterprises, partner synergistically with other local and national
groups, and plan for financial sustainability.” (Source: activity report, January 2001)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 69
x In addition, our emphasis on helping partners to help themselves has an inherent sustainability, as
each becomes more effective within its own area of mandate, requiring less external support.
x A recent external evaluation of AWF has reinforced our focus on economic impact within a
landscape, and it is our conviction that fuelling the economic engine is an effective approach
towards long-term sustainability.
33. What are the indicators of external financial sustainability (e.g., debt-for-nature
swaps) that you are monitoring at the site level? How is each defined and what is its
measure?
Examples of external financial sustainability mechanisms include:
x Tourism concession mechanisms that support a flow of funds to national and local governments
while supporting conservation such as at Komodo. (TNC)
x Cost-share mechanisms at the Maasai Steppe landscape. As a priority African Heartland, AWF’s
commitment to the Maasai Steppe is long term. The budget notes on cost share indicate the extent to
which AWF is leveraging funding into this landscape to build a critical mass and impact. It has been
evident to GCP and the USAID country Missions from AWF’s quarterly reporting under the initial
CORAL LWA award the extent to which AWF drives impact through strategically supplementing
GCP and Mission funds with flexible funding from its own membership base, for synergistic
initiatives. Our activities in the Maasai Steppe over the last several years have benefited from
support from our membership, and we anticipate that this will continue. (AWF)
x Leveraging of funding.
x Funding from organization membership.
x Donor support.
x Innovative Finance Activity is supporting the development of tools to screen and design long term
finance mechanisms tailored to specific sites. Working with the Conservation Finance Alliance
(CFA), which includes major conservation NGOs and donor agencies. Flow of input into planning
and content of the conservation finance track of the upcoming World Parks Congress and the
Convention on Biological Diversity, among others.
x “A one-week conference with 30 representatives from various NGOs in Paraguay was held July 3-7
in Asunción, Paraguay. TNC Partner NGO Centro Internacional de Capacitacion para
Organizaciones (CICOAM) organized the event, which was led by Fernando Frydman, a private
consultant, and Lisa Henke of TNC’s Andean Southern Cone (ASC) division. This event introduced
participants (many for the first time) to different mechanisms for working toward institutional
financial self-sufficiency.” (source: TNC semiannual report, 2001, page 29]
x “Through the Cross Border project, TNC has also supported the Paraguayan Office for Joint
Implementation (OPIC) by together organizing a Climate Change Symposium entitled “Diagnosis
and design of an institutionally and legally valid structure for financial management of carbon
sequestration in Paraguay.” This successful symposium explored possibilities for carbon projects in
Paraguay. Support was also given to Paraguayan representatives to participate in the International
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 70
Carbon conferences in Germany, Poland, and France in preparation for the COP 6 meeting in
Holland. In the fiscal year 2002, there are no cross-border activities planned for this objective,
however, TNC does maintain informal discussions with its partners on climate change issues. In the
fiscal year 2002, the TNC Conservation Coordinator in Paraguay will identify potential climate
change activities for the fiscal year 2003 that would be feasible in light of recent global events.”
(source: TNC work plan, fiscal year 2002, page 34]
34. To what degree do you believe you have been promoting participation of an
appropriate array of stakeholders in the implementation phase of your GCP-funded
program? [Overall rating as per #2.]
Analysis: The combined rating by all Partners who provided scores was high (1). Among the array of
means of promoting participation, Partners undertake the following actions:
x Recruit field staff who have expertise in community development and conservation. One Partner
said, “Our field staff members are recognized for their expertise in community
development/conservation. Our organization relies heavily on partners in the landscapes in which
we work, to achieve conservation objectives. Stakeholders that we work closely with include
national parks authorities, local community groups, private sector entities, local CBOs/trusts,
traditional leaders, scientific/research partners, and national NGOs.”
x Rely on partners in the landscapes where they work. Another Partner said, “Stakeholder
participation is integral to planning at all our sites. It has also been a key feature of all the site
projects. In addition, a policy project has involved bringing together farmers, industry,
hydroelectric, municipal governments, national agencies, fisheries, hotel owners, etc. sitting down
and working together to define threats and to look for solutions, together.”
x Formulate strategies to manage (e.g., inform, raise awareness, invite input) each stakeholder group
once identified. One Partner answered, “Our approach is to identify a comprehensive range of
stakeholders and then to formulate a strategy to manage each stakeholder group. Such management
includes keeping stakeholders informed, empowering them by raising their awareness and inviting
their inputs from the very initial stages of program development. Whenever the situation requires,
active collaborative partnerships have been sought with stakeholders.”
x Development of local coordinating units (LCUs). LCUs have been created through the program for
all provinces covered. The LCUs serve as coordinating and planning arenas for all agencies and
institutions (government agencies, NGOs, etc.) involved in development and conservation
initiatives. MOUs has been signed defining the roles of each member.
x Inclusion covers involvement in annual planning, coordination meetings, on-the-ground training,
exchange visits, coordinated meetings with other resource management programs, field biological
monitoring, forestry enforcement actions, enterprise development, policy lobbying, etc.
x One Partner said, “Appropriate is the key word. We decide who we should work with based on the
threats analyses we conduct, and we will be largely guided by our landscape analysis once it is
completed.”
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 71
35. To what degree do you believe you are addressing gender issues in the
implementation of your GCP-funded program? [Overall rating as per #2.]
The three Partners who answered this optional question rated themselves at a combined score of 1 (high).
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Our organization touches on gender through its participatory meetings and scoping exercises.
x There are several women who are coordinators.
x In terms of outreach, key targets for education are adolescent men who culturally still feel
compelled to kill animals.
x We have specifically focused on the issue of timing of day when women might be able to participate
and they have had women only meetings.
x Both genders are key members of the community. We involve them appropriate to their specific
roles in the family and community.
x Men and women often play different roles in causing biodiversity loss and in conserving
biodiversity. Understanding how gender plays out in the market chain that goes from the rural
hunter to an urban consumer has proven valuable in seeking the most effective ways to intervene in
the unsustainable hunting of wildlife for food. Where the roles are similar, or the differences are not
important to conservation objectives, gender issues are not singled out in our work.
36. What kinds of participatory practices/approaches do you find most appropriate in
your field efforts ranging from more passive input such as consultation to more active
involvement such as co-management? This is intended to identify any that might be
generic to any given point on a spectrum of participation as you define it. However,
please provide specific examples of what you consider to have been particularly
“successful” practices (and please explain how you define “success” for each example).
Examples of Partners’ illustrative answers include:
x Passive consultations have been effective, as they have worked to use consultation to move toward
comanagement based on a shared vision. (AWF)
x In the Philippines, we are planning from the local level and building to a large-scale program. (CI)
x For our water program, we have found that a two-pronged approach works best with involving
stakeholders: a quiet phase and then a more public one. We usually start by gathering a core group
of friendly organizations in a workshop setting to make sure that they understand the valuation
process and to come to consensus on the goals and who need to be involved. From this, the various
organizations are tasked with assignments including making contact (however needed) with opinion
leaders of the various stakeholder groups (this is the quiet phase). The idea is to begin educating and
getting buy-in from these opinion leaders so that they can then help motivate others within their
respective groups to participate in the follow-on “public phase.” During the public phase,
workshops are held to educate and build consensus on developing a watershed management plan,
and to identify and prioritize which beneficiaries are most directly linked to the goals of the project.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 72
Often during the public phase there are also public education campaigns and other capacity-building
opportunities conducted to build understanding among as many people as possible. These phases
may actually take a couple of years to complete. As stakeholder participation and support is
paramount to the project this phase must be successful before proceeding. (TNC)
x Given the shortage of resources for conservation across the planet, working with others in a passive
or active manner is essential for conservation success. That said, given the range of factors driving
biodiversity loss, identifying a particularly successful practice is difficult. In Congo the government
has asked WCS to co-manage the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (NNNP) and train Congolese park
staff until such time as there are sufficient experienced national staff to reassume sole responsibility
for park management. In Madidi, WCS forms a bridge between the Tacana and SERNAP (the
government agency responsible for protected area management). By helping to connect these two
management authorities WCS hopes to ensure that wildlife that use habitats spanning the park and
Tacana lands will be managed effectively. The type of participation depends on many factors:
current capacity and organization, concurrence of values and objectives with those of conservation,
degree of threat caused by such actors, expectations, history of involvement, legal context, etc.
(WCS)
x ANSAB is working through federations to give “voice” to individual often-marginalized voices
(e.g., NTFP Networks have 3000 members with 55 institutional members who talk to policy
makers). The work on issues related to problems of corruption at various levels. But, they have been
hampered recently with Maoist groups in country. (Subedi, EWW/ANSAB)
37. What kinds of site-level local capacity has already been developed through your
programs promoted under GCP?
Analysis: A review of documents available showed many training sessions, technical assistance efforts,
workshops, etc. However, discussion of the process seemed to be lacking in the documentation available.
Below are a few examples Partners provided that suggest some of the possibilities.
Technical Assistance
x Local conservation technicians: administration, mechanics, research, and monitoring (Congo) (WCS);
x Tacana (Bolivia): community surveying and land management planning (WCS);
x Private sector (Congo, CIB logging): GIS, conservation planning, and hunting controls (WCS);
Learning while doing strategic and financial planning
x Strategic and financial planning for our local partner at Kimbe Bay, Mahonia na Dari (TNC);
x National conservationists: project activity design and implementation, research, and monitoring
(WCS);
Training
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 73
x Capacity building for Ecuador TNC staff, partners, and consultants on water valuation methodology
and watershed management (TNC);
x The Water Policy Specialist has been working with the Chiapas, Mexico office of TNC on capacity
building for watershed management and water valuation (TNC);
x TNC has built the capacity of Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to coordinate LRFT
activities in the region. SPC now is successfully taking the lead coordination role in responding to
their member country requests, including undertaking stock assessments to determine if LRFT
operations would be viable or not (TNC);
x Protected area staff (three sites generally): law enforcement, limited research and monitoring,
negotiation with private sector, and community relations (WCS);
x Local NRM: honey, caiman, and livestock depredation (Bolivia); fish, snail, and poultry protein
production (Congo) (WCS).
Evaluator Perspective: This issue is one of a number of areas that needs more exploration.
38. Please identify any specific capacity building efforts that you specifically have made
available to traditionally marginalized groups. What results do you believe have occurred
that you can specifically relate to the capacity they developed?
WCS offered this answer:
Land titling with the Tacana in Bolivia provided the Tacana with a legal mechanism for excluding
unwanted outsiders from their lands. In the Kabo logging concession that surrounds the NNNP, zoning
the landscape for hunting based on traditional territories of indigenous farmers and foragers has provided
these marginalized groups with the legal framework to exclude unwanted outsiders from harvesting
wildlife from their lands in an unsustainable manner. (Also see #37.)
39. Please provide examples of how people and/or organizations are applying their new
capacity to address threats at the site level.
CI says that they are formulating and enforcing local policies.
40. What kind(s) of results-oriented impacts have you made to date in the work you have
introduced through the GCP program?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Stopping the issuance of extractive permits that affects habitat lost in the Philippines (CI);
x Watershed groups have been formed; new laws have been developed or are being proposed; the press
as picked up the stories; new sites are interested in applying the Water Valuation Methodology;
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 74
public education campaigns have been developed; and within TNC, site work has been expanded to
include water and watershed (TNC);
x Gazettement of new lands as national park in Congo, reduced illegal hunting in national park and on
logging concession lands, respect for national park staff and regulations, one logging company
actively applying conservation practices on their lands (set asides, protection of endangered species,
controlled hunting, lower impact survey techniques, more efficient placement of roads), interest
generated from other major logging companies to adopt conservation measures, and government
regulations changing to incorporate conservation practices in wildlife and forestry operations (WCS);
x Land titled for the Tacana indigenous group in Bolivia, prohibiting uncontrolled immigration and
development, and preliminary environmental planning document at the local municipality level (first
of its kind in Bolivia) (WCS); and
x The formation of preliminary collaborative management committee for a national park and initial
contacts with oil companies operating at the site in Bolivia (WCS).
Evaluator Perspective: These answers raise the question about the definition of “result.” Some of these
would not pass muster under the USAID Automated Directives System (ADS) definition, even though
many do demonstrate progress toward achieving results.
41. Provide some site-specific examples of what you consider to be success in your
activities with regard to coordination, cooperation and collaboration (definitions included
below):
Coordination: Individuals or organizations doing similar or related kinds of work (e.g., studies)
independently, but find it mutually advantageous to understand each others’ work while continuing to
maintain independent individual efforts.
Cooperation: Willingness of the individuals and/or organizations concerned to plan a rudimentary
arrangement for working together for some mutual benefit.
Collaboration: Two or more individuals or organizations working jointly to resolve a common problem or
objective with a shared plan and implementation responsibilities.
Analysis: Several partners took extra time and effort to pull together an array of examples of the kinds of
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration in which they have participated. These provide some of the
potentially useful distinctions between these forms of social and organizational interaction, with each
level higher requiring different levels of interactions, resources, etc. Perhaps most interesting are some of
the reflections Partners offered about what it takes to see collaboration happen. These include:
x Collaboration occurs as need arises. (AWF)
x It is necessary to think about “strategic alliances.” These alliances should be built on the
complementary aspects and comparative advantages of the different organizations. (AWF)
x Collaborations occur organically in the field. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 75
x What does effective collaboration really mean? You need evangelists who will make collaboration
really happen. (WCS from interview)
x USAID is in a position to more proactively promote collaboration among GCP partners (and others)
if it wants to be. The biodiversity team, uniquely, has a full picture of what the different partners are
doing and can identify opportunities where sharing or closer forms of collaboration might be
productive. Collaboration should not be seen as an end in itself, and a frank assessment of the costs
and benefits of collaborative action is needed in every case. Nevertheless, if one of the GCP’s
broader objectives is to promote greater coordination, cooperation, and/or collaboration among the
partner NGOs, it could usefully play a more active role in identifying and “brokering” opportunities.
That said, one key obstacle to greater collaboration among GCP partners is USAID’s procurement
mechanisms, which require that funding for a joint activity be obligated to only one of the partners,
thus setting up a prime/sub relationship that is not always conducive to effective collaborations.
(TNC)
Categorized examples of Partner answers include:
Coordination
x In the Philippines we have created a LCU per province to serve as a planning and monitoring body.
(CI)
x Coordination is happening in the Philippines with CI, which has activities that cater to some
CBFM groups, (e.g. establishment of model agroforestry areas). Knowing what activities CI
undertakes allows EWW to avoid duplication in activities, creating more opportunities to assist
other sites. (EWW)
x After a training workshop was held on water valuation in the Puerto Barrios region the NGO
Fundo-eco continued on to work with the mayor to develop a water fee project. (TNC)
x In Honduras, Zamorano University is starting a watershed valuation project, and we will be inviting
each other to activities in our respective watersheds. (TNC)
x We have been exchanging information between other organizations like Forest Trends and WWF
that are doing other types of resource valuation work. (TNC)
x There have been numerous exchange visits of government and marine park officials to and from
Komodo National Park to share lessons and approaches, including with the Galapagos Islands.
(TNC)
x In Ecuador, we have co-hosted three Yasuní workshops that were attended by representatives of
most of the major local actors of the Yasuní area. Participants included communities, local
authorities, petroleum companies, and environmental groups. One of the main objectives of the
workshop was to promote the Yasuní Biosphere Reserve concept. (WCS)
Cooperation
x In the Philippines, we formulated an integrated resource management strategy for the different
stakeholders of the province. (CI)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 76
x Cooperation is happening in the Philippines with the Community Forestry Program in Quirino, CI,
and the DENR CBFM (central, regional and field offices) in efforts to federate the provincial
CBFM peoples’ organizations (POs). Expenses are shared for the regional PO consultations and
provincial PO assemblies in order to attain the common goal of organizing a higher level of PO
group. (EWW)
x We have developed both formal and informal exchanges between our partners in various countries
to share information on their work in watershed management and water valuation to build on and
learn from each other’s work. (TNC)
x As a part of the plan to develop a “Green/Brown” alliance, TNC and AIDIS have signed an MOU
and are working to do cross education. (TNC)
x We have also been working with the Ramsar convention secretariat to see how more wetlands can
benefit from and be included in TNC work. (TNC)
x An MOU among TNC, World Resources Institute, International Marinelife Alliance, and the SPC
has been the primary vehicle for carrying out our LRFT activities in the Pacific. (TNC)
x In Bolivia, WCS cooperates with SERNAP to develop a monitoring program to track changes in the
state of natural resources within Bolivia’s national parks and the capacity of SERNAP to manage
these resources effectively. (WCS)
x In northern Congo, WCS collaborates actively with the park administrators in Lobeke (Cameroon)
and Dzanga-Ndoki (Central African Republic [CAR]) to counter transborder poaching that threatens
elephants and other the large mammals in each of the adjoining national parks. (WCS)
x WCS/Ecuador and Environmental Fund (Fondo Ambiental) are working together with park officials
to undertake a review of the Yasuní National Park Management Plan. Our goal is to revise the plan
to reduce and simplify the activities. By having a list of clearly defined activities, park officials will
be able to develop a spending plan that will allow Environmental Fund to do program funds
transfers and to measure work accomplished in the park. (WCS)
Collaboration
x In the Philippines we have established a database center with the National Economic Development
Authority, the regional planning institution of the government mandated to establish a regional
development framework. (CI)
x A group of collaborators was organized in the Philippines last year, of which EWW is a
member. This group is comprised of representatives from the local government unit (LGU)
representing the following: agriculture offices (province and municipal), veterinary offices,
municipal and provincial development offices, the provincial cooperative office, the
National Commission on Indigenous People (province), the DENR project management
officers, and NGOs (CI and EWW/Philippines). A plan has been prepared with two main
objectives: to enable the DENR and LGU to support sustainable development and NRM in
cooperation with the POs, and to empower the POs to practice land use planning and manage related
affairs for sustaining natural resources. Needs of CBFM sites are being raised by the municipal area
coordinators, and these are being catered to by concerned agencies and monitored quarterly. (EWW)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 77
x In Chiapas, Mexico, managers of the four reserves located in the greater watershed are being trained
as a group and are working together to develop a work plan that will achieve mutual benefits.
(TNC)
x In Honduras, we have been working as a collaborative effort with municipal governments, national
agencies, universities, NGOs, and local landowners to develop sustainable work plans. (TNC)
x Within TNC, we have been collaborating with other areas to provide a more holistic approach to
watershed issues. One of the most successful has been the collaboration with the Private Lands
Initiative, working together to apply easements and other tools in watershed management. (TNC)
x In Kimbe Bay, the economic study of the oil palm industry is part of a broader effort led by WWF.
We are collaborating with WWF and CI, among others, in carrying out an ecoregional plan for the
area that includes the Papua New Guinea Islands region targeted in this project. (TNC)
x In Ecuador, WCS staff have initiated a process to collaborate in landscape scale strategic planning
with a series of potential management partners including local and national government, indigenous
groups, park staff, and oil companies. This group is expected to be formalized into the Yasuni
Management Committee. In addition, we are already working closely with a national NGO, Fondo
Ecuatoriano Populorum Progresso (FEPP), to gather sociocultural information that both
organizations will use to plan development and conservation activities in the Yasuni area that are
mutually supportive. WCS will provide technical assistance to FEPP in terms of conservation and
biological monitoring, while FEPP will help WCS in terms of working with communities (e.g.,
human activities monitoring). (WCS)
x In Bolivia, we are collaborating with SERNAP in the updating of the Landscape Conservation
Action Plan, which will serve as a planning tool for SERNAP as well as local governments and
other conservation and donor groups. (WCS)
x Also in Bolivia, we are working with CARE on the Madidi Management plan, providing biological,
spatial threats information, and socioeconomic data. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 78
III. Learning and Adaptive Management (questions #42-58)
42. In what way(s) does your program encourage the integration of analysis into
activities and adaptive management at the site level?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x We consistently use the lessons learned approach in not only revamping work plans at individual
sites but also at new sites. We are able to take previous experiences into consideration in developing
those plans. When we get to actually applying the water valuation methodology, the first step is
identifying the goals of the project—all else flows from that. This will then, in the future, provide a
measuring stick for success as conservation projects mature and their results are able to be tested
against these established goals (this phase is outside of the project life span but the tools will be in
place). (TNC)
x We use threats analyses and conceptual models for each project. We are also developing monitoring
frameworks. All of these analyses contribute to continually rethinking choices of activities to
undertake, activity designs, and adaptive management at the site level. (WCS)
43. What are some of the key lessons your organization has learned about gathering
internal experience to contribute to understanding of lessons learned? What has resulted
from “capturing” these internal lessons?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x In the Philippines, we work to better understand site realities. Our plans reflect the real problems
and solutions. (CI)
x An example is the development of the water valuation methodology as a guide for developing
watershed projects and water-fees after the initial project in Quito. From Quito, we learned the
importance of developing a diverse sustainable base of knowledge and support so that future
projects would not be dependent on one champion but would be widely accepted. We also learned
that source protection and upland watershed management is not just about collecting user-fees. To
restore or maintain a healthy watershed, there are various actions required by various stakeholders,
and water-fees are just one of the tools. Therefore, after the first year, the project was expanded to
be one of watershed management and not just user-fees. (TNC)
x WCS says, “Gathering internal experience is not easy! People are busily engaged in conservation
activities, and often there is significant site-specificity to experiences that are not necessarily easy to
share. Gathering internal experience can be very useful when real commonality exists.” As a result,
they have developed stronger strategies, thinking more critically about activities undertaken; they
have shared methodologies that allow for cross-site benefits; and they have learned to see a larger
context. (WCS)
44. What ways are you, as an organization, exploring to improve your ability to “capture”
internal lessons?
Examples of Partner answers include:
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 79
x Have a lot of accumulated experience (AWF);
x Take a look at knowledge management (AWF);
x Intranet capability allows posting of new lessons (“In Touch”) (AWF);
x Use corporate philosophy—manage relationships, be poised to really become more of a “learning
organization,” and try to get financing (AWF);
x Preparation for a three-day corridor meeting to share lessons learned required each program to
gather lessons (CI);
x Document site progress as case studies and develop a training manual on financial mechanisms that
draws from the experiences to date and other experiences outside of our sites (TNC);
x Communicate via annual program meetings (WCS);
x Bring field staff together from different sites (WCS);
x Produce bulletins that record our concepts, strategic developments, and methodologies (WCS);
x Identify individuals from WCS staff who are enthusiastic about pursuing cross-site learning in a
certain topic and will lead the process (WCS);
x Plan smaller topical meetings to bring together sets of people from the field sites to promote cross￾site learning (WCS);
x Encourage documentation of lessons learned by field staff (WCS).
45. What ways have you used under GCP funding to access learning that has occurred
external to your organization?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Of particular note is GCP funded exploration of the TNC approach (AWF);
x Still need to document our own conceptual model and site planning (AWF);
x Have links with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the US Forest Service (USFS)—used
GCP funds to bring in matching expertise (tap specific resources to fill specific gaps) (AWF);
x Exploring efforts with World Watch (AWF);
x Not aware of any such activity (CI);
x Tried to develop liaisons with other organizations, share knowledge and also make important
contacts with those working in the broader areas (Partner observed that: “One of the unique
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 80
things about water is that it ‘flows.’ It is therefore used by many types of people who then have
various impacts upon it.”) (TNC);
x Other examples described during the roundtable:
a) Person to person contact;
b) Meetings in the field with partners and other interested parties;
c) Use of printed materials, gray literature, articles in various journals, and other academic
sources in US and abroad;
d) Attendance at learning workshops;
e) Involvement with local communities, the private sector (US and abroad), local government;
international NGOs, and development practitioners;
f) E-mail and online databases;
g) The press; and
h) Government reports.
46. What are some of the most critical issues about which you believe you need to be
accessing external learning?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Staying in touch with the greater water world on both technical and policy issues is very important.
In addition to the technical knowledge, networking is very important and translates into even greater
flows of information between sites and organizations. (TNC)
x Other examples described during the roundtable:
a) Biological data (how to streamline and make it sustainable);
b) Socioeconomic monitoring;
c) Site planning tools (monitoring and socioeconomic);
d) Governance (sustainable systems in socioeconomic context);
e) Decision support tools;
f) Defining threats and activities in response to threats;
g) Conservation finance tools;
h) Monitoring tools;
i) Targeted technical support (in agriculture, development, etc.);
j) Local/rural development;
k) Getting long term political support for advances;
l) Improving agricultural practices;
m) How to deal with population dynamics; and
n) How to deal with trend toward promoting sustainable forestry.
47. In what way(s) do you think the lessons you are learning are being most effectively
disseminated internally?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Last year, we had a weeklong training workshop where many partners came together. This year, we
had a three-day course where some new potential sites learned about what has been happening. As
always, the informal discussions were a great leverage to presentations. We also have done some
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 81
south/south exchanges with other countries coming to the Honduras project and participating in the
stakeholder workshops that we were conducting there and learning by participating. From that, they
have been able to take lessons learned and overlay with local conditions. Both the larger workshops
and the exchanges are very effective. (TNC)
x WCS offered the following examples:
a) Development of crosscutting programs with full time staff dedicated to promoting cross-site
learning,
b) Person to person (deliberate contact),
c) Bulletins,
d) Meetings,
e) E-mail, and
f) Word of mouth (in passing, between field staff, between sites).
48. In what ways do you think the lessons you are learning are being most effectively
disseminated to your associate organizations (including NGOs, local governments, the
private sector, etc.)?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Collaborative planning in the Philippines (CI);
x Various mechanisms such as:
a) Bulletin dissemination,
b) Regular personal contact with major local actors,
c) Meetings, workshops,
d) Website,
e) Reports, and
f) E-mail (WCS).
x The issue of results of dissemination is important. Other organizations in the broader conservation
community are using the Living Landscape Program (e.g., Alaska Nature Conservancy, Adirondack
Park Commission Landscape Species Approach) and looking at it for selection of targets within
ecoregional planning, especially of wide-ranging species. (WCS from interview)
49. In what ways do you think the lessons you are learning are being effectively
disseminated by USAID to the broader conservation community?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Good documentation of lessons learned in the Philippines (CI);
x Person to person contact (WCS); and
x E-mails (WCS).
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 82
50. Should USAID/GCP be promoting more synthesis of lessons learned?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Yes, within reason. Must consider time that this additional reporting requirement will take. (CI)
x Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! (TNC)
x Yes, with provisos. USAID/GCP should be promoting more synthesis of lessons learned with
programs, but hopefully with accompanying resources to actually do so. Learning across different
institutions’ programs would require even more dedicated resources for greater transaction costs,
with corresponding gains less certain. (WCS)
51. Should USAID GCP be promoting broader dissemination of lessons learned through
the Program?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Yes. (CI)
x Yes! Yes! A thousand times, yes! (TNC)
x Yes, lessons learned should be more broadly disseminated to the conservation community,
especially using new technologies where appropriate. (WCS)
52. What mechanisms/tools/approaches are you using to draw conclusions or lessons
from the monitoring information you have obtained?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Field validation and expert consultations in the Philippines (CI), and
x Statistics and GIS (among other tools) to analyze monitoring information (WCS).
53. What are the key constraints you confront when you try to draw conclusions?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Validity of the information and the appropriateness of indicators used to measure the expected
results (CI); and
x Observer reliability, sufficiency of data, and precision/variance/short-term nature of information
(WCS).
54. Is habitat quantity measured at all your sites (yes/no)? Which sites? If not, why not?
Examples of Partner answers include:
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 83
x No, gathering the baseline data is still going on. (CI)
x Yes , all sites. (WCS)
Evaluator Perspective: The former indicates that habitat quality is not measured at all sites. The latter
indicates that habitat quantity is measured at all sites. Therefore, based on these two responses, it is
possible only to say that it depends on the Partner and their practices and where they are in the process of
monitoring, as there are differences in status at different sites.
55. Is habitat quality measured at all your sites (yes/no)? Which sites? If not, why not?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x No, gathering the baseline data is still going on. (CI)
x If suites of landscape species are a proxy measure for habitat quality, then yes, we are (or are
initiating) measures of habitat quality. (WCS)
Evaluator Perspective: The issue about the use of proxy indicators is useful here.
56. If you are using extractive methods as part of your activities to conserve biodiversity,
how are you monitoring ecological, social, economic, and sustainability issues? With
what results?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x For ecological indicators, refer to biological monitoring plan submitted for Nepal. For social and
economic indicators, see “EWW Impact Tracking System.” For results, see indicator reports
submitted. Philippine example: Since GCP operates within the legal framework of the CBFM
program, sustainability indicators include the adherence to existing DENR policy of sustainable
harvesting. This includes complying with Department of Administrative Orders (DAO) 2000-29,
which mandated the retention of 80 cubic meters after harvest stock of the cutting area and the
establishment of the forest stock monitoring system (FSMS), which tracks the timber resource from
its standing state until it reaches the end user. Economic indicators include the conduct of
business planning and its implementation. How well a PO follows its business plan and attains its
percentage of the income projected comprise the economic indicators of the harvesting operation.
Ecological, social, economic and sustainability indicators are also being measured in EWW’s
impact tracking system. (EWW)
x Not applicable. (WCS)
Roundtable Focus Question: In your program or across the whole GCP I portfolio, what
“best practices” or lessons learned under GCP about addressing threats to biodiversity
would be a priority for synthesis and dissemination at this point?
Note: the evaluator asked this question during the July roundtable.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 84
Categorized examples of Partner answers include:
Innovative Landscape Tools
x Land trusts as a tool for conservation;
x Integrated methodology for watershed valuation, planning, and management;
x Land trusts, private land acquisitions, and enterprise activities;
x Business ventures as tool for threat abatement;
x Pitfalls, benefits, and strategies of engaging with industry/ the private sector;
Learning and Measuring Progress
x Value of consistent approach to facilitate and guide learning and implementation across sites within
a program;
x M&E ride;
Integrating Economics into Conservation
x Economic development is NOT contrary to conservation;
x Conservation must have value, but needs support from those who pay;
Scope and Scale
x Challenges and benefits of working at larger scale conservation;
x Need to build support and capacity at all levels (local and national);
x Value of protected areas as anchors, but this is not enough;
x Importance of working with “development” organizations when working on development issues
(i.e., population, poverty, agriculture, health, etc.);
x Maximizing benefits of collaboration;
Place-Based (Site) Planning
x Value of diverse planning tools that fit in different scales and contexts across GCP portfolio;
x Site conservation planning methodology (e.g., AWF, TNC);
x General lessons from threats approach;
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 85
x Integrated methodology for watershed planning and management; and
x Site planning through value of tools (i.e. SCP) for clear threats identification and identifying and
prioritizing targets, threats, activities.
57. What conditions/factors do you believe need to be in place to have an effective
adaptive management approach?
Analysis: Partners outlined a sound array of illustrative examples of conditions that need to be in place to
have an effective adaptive management approach. This set can serve as a good foundation for a more
substantive and focused discussion on the topic in the future. Categorized examples of Partner answers
include:
Goals and Objectives Established
x Clear goal and objectives (WCS);
x Need to look at design, objectives, and assumptions in design (WWF);
Monitoring System in Place
x Effective monitoring system (ecological and socioeconomic) (AWF);
x A plan, testing of assumptions, and monitoring framework (WCS);
x Formal monitoring programs on Komodo (TNC);
x Good baseline has now been developed in Paraguay (WWF);
Information Management System in Place
x Such lessons should be centralized and collated for a comprehensive analysis in Guyana (CI);
Analysis—Funding, Models, Tools, Methods
x Funding to engage in analysis that can then feed back (AWF);
x Funding to pilot key interventions (AWF);
x Conceptual model of the project (WCS);
x Use of participatory methodologies in Paraguay (TNC);
x Importance of having feedback mechanisms (WWF);
x Need to ask questions: “Have you done this? And what were your assumptions?” (WFF);
x GIS tools are really good for what they are doing in Paraguay (WWF);
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 86
Capacity
x Capacity to undertake targeted research (AWF);
x “Training, capacity building, and training!” A big component of this is exchanges where one group
can see and understand what happened in another place and why. The partners and the key
stakeholders need to understand:
a) what adaptive management is,
b) what the water valuation process is, and
c) how these work together (TNC);
x Field presence of able personnel on Komodo with a background in natural resources management
(TNC);
x In La Paz, there is good knowledge at the department level and field level (WWF);
Staff Roles and Responsibilities
x In Guyana, all members of the planning team are held accountable for monitoring and evaluating
the projects they are managing as well as for continually documenting and analyzing the lessons
learned while implementing their projects (CI);
x Willingness by field staff to question all project assumption, objectives and goals and raise issues,
suggestions, and strategy ideas (EWW);
x Team approach that values suggestions from all parties (i.e., donor, US partner representation,
community, government, and field staff) (EWW);
x Establishment of clear goals and responsibilities in Paraguay (TNC);
Information Dissemination/Exchange
x The overall lessons learnt should be shared with other CI programs and partner organizations (CI);
x Exchanges of ideas-progress among like entities (communities, councils, etc.) in Paraguay (TNC);
Active Use of Information
x Once managers in Guyana document useful lessons, they should re-strategize and modify their
projects if necessary to ensure that implementation is more effective and that they are having the
impacts desired (CI);
x Analysis and using results to adapt and learn (WCS);
x Adaptive management including design and a structure that requires you to evaluate the programs
and ensure that factors are more explicitly articulated in the design (WWF);
x Acknowledge that many factors are out of your control (WWF);
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 87
Positive Relationship with Donor
x A comfortable working relationship with the donor, and trust that when problems arise they will be
dealt with in a supportive and fair fashion (EWW);
x A good understanding that the annual work plan can be adjusted and changed by field staff as long
as the overall goals of the project are moving forward (EWW);
Positive Relationship with Project Participants and Knowledge of Local Conditions
x Basic level of trust between implementers and project participants in Paraguay (TNC); and
x Management of the program and projects in Kimbe Bay need to be adaptive to local conditions. The
single most adaptive component is to have some flexibility in the timing of implementation, which
in many cases in the Pacific may have to be stretched (TNC).
Evaluator Perspective: This set of answers can serve as a good foundation for a more substantive and
focused discussion on the topic in the future.
58. What are your greatest challenges vis-à-vis instituting and maintaining an adaptive
management approach? Please provide site-specific examples, as appropriate, to
explain.
Analysis: Partners reported on a wide array of “greatest” challenges. Issues about funding, time and
timing of actions, staff, changes in government, and putting learning into action seem to rate higher than
others that are no less of a challenge but may be more project-specific. Categorized examples of Partners
include:
Lack of Funding
x The greatest challenge instituting an adaptive management approach is lack of funding. With
current level of investment at GCP sites, there is scarcely enough funds to implement priority
activities and resources and staff time are rarely available to step back and evaluate the progress that
we’ve achieved, analyze our work, and to adaptively manage future activities. (AWF)
x Financing. As a very small project there is little funding available for the water effort to do the type
of training and cross training that I would like to be able to do. We do some and take advantage of
other funding sources as available, but it does not meet the real needs. (TNC)
Timing of Implementation of Adaptive Management Approach
x In Guyana there has not been any significant challenge to implementing an adaptive management
approach. However, it would have been helpful if the corridor learning system was developed and
formally implemented at an even earlier stage in our corridor process. (CI)
Time Frame for Initiating and Implementing Action
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 88
x There is a need to be realistic about time frame issues at any given site (e.g., attempting to have an
intrinsic consultative process during a very short time frame). (WWF)
Staff Capability
x An adaptive management approach needs people who know when to step into political process and
make appropriate steps or into the action and move to do things. These people have experience,
some capacity built, but a lot of intuition. (WWF)
Staff Turnover
x Given the EWW approach includes major enterprise and conservation components, it has always
been a challenge to recruit and retain good people that can appreciate both components and
incorporate them well in adaptive management. While in Nepal and the Philippines the teams have
done well maintaining an adaptive management approach, staff turn over can become an issue. For
example, in the Philippines, staff turn over has meant additional time needed to build up to the
“condition factors” noted in #57 to foster an environment for adaptive management. (EWW)
Changes in Government Agencies, Policies, Laws, and Programs
x Constant changes within the Paraguayan Ministry of Environment make it difficult to maintain
dialogue with staff assigned to an ecoregion. (TNC)
x Ecuador is a politically complex country, so one important consideration is that we are two and a
half months away from a presidential election. There are no clear front-runners and no consensus
about necessary changes in goals and national priorities. Another consideration is that the
government is instituting a new national policy of decentralization. Under this process, local
governments can request jurisdiction, authority, and funding to conduct most governmental
functions at the local level, rather than having ministry officials administering programs at the
national level. Both national and local authorities are having problems with this program as laws
will have to be changed and budgets restructured in order to accomplish the activities at the local
level. In the midst of this degree of change, instituting an approach and adapting it—while partners
change in their responsibilities—is difficult at best. (WCS)
Putting Learning into Action in the Field
x As we are working on Komodo under an MOU with the Indonesian Park authority, changes in the
field situation cannot always be directly translated into appropriate management action. This often
needs a bit more time. The challenge is to help the park administration put procedures in place that
are flexible enough to allow for adaptive management, without being too vague. (TNC)
x Sometimes it is difficult to convince authorities of the importance of being flexible and responding
to conditions or situations as they arise. For Congo, the failure of the government to adopt the
management plan for the park until very recently is a good example—the changes that they wanted
to make could have in many cases happened as part of an adaptive management strategy, but they
wanted everything etched in stone. If on a project level some of those things do not get implemented
(because they do not make sense), and we do not in the interim succeed in convincing the
government that adaptation is reasonable, we will be accused of “failing” to fully implement the
management plan. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 89
Flexibility to Take Action
x Paraguay is an example where destruction is really intensive. Partners are scrambling to save last
remaining areas. This requires being able to shift quickly when opportunities arise. There is an
strong need for flexibility to be opportunistic. (WWF)
x We need to avoid being reactive all the time. It is necessary to anticipate trends and take steps
quickly. (WWF)
Cost-Effective Identification of Right Assumptions and Indicators
x Identifying the right assumptions/indicators to generate the most cost-effective learning is a
challenge in the Philippines. (CI)
Getting Stakeholder Support and Cooperation
x Marketing adaptive management principles to get stakeholders cooperation and support in the
Philippines is a challenge. (CI)
Program Management Structure
x The greatest challenge to adaptive management in Kimbe Bay is minimizing the layers of program
and project management and top management. (TNC)
Donor Expectations
x Setting the bar of donor expectations makes it difficult sometimes to shift direction when certain
changes do occur or need to occur; they may be perceived as a failure. (WWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 90
IV. Inter-Institutional Relationships (Questions #59-68)
59. To what degree do you believe the USAID GCP and Partner relationship at the
Washington level is working well?
Analysis: The combined rating by both USAID/GCP staff and Partners was 1.45 (slightly tending toward
high than to moderate). With one set of field staff rating the relationship at two this would move the
relationship to moderately high.
The combined total of ratings by the Partners was 1.3. Disaggregated, the ratings were:
x Four organizations rated the relationship at 1 (high),
x Two organizations rated the relationship at 2 (moderate), and
x One set of field staff rated the relationship at 2 (moderate).
The combined total of ratings by the USAID/GCP was about 1.6. Disaggregated, the ratings were:
x One staff member rated the set of relationships at 1.5 (moderately high)
x One staff member rated the set of relationships at 1-2 (some high, others
moderate)
x One staff member rated the set of relationships at 2 (moderate)
x One staff member only commented (below).
Analysis: In general, Partners view that their relationship with USAID/GCP staff is working well. They
noted that:
x They can leverage funds;
x There is a huge scope for learning;
x The Project Officer has publicly declared that GCP is about learning; and
x There is not too much micromanagement.
They do provide some constructive suggestions about the relationship:
x USAID staff need to visit the field more;
x Quarterly meetings are mostly about administrative issues when they might be more beneficial if
focused on technical issues;
x Staff provide almost no feedback on the semiannual reports; and
x Interactions are pleasant and satisfactory, but there is not much substance.
USAID/GCP staff members generally believe the relationships are working well. They note on the
positive side that:
x The relationship with Partners is strong on the administrative level;
x The relationship value is higher with Partners with whom USAID staff can interact on both a
technical and management level;
x They appreciate hearing about issues, successes and failures, throughout the year (as opposed to just
in semiannual reports); and
x In achieving the goal of broadening USAID’s relationship with the NGO community in
Washington, the relationships are working very well.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 91
From a slightly less positive perspective, USAID staff members note some of the issues they face with
regard to the relationships:
x USAID staff members devote limited and unequal time to the technical aspects of the sites and since
the partner staff have varied backgrounds (management versus technical) and varied involvement at
the sites.
x The parts that are more difficult are the parts that staff does not control such as USAID reporting
requirements and limitations on how money can be spent.
Examples of Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers supporting the above observations include3
:
Partner Responses
x The relationship has provided a great mechanism and we have been able to leverage support from
Missions to complement GCP funding.
x The down side is quarterly meetings. GCP staff should share administrative information via E-mail
so that learning across groups during meetings can be enhanced.
x There is a huge scope for GCP to leverage learning both at the USAID/W and at field levels.
x We really appreciated hearing Cynthia [Gill] responding to a challenge to the program. Cynthia
[Gill]’s response was to say, “We’re about learning.” That was an important confirmation.
x This organization’s relationship with USAID is very cooperative and viewed as a partnership.
x USAID is always approachable, responsive, and helpful. While we recognize USAID/GCP staff and
travel budgets are very limited, it would be nice for the USAID/GCP staff to have interaction with
the field staff at the sites. It was very helpful when site representatives got to attend the annual GCP
meeting and meet the GCP staff, but a field visit would very much help to increase a working
relationship between field and GCP staff.
x We believe we have a great relationship with the cognizant technical officer (CTO) on the work
plan. However, there is almost no feedback on the semiannual reports. The interactions are pleasant
and satisfactory, but there is not much substance.
x Most interactions are on administrative issues. Generally, they stay at an arm’s length and do not
feel that there is too much micromanagement.
USAID/GCP Staff Responses
x I think it is working well overall. I think the team itself is very flexible and accommodating and tries
extremely hard to understand the positions and interests of partners. The part that is more difficult is
the part that we do not control such as the USAID reporting requirements and limitations on how
 
3 Answers are not attributed to maintain anonymity for Partners and USAID/GCP staff, but they are categorized to
indicate an answer from a Partner or an USAID/GCP staff member.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 92
money can be spent. Overall, there is a relatively healthy, open dynamic to the relationship, despite
the donor/recipient relationship.
x I think it’s varied. Most of the partner relationships are fairly strong on an administrative level.
Communication between USAID and Partners is good. There is little conflict and this results in
parties getting the information they need to do their jobs.
x Overall, I believe the relationships between USAID and the Partners work well. The administrative
relationship between USAID and Partners is more consistent and therefore may be more functional
(i.e., all Partners follow the same reporting schedule and contractual details and all CTOs have same
expectations).
x On a technical level, the variation within the relationship is even greater, since USAID staff devote
limited and unequal time to the technical aspects of the sites and since the Partner staff have varied
backgrounds (management versus technical) and varied involvement at the sites. Efforts at the
coordination, collaboration, and leadership level are much more nascent and difficult to evaluate.
x The relationship value is higher with Partners with whom I can interact on both a technical and
management level (not necessarily the same person).
x The technical relationship between USAID and a given Partner varies by CTO, resulting in varying
levels of involvement.
x I really appreciate hearing about issues, successes and failures, throughout the year. I feel that I can
play more of an interactive role with partners who forward information from the field throughout
the year (as opposed to just in semiannual reports).
x I think that some work plan problems are exacerbated when the link between USAID and the field is
a non-biodiversity person. This is especially important when discussing how activities link to
threats. Technical input is also very important for portions of quarterly meetings when discussion of
technical issues arise. This will become increasingly important as the degree of cooperation
increases among partners in activities and lessons learned.
x In achieving the goal of broadening USAID’s relationship with the NGO community in
Washington, the relationships are working very well.
60. What improvement(s) do you believe would make the relationship between USAID
and Partners better? Why? [Bulleted responses will suffice.]
Analysis: In addressing the issue of what improvements Partners and USAID/GCP staff believe would
make the relationship better, many referred to points raised in question #59. However, they also added the
following proposed improvements. Categorized examples of Partner and USAID/GCP staff
recommendations include:
Information Sharing and Learning Opportunities
x There is some good scope for teasing out a set of top ten threats and to take some greater learning
from sites that could occur. (AWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 93
x We suggest a one- to three-page annual summary of how the whole GCP program is doing that lists
indicators, progress, and top lessons. (EWW)
x A reflection piece (no more than five to 10 pages) on how the USAID/GCP staff sees each of the
Partner’s approaches and progress, and how approaches are similar, different, or compatible would
be helpful. For example, the piece might say, “GCP partners are working on scales from x to x, use
the following methodologies. They have identified x threats, are working to mitigate the following
threats, and doing the following implementation activities to mitigate threat (broken out by filed
level and policy like our indicators reports).” This would help EWW and hopefully other partners
know just how many of us are working on common threats and what activities are being used to
mitigate the threats. (EWW)
x We suggest more proactive efforts by GCP staff to promote learning and exchanges across sites and
programs and identify opportunities for Partners to work together on common issues. (TNC)
x It would be helpful to work on increasing less formal communication (i.e., sharing of ideas and
issues). This goes for both Partners and USAID. (Mary Rowen, USAID/GCP)
Improve Meetings
x Focus semiannual meetings to allow for a greater exchange of lessons learned. Too many agenda
items leave participants walking away with limited concrete new information. (CI)
x Focus quarterly meetings more on technical issues, as most Partners don’t understand “AID-speak”
and don’t need all details about the transition, but they are interested in the bottom line. (WWF)
x Rotate meetings. (WWF)
x Have facilitated meetings and then have the Partner hosting the meeting take the lead on a technical
session. (WWF)
x USAID/GCP staff should go up to New York to WCS for a meeting when invited. (WWF)
x Make sure that there is technical input from partners at GCP meetings in Washington. (Mary
Rowen, USAID/GCP)
Need for Increased USAID/GCP Involvement, Input, and Follow Up
x Additional time devoted by GCP staff to understanding and commenting on the content of our
programs, including more frequent field visits, would be useful. (TNC)
x When GCP partners provide data for USAID information requests, a follow-up on how the
information was used and what—if any—the reaction was from the office that requested the
information would be helpful. (EWW)
x More site visits by GCP staff, and perhaps other partners as appropriate, would be good. Or if
partner-to-partner visits are impossible, have “briefings” where staff coming from the field can give
an update in person. We always learn and retain more when face-to-face rather than when reading a
document. USAID could encourage (rather than require) this idea, and partners could take the lead
on facilitating opportunities, as it helps all of us in the long run. (WWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 94
x Especially having increased awareness of USAID-GCP staff, it might save everyone’s time since
questions could subsequently be more focused and realistic based on knowledge of site. (WWF)
Improve Existing and Potential Relationships
x More contact between GCP staff and WCS staff would allow GCP to better understand WCS’s
institutional context and program. (WCS)
x It is necessary to think further about the “felt need” for different forms of relationships. This refers
to different forms of interactions that have been addressed through organizations like the African
Biodiversity Conservation Group (ABCG) that has dealt with thematic issues and some groups that
have come together very effectively on the bushmeat issues. (AWF)
Improved Program/Staff Management
x I suggest better handoffs when there is staff turnover. The biggest problems we’ve encountered are
during poor hand-offs of management responsibility. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Less management burden for some of the USAID CTOs would allow for more dedicated attention
to the Partner and sites. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x Possibly more USAID/GCP internal communication would contribute to a clearer, more consistent
message to Partners. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
61. To what degree do you believe your relationship(s) with USAID missions is working
well? Please list country and then scale. [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis: The Partners’ combined rating was 1.87 (tending to moderate), and the staff combined rating
was 1.8 (tending to moderate). These ratings suggest the potential for improvement. It might be helpful
for readers to revisit question #3 and think about some of the implications between how well Missions
think they are doing, and how this might or might affect the relationships they have.
Examples of Partner and USAID/GCP explanations include:
x Some Missions want GCP activities to be their own.
x Providing more systematic updates on the progress in implementing the program to the local
USAID Mission might help to promote an even stronger relationship. Such updates are currently
provided, but only on an ad hoc basis. A clear understanding of our work and its impacts should
help USAID to appreciate the importance of their support as well as how our projects relate to other
USAID goals such as capacity building, enhancing participation of traditionally marginalized
stakeholders, and sustainable development.
x Different reporting formats and time periods required by the Mission and the USAID Global Bureau
have resulted in additional work for staff. These reporting requirements result in less time being
spent actively monitoring and visiting ongoing project activities.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 95
x Overall, the relationship between our organization and the Mission has improved since a full time
Country Program Director and an in-country coordinator have been hired. The addition of these two
positions has resulted in improved and more regular communication between TNC and USAID.
x Interestingly, in one area, project staff report little or no interactions with USAID/Indonesia staff.
x Little interest is expressed from the Missions in this work. In some cases, they do have other
projects going on but they have identified other NGOs to fund and do not seem interested in what
we are doing or how we could work together.
x While we know the appropriate USAID Mission people and visit them one or two times a year in
addition to informal meetings at receptions, the relationship needs to improve. We have dedicated
the past two and a half years to getting the program underway. It has taken a great deal of effort to
prepare our annual/semiannual reports, implementation plans, and performance monitoring
evaluation. Beginning this year, however, we will be able to show project accomplishments. Having
these accomplishments to present to USAID Mission staff will make future meetings with them
much more interesting and productive. We would also like to point out that within the past year both
the Mission Director and the Environmental Officer positions experienced personnel changes.
x We are in close contact with the one Mission, with funding for the work provided over the past two
years and continuing this year and next.
x With one Mission we rate the relationship high on many levels since the USAID officer is very
involved and knowledgeable, but he goes into too many details and tends to micromanage.
x Our representative in the field has developed good rapport. However, with changes in USAID staff,
WWF has concern about changes in Mission perspectives about our efforts.
62. What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with the USAID
Missions in the countries where you work with GCP funding better? Why? [Bulleted
responses will suffice.]
x Analysis: Partners and USAID/GCP staff recommended improvements in relationships with
USAID Missions in the following areas:
Increased Interactions between USAID/GCP Staff and Missions
x GCP needs to get out more to Missions to interact and build stronger relationships. This will help to
reinforce AWF efforts on the same. (AWF)
x One possibility would be for GCP, and the Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade Bureau
(EGAT) in general, to work with the Partners to approach the Missions together and encourage that
mission-allocated funds enhance the work being seeded by GCP. Not only should GCP take the
initiative, but they should also sit down together with Missions and Partner country office and
headquarters staff. (TNC)
x We would like to see more involvement by USAID/GCP to engage Missions and inform them about
the LWA mechanism. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 96
x Many of the actions that would improve the GCP, and not just Mission relationships, are related to
the team having more time to manage. Ideally, we would improve our relationships with Missions
by having more time to interact with them about GCP, to follow up more closely on work plans with
them, and to make more site visits, among other things. Given the constraints we face in terms of
management time and the relative priority of Missions compared to the mandatory aspects of the
GCP and the other programs we manage, we do a relatively good job of working with. There is lots
of room for improvement, though. (Allendorf,4
 USAID/GCP)
x Increased communication from both USAID/W and from partners on both site-specific issues and
GCP-wide happenings and initiatives through perhaps a bi-yearly newsletter would be helpful. (Gill,
USAID/GCP)
Increased Coordination of Program with USAID Programs
x In-country programs should be directly coordinated with in-country USAID Missions. (CI)
x Besides what is mentioned above, it might be useful to explore opportunities for formulating and
implementing projects that are complementary to the ones we are implementing under the current
USAID agreement. There are significant opportunities for a wide range of projects that could
contribute to sustainable development in the Guyana region. (CI)
x In the Philippines continued assistance with linking the GCP project to other USAID funded
programs in country would be very helpful. (EWW)
x Although I have positive working relationships with the in-country environmental staff in my
program areas, I don’t believe GCP sites should be working in areas within a country that are
outside of the specific country’s priority area. For example, at the WCS GCP site in Ecuador, the
USAID/Ecuador Mission has a large environment program and an SO that prioritizes the activities
and regions, so the WCS site falls outside of the context of the Mission program. (Martino,
USAID/GCP)
x Fund sites in countries where USAID is present only when there is Mission support (not necessarily
financial). In countries where USAID has a strong environment program, the Mission should
strongly support GCP activities as complimentary to their own programs (otherwise GCP should not
be there). (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x In countries where USAID is present, develop some kind of co-management by Washington and the
field. Co-funding would be ideal. If field funding is not possible, then try some option for a stronger
co-management role by the Mission if desired. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
Increased Interaction with and Input by USAID Mission Staff
x In Nepal, the detailed comments on the work plans early on were most appreciated. Additional
feedback on periodic reporting would also be appreciated. The Mission’s meetings with ANSAB
staff have also been good and we hope will continue and increase in number. (EWW)
 
4
 Teri Allendorf was a USAID/GCP staff member when she responded to the Questionnaire, but she has
since left the project.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 97
x Getting a clear understanding of Mission concerns and expectations regarding specific approved
activities will help us address these issues appropriately before the activities are carried out. (TNC)
x Formally presenting our implementation plan prior to final approval by those involved would allow
us to incorporate suggested changes by local Mission staff, as well as to clarify proposed activities.
(WCS)
x In Ecuador, the shift to concerns about Plan Colombia has rendered the Mission relatively
uninterested in where we work and what we are trying to accomplish. Before that shift, the Mission
was showing real interest in expanding upon our work. Greater continuity in Mission strategies and
staff would make a large difference, but this is undoubtedly not possible. In the meantime, more
frequent meetings with them may help in a limited way. (WCS)
x More regular but informal communications that have developed over time have helped reduce
formal requirements for reports. (WWF)
x We want to let them know what is going on and get them engaged. We are trying to figure out how
to balance the requests for reporting. (WWF)
x WWF has talked about doing some awareness raising regarding the LWA mechanism in Cambodia.
(WWF)
x More time and attention from USAID Mission staff on work plans would be very helpful. This
would let us know how the work fits with changing Mission priorities, but more importantly, the
local context and technical input is extremely valuable from the Missions we do hear from. (Gill,
USAID/GCP)
Miscellaneous
x More lead time (ideally at least two weeks) for the preparation of presentations on the GCP program
would improve the quality of the presentations and allow staff to budget their time accordingly.
(TNC)
x Coordinated reporting formats and time periods with the USAID Global Bureau would reduce TNC
staff workload and double reporting on the same project. (TNC)
63. To what degree do you believe your relationship with local stakeholders at GCP￾funded sites is working well?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Local stakeholders in the Philippines are very keen to support initiatives to conserve biodiversity,
including the creation of new protected areas. (CI)
x We feel that we have a good relationship with local stakeholders. We involve them when appropriate
in as many aspects of the work we do as feasible. We talk with them on a regular basis and share
information and insight. Stakeholders perceive that we are at the site for the long term. (WCS)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 98
64. What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with your local
stakeholders better? Why?
Examples of Partner answers include:
x Total stakeholder involvement in all stages of project implementation in the Philippines would
improve the relationship. (CI)
x The biggest change might come when local stakeholders recognize that natural resources are
limited, and being depleted. This will take time and good information. (WCS)
x More time to spend with local stakeholders would be beneficial, but our staffing is lean. Even
though it is lean, we spend time with local stakeholders, however. (WCS)
65. What improvement(s) do you believe would make your relationship with your
colleague GCP Leader/Partners better? Why? [Bulleted responses will suffice.]
Partners and one USAID/GCP staff member suggested the following categorized improvements that they
believe would make their relationships with their colleague CGP Leader/Partner better:
Changes in Meetings
x We need to address the issue of representation at meetings and look at the profiles of professionals
being sent (e.g. management versus technical staff). (AWF)
x Quarterly meetings are typically not helpful, just administrative. (TNC)
x GCP staff often seem reluctant to play the “convener” role; Cynthia often seems to want to step
aside and be one among the Partners. (TNC)
Modifying the Budget Process
x We need to maintain a transparent process so that money does not get in the way (i.e., no
extraordinary side lobbying for one geographic region or thematic issue). (AWF)
x We question why GCP has financed an organization like WWF to do internal learning, rather than
investing in the internal learning capacity of each organization. Then we could come together to
exchange our findings. The budget to WWF might have been done differently. (AWF)
Improved Communications
x Better feedback would improve communication and collaboration. (CI)
x It would help to know more about what other Partners are doing. We need to find a better
mechanism than the Website to do this. (TNC)
x A good example is the initiative taken by WWF to circulate information among GCP Partner staff
about “brown bags” and other events held by other groups. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 99
x Since we are based in New York, it would be easier to communicate with partners if we were based
in DC. We would see colleagues more frequently. (WCS)
x We need to know what different GCP Partner representatives do concerning GCP (i.e., how all
Partner organizations are organized relative to GCP). It helps Partners understand what others do in
their organizations. It also provides an opportunity for exploring potentials for collaboration across
organizations. It might improve the communication loop. (WWF)
x They might provide some insights into how GCP is greater than the sum of its parts. (WWF)
Increased Sharing of Lessons Learned
x If USAID could look out for common areas of interest or specific lessons learned to forward
between partners, this could help partners to make the time to meet on specific GCP activities. For
example, a note from USAID to EWW saying, “See WCS’s semiannual report, page 7,” (of course
with partner’s permission). It would be up to the partners to pick up the phone to discuss the topic,
but this type of focused information would allow subsets of partners to hone in on common
interests. This type of interaction also has the potential for getting more field staff in contact with
each other. (EWW)
x We discussed doing a two-page thematic briefing paper at one of the joint meetings. USAID said it
would take the lead on doing this but it never did the follow-up to catalyze the effort. (TNC)
x Also see suggestions under question #41 above re: collaboration, etc.
Time Management Concerns
x Again, if we had more time it would be nice to meet more regularly with partners to keep up with
the sites. The down side is that the more time we have to manage, the more we might just use up
our partners’ valuable time. It will be nice to hear from them how to balance more involvement, if
we were to have more time to be more involved, without increasing their time burden. (Allendorf,
USAID/GCP)
66. Has the issue of communications hindered the relationship between Partner and
USAID/GCP in any way (yes/no)? Please explain with illustrative examples only.
Analysis: Regarding the issue of communications, two partners said that it is not an issue for them, while
one acknowledged that there had been few communications. One organization believes that
communications is a big issue, but noted that while it might not have hindered the relationship, it might
be an area for improvement. USAID/GCP provided a mixed response. One USAID/GCP staff member
said that it has hindered Partner relationships. Another noted that it occasionally hinders relationships. Yet
another noted that the problem may be less of a lack of communications with Partners than internal staff
communications that may be the source of problems. And, yet another emphasizes that communications
can be improved, and that lack of communications may affect the quality of the questions that they can
ask concerning the work Partners are doing. Examples of Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers include:
x Yes, getting through multiple layers of bureaucracy can present problems. (CI)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 100
x Making time for communication among GCP partners between quarterly meetings continues to be a
challenge. Also, as a group, the GCP Partners sometimes spend more time on clarifying terms and
lose out on time for action-oriented exchanges. (EWW)
x Communication is a big topic. Has it hindered the relationship? Perhaps not, but it is something that
might be improved. I would say that it could be more consistent, more in depth, and more precise.
Also, additional information provided to Partners about USAID Missions around the world and their
particular strategic objectives and changing political situations in certain places, etc., would be
really useful. An example of when this kind of information was pertinent was when there was a call
for additional proposals for the fiscal year 2002, and we submitted one for a project in Indonesia.
However, after the revision process was over, we were told that the political situation was such that
they didn’t feel they could fund a project in that country at that time. It would have been useful to
know that from the beginning of the process, or at least earlier in the process when they knew of this
issue. (WCS)
x “AID-speak” is a problem. On many of these issues, the Partner organization contract officers
should be involved. (WWF)
x When wearing the donor hat, Cynthia [Gill] can sometimes be resistant. One example is that some
Partners had been talking about an effort to do a synthesis of the conservation community planning
tools, but Cynthia [Gill] wants to do it a different way and is not yet totally open about the process
or product. (WWF)
x Yes. With so many Partners, it has been cumbersome to negotiate things like formats and indicators
with all Partners. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x I believe I have strong communication with my Partner at headquarters and have had the
opportunity to interact significantly with field staff. Again, I think a lack of internal communication
may affect the USAID/Partner relationship. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x The relationship has been very occasionally hindered, generally when USAID technical concerns
are not properly translated to the field for answering. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x Overall, I’m not sure about what helped or hindered the relationship, but communications could be
improved generally in many ways by the team being more familiar with the sites. It is difficult to
ask good questions and have meaningful interactions through the reports, etc., listed below in #68 if
you don’t know the site. This begins to get into the issue of “substantive involvement” that I discuss
in my answer to question #70. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
67. Have good communications helped the relationship between you and USAID GCP in
any way (yes/no)? Please explain with illustrative examples only.
Analysis: Partners and USAID/GCP staff responded generally positively about whether and how good
communications have helped the relationship. The majority of Partner comments focused primarily on
their key positive communication channel, the USAID CTO for their program, and their willingness to
discuss issues as they come up. USAID/GCP staff focused on how good and frequent communication
facilitate the work plan negotiating process, make it possible to explore technical issues in more depth,
help program management deal with issues as they arise, and keep the pathways open and positive.
Examples of answers are categorized by whether they came from a Partner or USAID/GCP staff member:
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 101
Partner Responses
x Yes. AWF’s relationship with our CTO is extremely smooth, based in large part on her strong field
and technical background. Without this field and technical expertise, her understanding of AWF’s
programs would not have been so immediate and intuitive, which would necessarily have influenced
the style and nature of our communications. (AWF)
x Communication between USAID and EWW has been good, mainly because each side is willing to
pick up the phone or send an E-mail to clarify and inform on a wide variety of issues on a month-to￾month basis. This more fluid communication style has been very good in establishing and fostering
a solid relationship. (EWW)
x We have good phone communications with Mary [Rowen]. Field visits by GCP staff are really
important, because GCP staff come back with good questions. (TNC)
x Good communication has definitely helped our relationship with USAID/GCP. Both of our initial
WCS program annual meetings have included the participation of our CTO. By attending these
annual meetings, she has been witness to the evolution of a new program and a new approach, and
she has met most, if not all, of our field staff. She has been able to communicate directly with field
staff about their projects, their reporting requirements, and their implementation plans. By having a
direct relationship with field staff, this has helped avoid intermediary steps and potential loss of
information. In addition, it makes for a much more comfortable relationship when questions arise,
as field staff and New York staff alike are comfortable bringing these up given that we all have
direct ties to our CTO. (WCS)
x We have more informal communications in both directions. (WWF)
x When doing “AID-speak” at meetings, it would be helpful to provide a set of takeaway “bullets”
that the technical staff can understand and take back to the appropriate people in their organizations.
(WWF)
USAID/GCP Staff Responses
x Yes. We have very strong communication with a number of partners, and have been able to explore
technical issues in more depth as a result. For example, we are currently planning to explore an
activity that has been stalled for some time. The good partner/USAID communication makes this an
opportunity for learning and planning, contributing to the onsite conservation and hopefully, to the
conservation community. Without this communication, this could have just been considered a
failure. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Positive communication has assisted in negotiating issues with work plans, discussing details in
semiannual reports, and managing quick turnaround requests for information such as budgetary
information or field examples of success stories. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x Yes, frequent communication on issues as they arise helps program management in general. I would
much prefer to hear about issues as they arise rather than a laundry list all at once. (Rowen,
USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 102
x Several partners provide occasional updates (AWF; WWF on relatively frequent basis) on field
progress. These are very helpful to keep USAID informed of what is happening. In addition, these
occasional tidbits are read quickly by all team members, basically because they are short and
sporadic. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x I think overall the communication pathways are open between the team and each of the partners and
during the quarterly meetings. Throughout this, I have been defining communications more in the
oral and informal sense and less in terms of the reports listed below. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
68. In what ways might the following means of communications between Partners and
USAID/GCP be improved? [Bulleted responses will suffice for those where you have
something on which to comment.]
Categorized examples of Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers include:
Work Plans
x Perhaps more advance work on structure/format, as has been discussed and is envisioned for coming
year, would help. (AWF)
x Basic requirements (i.e., budget, percentage of personnel allowed, etc.) should be communicated
before the preparation of work plans. (CI)
x The process is going fine. Face-to-face meetings and written comments are appreciated. (EWW)
x Put a greater focus on results and strategies, not administrative issues (e.g., approval of boats,
construction). (TNC)
x Feedback is often sought from Mission staff by USAID/GCP. However, this passes via
USAID/GCP to the Mission, back to USAID/GCP, then to WCS in New York, and then back to the
field staff for changes. This could be streamlined. (WCS)
x This might be better done by requiring less details in writing, but to have more informal
communications between Partners and GCP staff and more site visits. It is a heavy burden to detail
out to the level required currently. Writing a work plan is a painful but valuable exercise. It is
important to compliment GCP on how it allows flexibility for explanations on why things have or
have not worked out. (WWF)
x These are still very important to USAID, and I would really like these to be the core of the written
communication. The model for me is a standalone document that provides site context, issues,
threats, and planned activities in 10 pages or less. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Faster turn around time to provide feedback to Partners and approve work plans would be good.
(Martino, USAID/GCP)
x These are most helpful when the large objectives or activities are explained in relation to the threats
that they are addressing. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x More familiarity with sites by the USAID team would help. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 103
Semiannual Reports
x Going fine. (EWW)
x Make summary information from all reports and plans available to all partners (especially field
staff). (EWW)
x We would like to get some actual comments and have it be a more substantive exercise. The format
is redundant and could be streamlined. (TNC)
x There is often little reaction to these reports, especially any positive reaction where it might be
warranted. They could be shortened to just highlights and continuing pr problematic issues and they
would be just as useful. (WCS)
x Generally WWF is comfortable with these. However, they would like to know how information
requested is used so that they can really focus on meeting the specific needs of GCP. And, it might
be helpful to think about just having one annual report to meet explicit purposes. (WWF)
x These are less important to me, and have generally been of high quality. The success stories have
been great, and save Partners more time than they realize. Instead of going out to Partners with
emergency requests for information, we mine the success stories. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x More sharing and internal communication/feedback among the USAID staff would allow for a
greater and more consistent feed to Partners. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x Short is much sweeter that long. Stories and comprehensive blurbs on actual progress are the most
helpful. Details on specific action add to the communication, but they do not give a good picture.
(Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x For all written work, short overviews of the site progress or planned activities are very helpful. Give
the whole picture before the specifics. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x More familiarity with sites by the USAID team would be helpful. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
Quarterly Meetings
x Follow-up is not always as promised. (TNC)
x Note points above about technical versus USAID administrative details. Also, it would be helpful
to have explicitly written up follow-up points. On a number of occasions there has not been
follow up on certain issues by GCP from annual meetings. Develop even just a checklist as a
follow up format. (WWF)
x Designate some of the quarterly meetings as technical meetings to draw input from Partner
technical staff. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x It would be great if all partners could share (five minutes or less) regarding something that has
worked particularly well (or poorly) during the last quarter. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 104
x I think these meetings are a good means of communication. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
Annual Meetings
x Have shorter agendas to allow for greater exchange and therefore more concrete ideas can be
taken back. (CI)
x Hire a dedicated part time consultant to follow up with partners on most pressing issues from
meeting; get more field staff included in annual meetings. (EWW)
x CD by WWF from October 2001 meeting was really quite good. They have done some good
small group interactions. Everybody needs to commit to follow up. (TNC)
x Ditto about having explicit follow up notes/minutes. These meetings are moving in the direction
of making a stronger shift to the technical issues. But it is really important to get clear
commitment on who will do it next year and get some others involved in the design process.
(WWF)
x The meetings should become more GCP-specific in terms of sharing and cooperating. The first
two meetings brought in several outside issues as examples to the GCP. These were extremely
helpful in focusing discussions. However, we have enough history now to be able to pull from
within and add our collective GCP voice to issues. We can make the meetings more GCP￾specific. It would be great if a topical issue was really addressed and hashed out with relevant
technical folks. We do seem to be moving there with our M&E focus meeting in the winter.
(Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x These have been great although about substantively different topics than work plans, semiannual
reports, and quarterly meetings. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
Performance Monitoring Forms
x Going fine. (EWW)
x USAID’s indicators are not helpful. If this is what USAID needs, that’s what they get. Potentially
we need more discussion. (TNC)
x These are not useful exercises for the field staff or for the New York staff. A lot of time is spent
on these seemingly meaningless reports. (WCS)
x We have almost no involvement in these (and basically we have been told that GCP won’t use
them). The Partners only have to report on the indicators that GCP has to report forward. We are
very interested in using GCP work on measures and monitoring to help inform what’s useful for
performance measurement plans (PMPs) (and vice versa). (WWF)
x I would love to revisit these in the coming year. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x There is no hope for these. They are what they are. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x These are good at capturing certain information that we might not otherwise get, like the ‘success
stories.’ (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 105
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 106
V. USAID and Partner Program Management (Questions #69-78)
69. To what degree do you believe USAID GCP program management is responsive to
document review and comment processes? [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis: The combined rating for partner assessment of the degree to which they believe USAID/GCP
Program Management is responsive to document review and comment processes was 1.9 (very close to
being Moderate).
The disaggregated ratings were:
x Two organizations rated USAID/GCP at 1 (high),
x One organization rated USAID/GCP at 1.5 (moderately high),
x One organization rated USAID/GCP at 2 (moderate), and
x Two organizations rated USAID/GCP at 3 (low).
Positive comments: It was clear that various team members were involved in the review process for
documents; USAID/GCP was open to responses; in at least one case, staff provided significant response
to a document that provided many concepts for review and comment even though USAID did not
eventually fund some of those concepts.
Negative comments: USAID/GCP has imposed no deadline on itself for review and comment (however,
Partners have deadlines), and the comments on the semiannual reports are either nonexistent or merely a
statement like “good job” as though they have not even been reviewed.
70. To what degree do you believe the work plan process is a productive exercise
between USAID/GCP and partner organization? [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis: The combined rating of Partner responses was 1.6 (between moderate and high). USAID/GCP
staff responses to this question were fairly consistent at a 1.5 rating (moderate to high). (Note: not all staff
provided a rating, and one staff member rated on the organizations for which they have intimate
knowledge.)
Disaggregated responses were:
x Three organizations rated the work plan process at 1 (high),
x One organization rated the work plan process at 2 (moderate), and
x Two organizations rated the work plan process at 2.5 (moderate to low).
Positive comments from Partners included that:
x The work plan exercise forces the project team to stop to reflect and plan each year, as well as to
make sure that the organization is on track with GCP’s overall goals; and
x It allows GCP to know what organizations are doing.
Negative comments from Partners included:
x The amount of time the process takes as it is currently structured, especially with the delays in time
between submission and approval;
x Lack of staff knowledge about specific sites; and
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 107
x The potential value of having Mission input before the draft work plan is even written so that it is
consistent with Mission goals as well.
On the positive side, USAID/GCP staff noted that:
x The process is informative,
x It provides a good basis for negotiating the level of effort between the matching funds and the
USAID funding per activity, and
x The work plans serve two purposes—for staff to catch potential conflicts with USAID regulations,
and for staff to have “substantive involvement,” or technical input.
On a more negative note, staff indicated that:
x There are sometimes problems with getting work plans that are understandable,
x The process may seem adversarial even though that is not the intent, and
x There is a high transaction cost for USAID staff to engage in “substantial involvement” in terms of
the time it takes.
71. To what degree do you believe your program has been accountable for effective
program management under GCP funding to date? [Rating as per #2.]
Analysis: Combined Partner response is 1.6 (moderate to high).
Only one Partner made comment: “It all depends on self-reporting. Our internal standards are high, so it is
not compelling to us that the process does not include USAID scrutiny.”
72. In what ways is USAID/GCP program management most effective in interacting with
LWA partners based in Washington and New York?
Analysis: Partner and staff responses was limited but mixed. In terms of planning, Partner response was
more positive. In terms of policy development, there was acknowledgement of little or no input into their
efforts, and the category “Other” got several comments about the value of information being provided on
what is happening in USAID. Categorized examples of Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers include:
Planning
x The work plan review process has been very helpful to me and helps me to better support the field
teams.
x The planning is good, but there is not much personal engagement in the process.
x Hopefully in encouraging planning in a threats-based context.
x Attendance at the Partner meetings has been extremely valuable in participation in site-based
planning with both their headquarters and field staff, therefore contributing to more informed and
effective planning meetings.
x This depends on the USAID/GCP level of involvement with actual sites. Familiarity (either from
before or from a site visit) makes USAID more of a planning partner.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 108
Policy Development
x We would appreciate more feedback on what other LWA partners are doing in the policy area
that might inform our efforts.
x There is no substantive input from GCP staff (noted by all Partners but one).
x Hopefully this is effective by encouraging/providing opportunities for cross-partner collaboration
in policy development.
Other
x Keeping partners informed of “conservation currents and directions” within USAID, especially
during last year’s reorganization.
x Communicating on what is going on in USAID.
x In acting as facilitators for communication between individuals within Partner organizations who
then facilitate further links between other individuals within these organizations— it is like a
network of links. For planning or policy development, it does little.
x They have been helpful in understanding the context.
x The staff are conservationists and understand the issues. Sometimes timing prevents their
involvement in a way that maximizes their skills/contributions vs. just administration.
x GCP Learning Across Borders (LAB) meetings are good.
73. In what ways do you believe USAID/GCP program management is constraining
partner efforts? Please provide illustrative examples.
Analysis: Most Partners do not find USAID/GCP program management to be constraining their efforts.
However, Partners note constraints such as procurement mechanisms and time (e.g., for reporting and
support for some analytical efforts).
USAID/GCP staff note that constraints do exist including:
x Procurement and spending,
x Staff time for technical engagement and follow-up, and
x Lack of site visits that would provide value added to planning and implementation.
One staff member posed the question that: In terms of the overall program and the initial RFA and
competition, there might have been things that partners feel constrained what they would have liked to do.
It would be interesting to hear what those things are.
74. In what ways, if any, does USAID/GCP program management seem resistant to
change? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 109
Analysis: Partner response to this question generally suggested that they do not find USAID/GCP
program management resistant to change (except perhaps for some issues related to financing certain
activities that might not be permitted on government regulations). Some anonymous comments appeared
but are not reported herein. One partner did note that USAID/GCP staff seem resistant to capacity
building across its organization, to issues related to some analytical ideas that staff would like to pursue,
and to going beyond the Scope already defined.
Staff comments included that: “It is currently difficult for the NGOs to work together on policy issues
under the GCP umbrella as there are not targeted funds for this. Therefore while we want cooperation,
USAID is not really facilitating the process as much as it could.” Another staff member observed that we
are resistant to change only on issues that we do not control, like the way that the agreements have to be
awarded and managed according to USAID regulations.
75. How would you characterize the nature of the relationship between your organization
and USAID/GCP program management? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
Analysis: Partners indicated that the nature of their relationship is generally good. One Partner noted that
responsiveness by the CTO contributes to this, and another organization noted that the relationship is
collaborative. Another Partner emphasized that the relationship is supportive and gives them a lot of
latitude to implement project activities as they feel are required to meet objectives and goals. One
organization noted that the relationship has been evolving, but that there is still the role of donor and
recipient, and that they still have to adhere to stipulated rules and requirements. Yet another organization
noted that the relationship is positive, collegial, and pretty relaxed, but that there is a continuing need for
more communication.
Staff perspectives on the nature of the relationships also indicated a general positive tone. Some are
actually very positive relationships that they denominate as partnerships, while others are more mixed in
terms of differences of points of view on the visions for the goals of the program or the focus on certain
activities as well as difficulties in negotiating work plans. One staff member observed that there are
“corporate” issues specific to all partners including USAID, and these need to be recognized and accepted
as operating norms as much as possible.
76. In what ways, if any, does (your) Partner’s program management seem resistant to
change? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice]
Analysis: The majority of Partners do not feel they are resistant to change. Two partners did note some
points of resistance:
x when USAID takes them away from their mission,
x on work plan issues, and
x on areas where they believe learning should be further explored and they are not getting funding
from USAID.
Staff members noted that there are always issues on which struggles might arises, but the only issue
mentioned by two is on work planning.
77. When USAID provides input on your work plan, is it useful? If “No,” why not?
[Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice]
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 110
Analysis: Partners had mixed perspectives on the utility of the input on work plans. On the one hand, two
partners noted that the input was particularly useful since the CTO has technical experience and
knowledge of the region and that reviews ensure that proposed activities are linked to goals. On the other
hand, other Partners made the following comments:
x A few things have fallen through the cracks,
x It would help if there was someone on staff with technical background in area,
x It would be helpful to have suggestions about how to tie projects together to foster ideas promoted
in work plans, and
x We haven’t conducted any less research under the program; rather, we seem to have couched the
research in different terms to better demonstrate its value (e.g., in monitoring).
USAID/GCP staff noted that:
x Some work plan discussions have been very productive. Unfortunately, our feedback on the weakest
work plans doesn’t usually result in productive technical discussions, but rather formatting 101,
x Questions to field personnel can cause more frustration rather than function as a means to negotiate
and communicate, and
x From the USAID side, we are too reactive and are not involved enough to be proactive in planning
of work plans. Sometimes our questions are mainly a response to seeing completely new ideas in
work plans without sufficient warning or at least explanation.
78. When USAID provides feedback on your semiannual reports, is it useful? If “No,” why
not? [Illustrative, bulleted examples will suffice.]
Analysis: Partners and USAID/GCP have different perspectives on the utility of the semiannual reporting
process for a variety of reasons. For Partners, it is a reporting requirement. Some Partners feel that it helps
them better communicate and clarify what happened in the project, but they would like to know pieces
that they need most to be able to target information better. They feel that their CTO has helped identified
where reporting goes weak in making links between activities and targets/threat abatement. Other
partners, however, feel that the staff do not really care. And others observe that if there is any feedback at
all, it is typically delayed.
USAID/GCP staff has a different perspective on semiannual reports. One staff member admits that
USAID needs to be clearer on how the semiannual reports are used. Another adds that it is important to
note that there is not as much of an emphasis on the semiannual reports as on the work plans because
work plans need their approval to go forth, and semiannual reports concern completed activities. Other
staff comments included that staff should be timelier in their responses, and that they use the reports if a
technical question arises. Another staff member provided an insight into how she feels the semiannual
process works best for her: “I tend to meet with my partners after the submission of the semiannual
reports to discuss; I find this useful to get a sense how the reports build on one another.”
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 111
VI. GCP I Potentials (Questions #79-85)
79. What are the fundamental strengths of the overall GCP Program at this point in time?
Analysis: Based on written and/or oral comments from Partners, USAID Regional Bureau staff, Mission
Staff, and USAID/GCP staff, the GCP has many substantial strengths, both existing and on which to
build. Categorized answers include:
Approach to Biodiversity Conservation
x GCP is threats-focused. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x GCP has enabled in situ conservation and site-level impact through each partners’ activities, and it
has ensured that all partners are working from a threats-based approach. (AWF)
x The threats-based approach focuses conservation activities more directly and challenges each
partner to be able to show and demonstrate results using a common set of indicators. (EWW)
x It is a partner-driven program. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x GCP has a field-based focus. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x It has a strong focus on on-the-ground conservation and some excellent initiatives. (Gill,
USAID/GCP)
x It has global perspective. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x It is gaining momentum with a global reach. (WWF)
x GCP provides support in USAID non-presence countries. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
Funding/Support Provided for Conservation
x The fundamental strength of the GCP is that it has provided critical resources to conservation
organizations who have aligned themselves around large-scale conservation approaches. (AWF)
x It provides support to develop economic incentives for local communities. (CI)
x We like that it provides support to generate baseline information and development of integrated
database systems for all stakeholders for integrated planning and monitoring. (CI)
x GCP provided enough support for the creation and/or expansion of protected areas to deny the
approval of applications of extractive industries like mining and logging. (CI)
x EWW and ANSAB also appreciate that GCP is supporting a conservation approach that creates
economic incentives and expands property rights to address threats to biodiversity. (EWW)
x We like its provision of funding, including for policy activities and non-presence countries where
Mission funding would be more difficult or impossible to get. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 112
x It offers financial support for field-based conservation efforts, with biological conservation as clear
purpose. (WCS)
x We like its multi-year funding perspective (initial five years, with renewal likely). (WCS)
x It offers matching funding. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x USAID has put funding into global priorities. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x It is now sharing resources—USAID puts in money and they match. (Sugrue, EGAT/ENV)
x GCP provides catalytic funding. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Quality of Partners
x Most Partners are committed to continue without funding at their sites. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x It has an excellent NGO technical staff, some with real leadership roles in the group. (Gill,
USAID/GCP)
x Cooperation between partners in planning and implementation is always positive.(Rowen,
USAID/GCP)
x The collaborations and relationships among the partners that the GCP is formally and informally
helping to form and the site-based conservation emphasis. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
x It engages the six Partners in loose coordination. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x I like that it draws in a range of organizations. (Sugrue, EGAT/ENV)
x A great group of Leader/Partners were selected. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x Some of the Partners bring major counterpart funding. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
x The institutional diversity represented is good. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Learning Opportunities
x GCP has provided partners the opportunity to learn from other partners and share successes and
lessons from each other. (AWF)
x There is an effort to learn across partners, a variety of conservation approaches are being
implemented, and the partners meet on a regular basis. (EWW)
x Opportunities to have interactions with other conservation NGOs around common themes, issues,
and sometimes programs provides a venue for exchanging experiences and perspectives. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 113
x It offers a framework for cross-institutional discussion (although this purpose is as yet little used).
(WCS)
x It supports learning openly in USAID. (WWF)
x GCP has put in place some mechanisms for beginning to jointly ask some questions, share some
learning, and reduce redundancy. (WWF)
x The staff has met occasionally so there is some sharing of information across programs. (WWF)
x GCP has done excellent job of reducing isolation, especially at the site level. (WWF)
x It has encouraged people to talk and share. (WWF)
x It has catalyzed individual organizational interactions outside the rubric of GCP. (WWF)
x Interactions between Partners is okay, but they really can be improved (e.g. sharing of tools), so this
is only partially realized. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x Bringing a group together with different approaches to conservation has provided a forum for
discussion. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x The cross learning and collaboration among the partners, although it still embryonic, is proving to
be a strength in the program. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x We talk about issues of mutual conservation. (Sugrue, EGAT/ENV)
Partnership between USAID/GCP and Partners
x It is an opportunity to expand the scope of our partnership with USAID. (TNC)
x Our partnership has good rapport generally. (WWF)
x The partnership is now a global network. (WWF)
x The meeting in 2000 that brought groups together on approach linked them to the application of
some TNC things in the Pribiloffs. (WWF)
x It has a high added value for USAID’s portfolio (i.e., improved relationships with the conservation
community in Washington and a good portfolio with variety of conservation approaches). (Gill,
USAID/GCP)
x Political profiles maintained by some of the Leader/Partners are important because it keeps
Congress and the public aware of biodiversity. Their participation strengthens the partnership and
deals with the issue of the demise of BSP. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x The relationship with the large international conservation NGOs has been politically important with
the new administration. The CEOs and other senior members of the NGOs have meet with senior
political figures in the Agency and Administration and have used the GCP relationship as an
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 114
example, thereby raising the profile of USAID’s role in biodiversity conservation. (Martino,
USAID/GCP)
Good Aspects of Relationship between USAID/GCP and USAID/Missions
x We have a good relationship with GCP staff. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x It is a good opportunity for input into work planning processes. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x There is a solid Washington staff. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x They provide good Mission technical backstopping. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x They do a good job providing a Mission connection to current thinking on biodiversity issues.
(Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Highly Acclaimed Procurement Mechanisms
x There is a mechanism for contracting associate awards. (WCS)
x The procurement mechanism saved a tremendous amount of time and went through the system
easily once Mission staff understood how it worked. (Moore, USAID/Tanzania)
x It’s an easy and time-saving mechanism to get high quality work done. (Lampman, USAID/EGAT)
x Associate awards are easy. (Mason, USAID, Bolivia)
x It facilitates USAID giving funding to one of “golden six” without competition. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x It is an excellent mechanism to procure services of high quality NGOs. (Bisson,
USAID/Philippines)
x This is not a typical IQC mechanism. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Ways it Promotes Higher Potential for Sustainability
x It offers a greater potential for sustainability. (Mason, USAID, Bolivia)
x The cost-share from NGOs enhances the sustainability of programs. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
80. What do you believe the fundamental weaknesses of the GCP Program are at this
point?
Analysis: While the strengths of GCP are substantial, those who provided input also noted some
weaknesses (a good number of which were well known to USAID/GCP staff already), most of which can
be dealt with constructively.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 115
Note that while it appears in the midst of the other categories below, “communications” was the most
often mentioned area of weakness, followed by “need for more sharing, coordination, and collaboration.”
The issue of the “disappointing lack of analysis” rises in many interviews and in the Questionnaire even
though more people did not highlight it as a weakness of the program specifically in this question. Also,
while only a few people noted “reporting” as a weakness, it was a chronic issue that many repeated in
response to other questions in the Questionnaire (for example #68) as well as in interviews.
Categorized answers include:
Budget Issues
x The program needs a far bigger budget to deliver on its global biodiversity mission. This probably
means the need for greater profile within USAID, particularly as currently (re)structured. (AWF)
x It has year-to-year funding uncertainty. (WCS)
x A weakness of the program seems to be the fact that the political will for biodiversity conservation
within the US government’s current administration is such that the GCP program will never be able
to have the resources it needs. (WCS)
x Funding is being cut for work at site level in some places. (WWF)
x Try to avoid providing a pot of money and then letting it dwindle so that Partners cannot complete
their work. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Staff-Related Issues
x A director (no more “acting”) would also help, giving the team senior leadership to engage at a peer
level with other competing programs and bureaus. (AWF)
x We need to get GCP staff out to the field. (WWF)
x Staff need to get to the field more often. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x Staff need to go out into the field at least once a year. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x Not clear whether USAID/GCP staff know about management of core awards, associate awards and
other cooperative agreements that are directly negotiated by Bureaus and/or missions. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x It is not clear whether USAID/GCP staff know about biodiversity activities that are done by other
NGOs, the private sector, and other governments. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x Limited USAID staff time limits information flow and coordination. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
Program Management
x Question about whether GCP is really catalytic, strategic, influencing other programs, making other
investments more effective. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 116
x Attention given to the selection process, i.e., would like to discuss more about how the Mission can
get engaged in a GCP-funded activity. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x There is limited programming flexibility. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x The work plan process was completed too late in the year with not enough input from Missions.
(Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
Communications
x Need more definitional clarity. (WCS)
x Communications are an issue. (WWF)
x USAID/GCP needs to do as much as it can, given situation, to get messages upward in USAID that
the Partners aren’t all “tree huggers” and anti-development. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
x Need to get “success stories” out to field missions. (Bisson, USAID/Philippines)
x GCP has a greater potential than is being realized if more products are shared. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x GCP is not on USAID’s webpage; only on an intranet site. All the documentation is advertising and
users guides. I can’t find a list of existing awards, just hotlinks to other sites. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x USAID has made it more difficult to put some things on official Website, but GCP could be easily
done through NGOs or other mechanisms. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x Institutions outside don’t benefit from GCP directly as there are no publications. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x There is no newsletter. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x GCP needs to raise awareness with field Missions. (Stauffer, USAID/Nepal)
x There is not much engagement of USAID/W staff in field or many interactions between NGOs and
Missions. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x There is very uneven USAID mission engagement. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
Need for Proactive Sharing, Coordination, and Collaboration
x There is no glue. This is a collection of individual projects and different organizations, with little
attempt to make of them a coherent whole. What they have in common is the same funding source.
There needs to be more catalytic and proactive sharing and stimulus to collaboration, to make GCP
a program that is more than the sum of its parts. (TNC)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 117
x Need to institute corporate behavior of coordination—how to best implement so that the whole will
be better than the sum of the parts. Synergies need to occur. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x There is a potential for moving toward more collaboration. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x It is an improvement over what existed, but Partners aren’t coordinating and collaborating nearly as
well as they might (of all resources even though they state its part of their strategy) except where
Mission funding coordinates implementation. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x Brand recognition is important, and with that the cooperation and sharing side of the program.
USAID’s role in bringing the partners together is vastly underappreciated because Partners don’t
appear to use “GCP.” Instead they only use their particular name for their approach. I hate to say it,
but many are not acknowledging USAID in public presentations, discussions, or printed matter. It is
hard to make a definable impact if no one knows that you exist. USAID’s role as catalyst is not
known. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x Fundamental might be too strong a word to use for the weaknesses I perceive. The program has not
yet found a clear identity that draws the sites and partners together, although maybe it doesn’t need
one. Whether it needs one or not, it is forming one as the program develops. (Allendorf,
USAID/GCP)
Lack of Adequate Analysis of Lessons Learned
x There is a lost analytic of what GCP is buying and what USAID is buying. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x There is no apparent learning from each other, given the lack of information disseminated. It is
possible to look at Resources for the Future, World Watch, International Institute for Environment
and Development, etc. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x We need a neutral analytic function from a respected organization that would provide a real service
and should have ability to convoke meetings but not represent any of the organizations that are
Partners. (Sugrue, EGAT/ENV)
x There is not enough analysis/synthesis built into the program. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x There is a disappointing lack of analysis, synthesis, and reporting. (Stoner, USAID/Brazil)
Difficulties with Meetings
x Members should leave GCP meetings with specific ideas (gotten from in-depth discussions) that
they may apply to their own programs. Therefore, meetings should have shorter agendas to allow
for sharing of lessons learned. (CI)
x There is little discussion of substantive issues in GCP meetings. (WCS)
x It is apples and oranges in terms of who participates as representatives at meetings. (WWF)
x There is uneven partner engagement in overall GCP meetings and discussions. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 118
Issues Related to Addressing Threats
x As a group we do not have preliminary ideas of what priority threats we could address better if we
combined efforts, or even if combining efforts is a worthwhile strategy for addressing a threat.
(EWW)
x It would be better to have an “opportunities” approach dealing with tractable problems. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
x A threats-based approach may lead to ultimate failure. If you only look at richness and uniqueness
and threat, you don’t bring in countries, free press, and probability of success. (Resch,
USAID/EAPEI)
Reporting Requirements
x There are changing goalposts for reporting. (WCS)
x It feels like I am always reporting. There is a real need to streamline. (WWF)
Lack of Capacity Building in Field
x I question whether capacity is being built in the field. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
Lack of Focus on Financial Sustainability
x There is not enough focus or progress on financial sustainability. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
81. What are the gaps in the GCP, based on your experience, as the primary biodiversity
conservation program for USAID’s central technical bureau? How might these gaps best
be filled? By whom?
Analysis: USAID/GCP staff responded to this question along with input from one Partner. While most of
these are consistent with other findings, the answer about capturing the identity of GCP is most different
and potentially an area for the staff to explore before many more changes occur over time. Categorized
responses include:
Need to Capture and Retain GCP Identity
x There is a need to develop a stronger identity within USAID, which is happening partly as a result
of the reorganization and the need to explain the program to new management. The two goals of
providing “cutting edge” models of conservation for the agency and filling geographic gaps, (e.g.
non-presence countries) is the beginning of defining a clear role for the program within the agency.
It is also important for GCP to retain the institutional memory of its history and how it got created.
It is very difficult to understand the justification for the program if you don’t understand the history.
This may be fault of the program—maybe it should be able to stand alone without much explanation
of its history—but understanding that history really does answer many questions about the role that
GCP fills in the agency. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 119
Lack of Analysis
x There is not enough analysis and synthesis built into program. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x The biggest gap is the lack or shared lessons learned and getting the word out as to what the
program is learning about implementation at larger scales. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x The GCP does not currently draw on the information from its associate awards. USAID needs to
pull in information from our Missions and our partners need to draw in lessons learned from
Associate Award activities. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x There is a need for more analytical learning and capacity building within all institutions. GCP
should support this within and among all Partner organizations. (WWF)
x Explore the role of Foundation of Success (FOS) as analytic organization. (WWF)
Inter-Institutional Engagement/Communications
x More engagement of NGO technical staff would be helpful. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x There is a lack of internal communication about the visions, goals, and ultimate expectations of the
GCP program. We need to prioritize GCP planning and reduce the management burden. (Martino,
USAID/GCP)
Staff Issues
x There is a lack of mission participation at some sites. Reduce the number of sites that work outside
of the mission context. (Martino, USAID/GCP)
x There is a lack of bureau participation at some sites. Recruit more involvement from bureaus.
(Martino, USAID/GCP)
x There is a lack of standard knowledge about each site by USAID/GCP staff. Reduce other
management burdens and establish baseline criteria each manager should know about sites.
(Martino, USAID/GCP)
Program Gap
x Others biomes need to be considered for representation. (WWF)
82. What opportunities might the GCP Program take advantage of at this point in time,
based on your experience? How might these opportunities be realized? By whom?
Analysis: Again, the Questionnaire asked that USAID/GCP staff respond to this question. It is clear that
staff have some constructive ideas about how to take advantage of some of the existing opportunities.
Their categorized answers include:
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 120
Continue and Change Role of GCP
x I think that the Partners have begun working together to address large-scale issues. The GCP should
be a catalyst to this process and foster cooperation where possible. One such point is the recent
discussions on monitoring and evaluation. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x From the USAID side, I don’t see us as a driving process but rather as a catalyst in bringing the
groups together and possibly making collaboration easier to accomplish. This may be very
important to organizations whose mandates don’t encourage or facilitate this type of cooperation.
(Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x Getting into GCP II issues, USAID could play a more important role by having a targeted amount of
funding available to enable these initiatives. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x I think that GCP needs to strengthen the two goals described in Question #81 (i.e., providing
“cutting edge” models of conservation for the agency and filling geographic gaps) and make
strategic decisions based on those goals—or some set of goals that everyone (including partners)
agrees to. I’m not sure that the partners have heard the full justification for the program that we have
been giving in internal USAID program reviews. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
x It is also important for the program to maintain a focus on the site level and to make sure that any
activities, such as new analysis and learning components, are clearly designed to feed back into the
site level and improve conservation on the ground. Obviously, this does not mean all activities have
to be site-focused, since policy activities are important for site level conservation although they are
often not implemented at that level. (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
x Finally, I think USAID can really push the partners to deal with the development, or people, side of
conservation. We could really strengthen their approaches to conservation by helping to bring in
more development expertise, in some cases USAID’s experience, but not solely. It would be great to
see conservationists using fewer biologists and more anthropologists and sociologists. One of the
presenters at the Conservation Biology conference quoted someone else when describing the history
of conservation in Africa: it went from conservation against the people in colonial times, to
conservation for the people in post-colonial times, to conservation with people currently. The final
step is to move to conservation by the people. USAID can help move the conservation NGOs to
“conservation by the people.” (Allendorf, USAID/GCP)
Need to Support an Analytic/Synthesis Component
x The program needs to support an analytical/synthesis component. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Plan for some programming flexibility for learning or analysis. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Opportunities for cross-site/cross-institutional sharing should be a focus, either through site visits or
development of tools. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x It would be useful if Missions would become more involved. Several Missions have associate
awards with more than one NGO. The lessons learned from these experiences should be brought to
the larger GCP. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 121
Identify Administrative Assistance Mechanism
x Identify a clear administrative assistance mechanism, to help facilitate coordination and buffer the
USAID staff time limitation constraint. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
83. Do you believe USAID’s Global Conservation Program has made a contribution to the
conservation of biodiversity? Why? Why not?
Analysis: The general consensus about GCP is that it has made some contributions to the conservation of
biodiversity. Some Partners and GCP staff gave it very high marks on this count. Others agreed that it has
made a contribution, but that the time frame has been so short it is difficult to determine the complete
kind and degree of the contribution. One person provided a more skeptical view of the contributions of
GCP, but did acknowledge that their approach may make a contribution eventually. Therefore, GCP still
has potential to do more.
Examples of positive Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers include:
x For AWF it came at the perfect time. (AWF)
x It provides power as a funding mechanism. (AWF)
x It provided support to build local capacity to manage the natural resources. (CI)
x It is building partnership for conservation and providing resources needed to develop a conservation
framework that could address the threats in a short period of time but have a long term effect. (CI)
x It is funding a variety of scales and approaches (including an innovative enterprise-based approach)
and it makes an effort to facilitate communication among the LWA partners. Conservation of
biodiversity is not going to be obtained on a global scale using only one approach, but requires a
variety of strategies. (EWW)
x There is some new activity on finance that has some high potential. (TNC)
x The water issue focus has leverage potential and provides an opportunity for new discourse on
conservation practice. (TNC)
x It has provided funds necessary to many on the ground efforts that have contributed to the
conservation of biodiversity. (WCS)
x It has allowed us to undertake a new strategic approach to site-based conservation which is proving
compelling and, with time, we think will be extremely effective on the ground. (WCS)
x It has provided new contractual mechanism for associate awards. (WCS)
x Without GCP funding, the Forests of the Lower Mekong effort would not be in place to the extent it
is now. (WWF)
x Another example is the catalytic role WWF has been able to play in the Bering Sea ecoregion.
(WWF)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 122
x Even going to SCB and seeing presentations of activities that are GCP-supported aids the idea that
GCP has helped move forward are anecdotal evidence. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Partner reporting, site visits, and Mission reports also support that there are real contributions to
conservation. There are some sites, however, that are not clearly achieving conservation. Decisions
on how to identify these (by who, what criteria, etc.) have not yet been made. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x In most cases I think it’s too early to tell. At several of the sites GCP has provided further financing
to long term projects that have just begun to show real results, GCP can be attributed to a portion of
the success at those sites as a donor not as a program promoting associated with an approach.
(Martino, USAID/GCP)
x I think that we are still a few years from realizing how the large-scale focus combined with the
interaction between the organizations is affecting conservation. Unfortunately, as very few field
folks or home office partners refer to it as “GCP” the impact will never be adequately measured.
(Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x The site-based emphasis of the program means that it is contributing as much to conservation as any
program can that the conservation organizations are developing and supporting. If these aren’t doing
it, than are any of the programs that the international NGOs are involved in? (Allendorf,
USAID/GCP)
x GCP has made some tangible contributions to conservation. By the end of the project, these
contributions will be consolidated. (Mason, USAID/Bolivia)
x Contributions of GCP to field NGOs because:
a) It is a new approach that builds on what they began with BCN in 1995. It is now a proven
approach in Nepal.
b) They are learning lots through implementation.
c) They are looking at tools to apply and they are focusing on making appropriate changes as
they go.
d) Monitoring was built in from he beginning and they have gotten inputs from communities,
enterprises, government DFOs, etc on priority indicators.
e) They are tracking how stakeholders perceive progress.
f) They are making physical measurements as well.
g) They are asking questions that the community wants to know (e.g., impact of fire).
h) They try to share between communities with site visits.
i) They work with policy makers to see the value. (Subedi, EWW/ANSAB)
Examples of negatively inclined Partner and USAID/GCP staff answers include:
x GCP’s basic approach was too “high grade” by taking most visible projects (i.e., with highest
biodiversity and threat). (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x GCP could disappear as a program and there would be no appreciable difference in the grander
scheme of USAID biodiversity. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x By wanting to do hectares and field activities, the GCP team has created a structure more or less
independent from bilateral programs that may make them less sustainable. (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 123
x
x By not expanding center geographically, sectorally, analytically, etc., they may not be very adaptive
themselves even though they should reevaluate how much more allocation of resources will help.
(Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
x Having said that, I acknowledge that it is making a conservation contribution, but GCP could make
more, especially given their approach, high priority sites, good partners, matching funds, and a
hotspots focus... (Resch, USAID/EAPEI)
84. Were requests for certain GCP services lower than anticipated? If so, which ones?
Analysis: Three members of GCP staff responded to this question (which was only requested of them).
The responses indicate that the level of response is moderate and as anticipated. One staff member
indicated, however, that GCP services might possibly become more popular if they were marketed more.
This last point seems consistent with the input into this evaluation by field mission personnel.
Examples of USAID/GCP staff answers include:
x No. This is about what I would have predicted for associate awards. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x No. GCP appears to be fairly well used. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
x LWA awards have been moderately popular, increasingly so over the time of the agreement. They
could probably be more popular if they were marketed more. (Martino)
85. At the country level, is there a need for GCP to educate Missions more about any
currently under-requested services?
Analysis: Staff response to this question was more mixed. One indicated that most Missions are aware of
the availability of GCP but don’t know how to use it. It is only when a Mission becomes engaged in the
negotiation that USAID/GCP staff provides more details. One mentions the potential for more marketing.
The process of the first response might need to be revisited. The need for more marketing should be
explored further, based again on input from field Mission personnel recommendations. And, the third idea
is something the USAID/GCP staff might want to explore further with its partners.
Examples of USAID/GCP staff answers include:
x Most Missions seem aware of the availability of GCP, but don’t know how to use it. Currently, we
provide that information once missions are engaged in the negotiation process. (Gill, USAID/GCP)
x Yes, see above (i.e., from #84). LWA Awards have been moderately popular, increasingly so over
the time of the agreement. They could probably be more popular if they were marketed more.
(Martino, USAID/GCP)
x It would be interesting to figure out if the few policy initiatives are well received in the field and
whether this is an area for expansion. (Rowen, USAID/GCP)
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 124
Annex E: Partner Definitions of the Concept of “Threats”
AWF—Katie Frohardt
x “Threats:” The definition has to be put into context of TNC’s HCP tools that include the
identification of conservation targets and what affects the health of the targets (both ultimate and
proximate causes). Fundamentally try to map (see those things over which AWF can have impact,
especially human elements). Also think of threats in dual sense (i.e., threats to biodiversity and to
livelihoods). Threats need to be anchored to something at a given level as well as with what’s
affecting the health of those targets of conservation.
EWW—Ann Koontz
x What is causing resource base to go into decline (i.e., a species or set of species).
TNC—Smith and Salem
Threats: These are primarily the “stressors” in what they consider in their list of “S’s” as outlined in
Conservation by Design:
x “Systems: the key conservation targets and supporting ecological processes
x Stresses: the most serious types of destruction or degradation affecting the conservation targets or
ecological processes
x Sources of Stress: the causes or agents of destruction or degradation
x Strategies: the full array of actions necessary to abate the threats or enhance the viability of the
conservation targets
x Success Measures: the monitoring process for assessing progress in abating threats and improving
the biodiversity health of a conservation area.”
WWF—Meg Symington
x Location of roads, etc.,
x Recognition of reality,
x Demands on resources,
x Prevents conservation organizations and stakeholders from achieving certain aspects of their vision
(landscape biodiversity visions including socio-economic factors),
x Includes also those that come out of root cause analysis such as governance issues as compared to
proximate causes such as illegal logging.
WWF—Sarah Christiansen
x Anything negative that impacts the state of biodiversity.
x “Pressure” (concept used by WWF) can represent a threat or opportunity.
WWF—Margaret Williams
x Things with direct physical affects—disturbance factor (tangible such as a boat; intangible such as
global warming),
x Political threats (lack of policy or political will),
x Lack of Public awareness, and
x Lack of capacity.
WWF—Jenny Springer
x Issues that conservation organization feels we have capacity to address and others that we can’t.
x The ecoregional approach provides a broader range of threats that are not just localized.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 125
WCS
x A factor that has a negative impact on the conservation target.
x Direct impact on wildlife and wildlands.
x Both proximate/direct and indirect.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 126
Annex F: Graphic Depictions of GCP by NGO Partners and
USAID/GCP Staff
Slide 1
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
Organizational Diagrams for GCP I
The following are renditions of the hand-drawn graphics provided by many of those interviewed by the
Evaluator. They depict individual views of what GCP looks like to them. This effort was conducted in
initial interviews so changes in the view may be held at the time of publication of this report.
Slide 2
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
USAID
A
B
C
E
F
D
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 127
Slide 3
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
Other funding of Conservation Actions and Impacts
Slide 4
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
A B C and Partners 
across sites
D E F
Tool exchange
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Additional funding for 
gatherings, workshops, 
etc.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 128
Slide 5
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
Slide 6 GCP I Evaluation June-July 2002 GCP as basket “holding” apples, oranges, pineapples, and other assorted fruits/programs
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 129
Slide 7
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
A B C D E F
Field Offices
Local Partners at each site
Slide 8
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
Collaboration
On their own
The Biodiversity Tree
NOTE: Forest is broader 
conservation community
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 130
Slide 9
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
Excessive 
USAID Reporting
Partners
Slide 10
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
USAID/DC
A B C D E F
Project with 
DC and 
Missions
GCP/DC & 
WWF
LWA LWA LWA LWA LWA
AA
(Mission)
(DC)
Casual –
formal 
group to 
manage 
exchanging 
info
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 131
Slide 11
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
USAID
GCP
A
B
C
D
E
F
Slide 12
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
$
$$ Donors $
USAID $ $$
A B
C
D
F E
Partners
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 132
Slide 13
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
AID A BC D E F
Coordination
Projects
Slide 14
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
US Govt Bush 
Administration
USAID 
GCP
GCP Partners
Conservation world
Communications River
Reporting & Commununications.
$
Communications
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 133
Slide 15
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
GCP
A
B
C
D
F
(More consistent application 
across sites and 
comparability of approach)
E
Slide 16
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
USAID GCP 
Program
A B C D E F
Field 
Programs
Field 
Programs
Field 
Programs
Field 
Programs
Field 
Programs
Field 
Programs
Linear with information flowing back and forth, most often through 
the GCP Partner representative in the US
Defines/advises on areas and 
approaches to achieving goal, 
monitoring progress and promotes 
biodiversity issues
Partners 
propose 
and 
implement 
approaches
/activities to 
achieve 
goals, 
monitor 
impact, and 
report
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 134
Slide 17
GCP I Evaluation
June-July 2002
Perspectives on Organizational Arrangement of 
USAID’S Global Biodiversity Program
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 135
Annex G: Partner Accountability Statements
Accountability During the Five-Year Implementation of GCP I
[NOTE: During the course of most oral interviews, the evaluator asked each Partner interviewed to
provide a statement about what they (not GCP) would want to hold them accountable for during the first
five years of GCP I. While provided with as much anonymity as possible at the draft phase, these provide
a remarkable set of perspectives that Partners hold about personal responsibility and accountability.]
Partner 1:
Three levels of contribution:
x Individual—achieving and maintaining quality and integrity of monitoring and financial
management substantive aspects of the program. Good program management vis-à-vis USAID.
Wants to work to help the relationship with USAID as a client grow.
x Specific site—different at each site but wants accomplish objectives (if they fail the things will be
out of their control but wants to try to manage in the best way possible). Hopes that sites can
continue to sustain themselves. Each is at a different point in time so there are different challenges
for each by the end of the five years. Would like to better integrate the water work more into the
information mainstream.
x Relationship with USAID and organization—would like to continue and strengthen partnership in
conservation work (i.e., USAID gains more confidence in ability of organization to achieve results).
Would like to see broader impacts beyond the platform sites. Wants to build on organization’s
comparative advantages.
Partner 2:
x Be able to answer: What have we done to save wildlife and large wild lands?
x Living Landscapes Approach has helped them to step back and look at all sites.
x Facilitate interactions at field level.
x Use conceptual model and look at will have a bigger impact.
x Constantly think about “How I fit into the bigger picture?”
x GCP II—Real partnership relations will develop. Hopes collaboration will increase.
Partner 3:
At the level of work planning, would like to hold themselves accountable to achieve what has been
written. Wants to continue focus on site level. Wants to ensure that organization’s comparative advantage
is used (but USAID needs to find mechanisms to make this easier). Would like more opportunities for
partnering with other organizations at sites.
Partner 4:
Feels like they are making important progress. Definitely wants to continue making scientific progress.
From an economic point of view, wants to ensure that they leave room for areas that are not of interest to
the private economic sector so that conservation can occur in those non-economically valuable areas.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 136
In another area where progress is being made, by the end of five years, hopes that institutional structure is
in place that allows decision makers and stakeholders to think more ecoregionally (e.g., in terms in zoning
and land uses).
Partner 5:
Hopes to see communities being assisted so that they are better off (or at least not worse off) by the end of
five years.
Partner 6:
Wants to ensure that a toolbox is available for conservation including:
x Holistic approach,
x Conceptual modeling,
x Monitoring, and
x Threats assessment.
Partner 7:
x Knows they have the right goals,
x Wants to change the way they do conservation—still need to work on tools and shifts in thought,
x Will think outside the box,
x Wants to identify and break down walls, and
x Wants internal and external to function together and have a ripple effect.
Partner 8:
Wants to:
x Influence through information and persuasion,
x Ensure that biodiversity vision is achieved,
x Get management systems in place and working well for ecoregion,
x Create effective management of certain number of protected areas in ecoregions and while being
sure that those targets are appropriately identified,
x Find conservation-friendly livelihood opportunities,
x Look at the potential for sustainable financing (probably not completed but in process), and
x Pilot programs in forest management and community forestry.
Partner 9:
Plans to:
x Make goals and objectives clear,
x Identify key threats,
x Focus on what it is that we’re really trying to abate,
x Continue to take risks,
x Make conceptual models explicit (this is really good for the conservation community and will help
move to develop criteria to assess success) and
x Make sure that we show what has worked and what has not worked (research really matters in doing
this).
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 137
Partner 10:
Exploring and bringing in other organization processes as appropriate for use and adaptation
Partner 11:
Hopes to:
x Be explicit about how they are doing conservation,
x Ensure that tools are available,
x Implement certification(?), and
x Be accountable for and will make progress toward pulling out of sites at the appropriate time.
Partner 12:
Our mission is to secure a place for wildlife that is balance with people. We need to ensure landscapes
(conserved and perpetuated ecologically, socially, economically). We need to look for viability—these
are as much human areas as they are wildlife areas. In cases where needed, they may have to provide
communities with capital for starting up businesses since the laws have changed and wildlife must be
used to provide alternative economic opportunities than they had previously.
Partner 13:
Track 1
x Better tangible progress on ground and with good products, i.e., better conservation in the field;
x Progress will be different for each site;
x Clarity that comes with wildlife focus—has this focus been useful (internal review), i.e., has it
created a greater impact.
Track 2
x Strategic approach (Landscape Species Approach fully fleshed out and operational);
x Use of approach expanded (three under GCP, three more non-USAID-funded).
Basically: “To flesh out the approach, expand its appropriate use, initiate testing of it, get tools out,
evolve the program in response to site-based challenges… all of which leads to tangible progress on the
ground with a 20+ year perspective, maintaining a wildlife focus (to measure success).”
Partner 14:
Wants to:
x Perform a function that makes conservation happen (recognizing the distance between headquarters
and the field);
x Grease the wheels at headquarters to be able to achieve more on the ground;
x Support and push field to do better;
x Be idealistic and skeptical;
x Commit to making collaboration happen when it makes sense (reduce redundancy, drop egos); and
x Be a catalyst where possible by nudging, supporting, and moving things along.
We know a lot; we have global reach; we can provide value added.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 138
Annex H: List of People Interviewed
African Wildlife Foundation
x Katie Frohardt
x Helen Gichohi
x Adam Hensen
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide
x Ann Koontz
Conservation International
x Monique Derfuss
x David Gambill
The Nature Conservancy
x Rolla Salem
x Scott Smith
Wildlife Conservation Society
x Amy Vedder
x Pete Coppolillo
x Sylvia Stone
x Samantha Strindberg
x David Wilkie
World Wildlife Fund
x Sarah Christiansen
x Dekila Chungyalpa
x Rosa Rodriguez-Finch
x Jenny Springer
x Meg Symington,
x Margaret Williams
x Judy Oglethorpe
x Doreen Robinson
Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB)/Nepal
x Bhishma Subedi
USAID Global Conservation Program Staff
x Cynthia Gill
x Mary Rowen
x Robin Martino
x Teri Allendorf
USAID Bureau Staff
x Tim Resch, EAPEI
x Scott Lampman, EGAT/ENV
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 139
x William Sugrue, EGAT/ENV
USAID Mission Staff
x Jerry Bisson, USAID/Philippines
x Miguel Morales, USAID/Paraguay
x Daniel Moore, USAID/Tanzania
x Donna Stauffer, USAID/Nepal
x Doug Mason, USAID/Bolivia
x Eric Stoner, USAID/Brazil
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 140
Annex I: Illustrative List of Documents Reviewed by Evaluator
Abizaid, Rebecca and David Gambill. “Improved Biodiversity Conservation through Capacity Building
and Linking Income to Biodiversity Conservation for CBFM and CADT Members in Cagayan Province,
the Philippines,” draft proposal, Conservation International.
“Agreements Concluded in Samburu and Laikipia, Kenya: A CORAL Success Story,” African Wildlife
Fund.
Allendorf, Teri. “History of GCP,” report to USAID for GCP I Evaluation Report, 2001.
“An Innovative Concept for 21st Century Conservation,” Living Landscapes Bulletin 1, Wildlife
Conservation Society, June 2001.
Annual Report II, Performance Monitoring Forms, and Leadership with Associates Cooperative
Agreement Award Number LAG-A-00-99-0052-00, USAID/GCP, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide/ANSAB,
January 15, 2002.
“African Wildlife Fund and LWF: Partnering for Success in Laikipia A CORAL Success Story,” African
Wildlife Fund.
Bhawan, Min. “Biodiversity Monitoring Plan for the GCP-Funded Project Enterprise-Based Biodiversity
Conservation in Western Nepal/Himalaya,” working draft, Kathmandu, Nepal, EnterpriseWorks
Worldwide/ANSAB, 2001.
“Biodiversity Conservation Program Design and Management: A Guide for USAID Staff,” Washington,
DC, USAID, 2002.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,”
Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2001 for Ndoki-Likouala Landscape Conservation Area, Congo, Leader
with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife
Conservation Society, October 2000-September 2001.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,”
Revised Implementation Plan Fiscal Year 2001 for the Greater Yasuní-Napo Moist Forest, Leader with
Associates Cooperative Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation
Society, October 2000-September 2001.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for BCSL Coordination Unit, Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award
LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society, April 2000-September 2000.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for Ndoki-Likouala Landscape Conservation Area, Congo, Leader with Associates
Cooperative Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society,
April 2000-September 2000.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for Ndoki-Likouala Landscape Conservation Area, Congo, Leader with Associates
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 141
Cooperative Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society,
October 2001-March 2002.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for Northwestern Bolivian Andes Landscape, Leader with Associates Cooperative
Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society, April 2000-
September 2000.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for Northwestern Bolivian Andes Landscape, Leader with Associates Cooperative
Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society, October 2001-
March 2002.
“Biodiversity Conservation at the Landscape Scale: A Program of Wildlife Conservation Society,” Semi￾Annual Report for the Greater Yasuní-Napo Moist Forest, Leader with Associates Cooperative
Agreement Award LAG-A-00-99-00047-00, USAID/GCP, Wildlife Conservation Society, April 2000-
September 2000.
Biodiversity Corridor Planning and Implementation Program, Annual Progress Report Fiscal Year 2001,
Cooperative Agreement No. LAG-A-00-99-00046-00, 1 October 2001-30 March 2002, 17 June 2002.
Biodiversity Corridor Planning and Implementation Program, Annual Implementation Plan, 1 October
2001-30 September 2002, Conservation International Fiscal Year 2002.
Biodiversity Corridor Planning and Implementation Program Description amendment LAG A-00-99-
00046-00, Conservation International.
Biodiversity Corridor Planning and Implementation Program Description and Corridor Cooperative
Agreement LAG A-00-99-00046-00, USAID Brazil Mission/USAID Global Bureau, Conservation
International.
Biodiversity in Regional Development (BiRD) Annual Work Plan Fiscal Year 2001, Conservation
International, 1 October 2000-30 September 2001.
Biodiversity in Regional Development (BiRD) Final Report, 1 October 1998-30 September 2001,
Conservation International, March 2002
Biodiversity in Regional Development (BiRD) Semi-Annual Report Fiscal Year 2000, 1 October 1999-31
March 2000, Conservation International, 15 June 2000.
“Capacity Building for CBFM,” Concept Paper for in situ biodiversity at two sites in the Philippines,
submitted to USAID/GCP G/ENV, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide.
“Capacity Building for CBFM,” Implementation Work Plan for Year One, for in situ biodiversity at two
sites in the Philippines, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide and Quirino, Isabela, Nueva Vizcaya, and Cagayan
Federation of Community-Based People’s Organizations in Region Two, and Palawan Federation of
CBFM People’s Organizations in Region Four, USAID/GCP, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide, 1 October
2001-30 September 2002.
Christiansen, Sarah et al. Semi-Annual Report, reporting period 1 October 2001-31 March 2002, Leader
with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award, Number LAG-A-00-99-00048-00, USAID, World
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 142
Wildlife Fund, 17 June 2002.
Comments on African Wildlife Fund GCP Activity, USAID/GCP, June 2001.
Comments on EnterpriseWorks Worldwide Work Plan, USAID/GCP, 2001.
Concept for USAID/Uganda, SO2 Assistance, African Wildlife Fund, 25 June 2000.
“Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success,” Washington, DC, The Nature
Conservancy, 2000.
“Conserving Biodiversity Through Critical Land Units in the Maasai Steppe, Tanzania,” African Wildlife
Fund, 2001.
CORAL Cost Share Considerations, African Wildlife Fund, Fiscal Year 2002.
CORAL GCP Activity Report, African Wildlife Fund, 1 October 2001-31 March 2002.
CORAL GCP Activity Report Summary, reporting period 1 April-30 September 2001, African Wildlife
Fund, January 2002.
CORAL GCP Activity Report, African Wildlife Fund, January 2001.
CORAL GCP Activity Report, African Wildlife Fund, 1 October 2001-31 March 2002.
CORAL GCP Activity Report, African Wildlife Fund, June 2001.
CORAL GCP Activity Report Summary, reporting period 1 April-30 September 2001, African Wildlife
Fund, January 2002.
CORAL Implementation Plan, African Wildlife Fund, Fiscal Year 2002.
Coral Reefs Work Plan Sanitized, The Nature Conservancy, Fiscal Year 2002.
CORAL Year Three Samburu Heartland Comments, USAID/GCP, African Wildlife Fund.
CORAL Year Two Implementation Plan, African Wildlife Fund, Fiscal Year 2001.
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation Leadership with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award
Number LAG-A-00-99-00052-00), EnterpriseWorks Worldwide/ANSAB, 1 October 2001-30 September
2002.
Enterprise-Based Biodiversity Conservation Leadership with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award
Number LAG-A-00-99-00052-00, Performance Monitoring Report, EnterpriseWorks
Worldwide/ANSAB, 15 November 2001.
Environment Information Clearinghouse, n.d. “Global Conservation Program: Working Together to
Protect the World’s Biological Wealth.” Washington, DC: PADCO, Inc., under contract no. PC-1-00-97-
00031-00.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 143
“Fact Sheet: An Overview of the Basic Biology and Management of Live Reef Food Fish Resources,”
draft #2, The Nature Conservancy.
“Fact Sheet: Managing the Live Reef Fish Food Trade,” draft #2, The Nature Conservancy.
“Fact Sheet: The Live Reef Food Fish Trade in the Pacific,” draft #4, The Nature Conservancy.
“Fact Sheet: Live Reef Fish Food Trade Monitoring,” draft #3, The Nature Conservancy.
“Fact Sheet: USAID Initiative to Preserve World’s Biodiversity,” Washington, DC, USAID, 10 April
2000.
GCP Baseline Assessment, Annex 1-Survey Form, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide and EnterpriseWorks
Worldwide/Philippines.
GCP Workplan Comments for Kilimanjaro, Zambezi, and Maasai Steppe Heartlands, African Wildlife
Fund, USAID/GCP, Fiscal Year 2002.
Implementation Plan Comments on The Nature Conservancy Work Plan, USAID/GCP, The Nature
Conservancy, Fiscal Year 2001.
“The Landscape Species Approach: A Tool for Site-Based Conservation,” Living Landscapes Bulletin 2,
Wildlife Conservation Society, September 2001.
Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award Number LAG-A-00-99-00052-00, USAID,
EnterpriseWorks Worldwide, 1999.
Leader with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award, Number LAG-A-00-99-00053-00, USAID,
African Wildlife Fund, 1999.
Narrative Supplement to the Guyana Year Two Implementation Plan, Conservation International, 5
October 2000.
“Protecting the World’s Remaining Mountain Gorillas: The International Gorilla Conservation Program’s
Regional Approach,” a technical proposal and cost plan, submitted to USAID/Africa Bureau, African
Wildlife Fund, August 2001.
RFA for GCP, Washington, DC, USAID, 1999.
“The Roles of Landscape Species in Site-Based Conservation,” Living Landscapes Bulletin 3, Wildlife
Conservation Society, May 2002.
“Selecting Landscape Species,” Living Landscapes Bulletin 4, Wildlife Conservation Society, May 2002.
Semi-Annual Report, The Nature Conservancy, 2000.
Semi-Annual Report, The Nature Conservancy, 2001-2002.
Semi-Annual Report and Leadership with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award Number LAG-A￾00-99-0052-00, USAID/GCP, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide and EnterpriseWorks Worldwide/Philippines,
15 June 2002.
USAID’s Global Conservation Program (GCP I) Evaluation Report 144
Semi-Annual Progress Report, Biodiversity Corridor Planning and Implementation program (Corridor),
reporting period 1 October 2000-31 March 2001, Conservation International, 15 June 2001.
Semi-Annual Report III and Leadership with Associates Cooperative Agreement Award Number LAG-A￾00-99-0052-00, USAID/GCP, EnterpriseWorks Worldwide/ANSAB, June 15, 2001.
“Tanzanian Ecologist Sheds Light on West Kilimanjaro Elephants: CORAL Success Story #2,” African
Wildlife Fund, 2001.
USAID Review of Conservation International Fiscal Year 2002 Work Plans, USAID/GCP, 2002.
Valutis, Laura (The Nature Conservancy), Sarah Christiansen (World Wildlife Fund), and David Wilkie
(Wildlife Conservation Society). “Measuring our Conservation Success,” USAID.
Wildlife Conservation Society Program Coordination Unit Semi-Annual Report, USAID/GCP, Wildlife
Conservation Society, June 2000.
Work Plan, The Nature Conservancy, Fiscal Year 2001.
Work Plan Review, USAID/GCP, African Wildlife Fund, November 2000.