Govemments of Mexico and Ghana United States Agency for International Development' Private Voluntary Cooperation Conservation International CSAID'PVC Matching Grant Grant Xumber FAO-A-00-00-00012-00 Agroforestry-based enterprise development as a biodiversity conservation intervention in Mexico and Ghana Final Evaluation Report Winfned Zenelrneyer. Economist Alan Maddison, Agronornisr Pathoiogist Ualaga Spain. Hereford I.K March 29, ZOat Dea ofm duapa na yepia no The one who climbs a good trec deserves support (Ghanaian sayng) 3 Table of Contents ISTRODCCTIOS 6 ACROSYMS 11 1. EVALCATIOS PROFILE SHEET 14 2. SVMMARY OF COSCLVSIOSS .4SD RECOMMESDATIOSS 15 Conclusions 15 Recommendations l i 3. PROGRAM BACKGROCSD 18 3.1 Origin of the Matching Grant Program for Mexico and Ghana 1s 3.2 Rationale for the program 19 3.3 Situation on the ground, status of interventions at the beginning of thr program and relevant baseline data 3.4 What the program sought to achieve 3.5 Principal partners 3.5.1 Intemational Paríners 3.5.2 Local Partners 3.5.1.1 Partnen in Mexico 3.5.1.2 Partners in Ghana 3.6 Current implementation status 3.7 Cl's overall development plans 4. PROGRAM EFFECTWENESS 4.1 Program Model or Approach 4.1.1 The Business Development Senices Approach 4.1.2 Brokering behveen farmers and the private sector 4.1.3 Cooperatives as partners 4.1.4 Cl's comparative advantage 4.1.5 Simpliiication of the approach 4.1.6 Competing or complementary programs and20r approaches 4.2 Achievement of Ohjectives 4.2.1 Major successes. challenges and constraints in achieving each objective at the three sites 4.2.1.1 Washington DC Site 4.2.1.2 Mexico Site 4.2.1.3 Ghana Cite 4.2.2 Impact of the program on the main target poup. he coffee and cocoa farmers, and the intermediate groups 4.2.2.1 Coffee Farmers Mexico 4.2.2.2 Cocoa Farmers in Ghana 4.2.2.3 Intermediate Groups, Mexico Project 4.2.2.4 Intermediate Groups, Ghana Project 4.2.3 Impact on the Capacity of CI's Operations at HQ and in the Field to Deliver Sustainable Services 4.2.4 Unintended Impacts 4.2.4.1 Mexico 4.2.4.2 Ghana 4.2.5 Major Factors Affecting Implementation 4.2.6 Efficacy of Main Slrategies 4.2.7 Mid-course corrections and their effects 4.3 Cross-Cutting Issues 4.3.1 Partnerships 4.3.1.1 Partners in Mexico 4.3.1.2 Partners in Ghana 4.3.2 Gender, New Tools, Guidance or Standards. 4.3.2.1 Gender 4.3.2.2 New Tools, Guidance or Standards Mexico 4.3.2.3 New Tools, Guidance or Standards Ghana 4.3.3 Advocacy 4.3.4 Sustainability and Scale-Up 4.3.4.1 The sustainabiliíy model of the CCCP 4.3.4.2 Sustainabiliiy of the Mexico projecr 4.3.4.3 Sustainability of the Ghana project 4.3.4.4 Replication of the project's approach elsewhere 4.4 Lessons Leamed and Recommendations for Prograni Effectiveness 4.4.1 Lessons leamed 4.4.2 Evaluators' recommendations for CI and paiiner organisations with regard to progam effectiveness 4.4.2.1 Recommendations for DC 4.4.2.2 Recommendations for the Mexico prqject 4.4.2.3 Recommendations for the Ghana project 5. PROGRAM MAXAGEMEKT 5.1 The Conservation Coffee and Cocoa program's general approach to project design and management 76 5.1.1 Principles of project design and adaptive management 76 5.1.2 Basic assumptions failed 77 5.1.3 The absence of a suitable planning methodology in the beginning 78 5.1.4 Adaptive Planning as a substitute ? 81 5.1.5 Cost-effectiveness of the program 83 5.1 S. 1 Atiempts at economics in Ghana 85 5.1.5.2 Atiempts at economic analysis in Mexico 86 5.2 Management Approach Ghana / Quality and Status of Detailed Implementation Plan (DW 87 5.2.1 Clarity and adequacy of the objectives. indicators. baseline studies and activities 8' 5.2.2 The DIP's utility as a management tool for CI, their parmers and PVC S8 5.3 Management Approach Mexico New Project Management System 5.3.1 Developing and adopting a different management approach 5.3.3 Some cntical questions conceming the Project tksign. Management and Learning Cycle 92 5.3.3.1 Reality shaped afier the model ? 92 5.3.3.2 How does the logc of the Conceptual Model tie in with the logic applied on Outcome leve1 ? 93 5.3.3.3 Where and when do economics come in ? 95 5.3.3.4 "Comprehensive stakeholder participation" or still topdoan approach ? 96 5.4 Other Management Issues 5.4.1 Financia1 Management 5.4.2 Monitoring and Evaluation System 5.4.3 Informanon Systems 5.4.3.1 Hardu-are and Software 5.4.3.2 Reporting 5.4.4 Stafing and Supe~ision 5.4.4.1 Stafing in DC 5.4.4.2 Stafing in the field 5.4.5 PVC F'rogam Management 5.5 Lessons Leamed and Recommendations for Program Management 10) 6. EVALVATION METHODOLOGY 105 Amex 7.0 The final Scope of Work (SOW) 106 Amex 7.1 F'rogam's Strengths and Weaknesses (SOW Annex A) Annex 7.2 Results Status Table (SOW Annex B) Amex 7.3 Partnerships Table (SOW Annex C) Annex 7.4 List of sites visited and personvgroups interviewed Annex 7.5 List of documents Amex 7.6 Successes. Challenges and Consüaints Introduction The following report describes the results of the final evaluation of the USAIDIPVC Matching Grant "Agroforestry-based Enterprise Development as a Biodiversity Conservation Intervention in México and Ghana," Award Number FAO-A-00-00-00012-00. The grant was implemented by CI's Coffee and Cocoa program, which forms part of the Conservation Enterprise department in CI's head office The grant covers the period from October lSt, 2000, to Apd 15'~. 2004. The goal of the grant is the conservation of biodiversity in threatened tropical ecosystems. Its purpose is to build the capacity of CI and its local CRO partners to promote low impact agriculture and conservation among small-scale coffee and cocoa farmers. This final evaluation analyzes the first systematic attempt of ('1's Coffee and Cocoa program to design and implement a project and identifies the key lessons leamed before the approach is replicated in new project sites. The evaluation's focus is determined by three audience groups: 1) The USAID PVC/ Matching Grant Scheme, 2) the CI Coffee and Cocoa Program at its headquarters in Washington DC, and the 3) México and Ghana CI country programs. According to the USAID Evaluation Guidelines the report is stmctured in two parts, the first part assessing the effectiveness of the Program and the second part program management. Within the first part, by companng baseline data with end of project data the progress of the two country projects and of the headquarters unit towards their respective stated objectives is analysed. This includes fínding out whether the overall model and approach as well as the activities implemented in field were effective, the developed partnerships productive and the operations sustainable. It also involves analysing the environment in whieh the two project sites are operating and identi@ing factors that promoted or hindered the approach. Whereas the fírst part looks a: results, the second part of the evaluation relates to the procedures employed. This is where CI's management processes and organisational structures relevant for the Coffee and Cocoa Program are examined. In this section CI's program management capacity is evaluated and the question answered to what extent the grant has enabled CI to improve its institutional capacity for promotinp Conservation Coffee and Cocoa interventions. The evaluation was camed out by a two-person team of externa1 evaluators, Mr. Winfned Zettelmeyer, economist, and Mr. Alan Maddison, agronomist and tropical plant pathologist. CI-DC staff and CI project staff in the field supported the evaluation team. In DC, the person coordinating and overseeing the evaluation was the Advisor on Project Design and Management. Ms. Linda Klare-Repnik. In Ghana, the key support people were CI's local project manager, MI. Gyampah Amoako￾Gyedu, and the local cocoa sector specialist Mr. Paa Kwezi on loan from MOFA to assure an in-depth understanding of the specifics of the Ghanaian cocoa sector. In México, support was provided by the coordinator of :he project, Mr. Santiago Arguello and the consultant for socio-economic studies, Mr. Arthur van Leuween. The briefing in Washington and the field visits took place hetween November 11, 2003 and December 20, followed by a second briefing in Washington from January 5 to January 13. A list of the places visited, contacts made and documents consulted are presented in Annex 7.4 and 7.5. The evaluators want to thank CI staff in Washingion, in Jalienango4fexico and Accra Gham for their trust, active involvement and support, their readiness to answer whatever quesnon arose and for their patience in explaining the strategic lines and oíten complex details of this remarkable program that compnses subjects as wide apart as species. business de\-elopment ecological comdors, and poverty alleviation. Malagai'Spain and HerefordCK, March 29.2004 Winfried Zettelmeyer, Alan C. Maddison 8 Maps 95' Map 1 : CI Chiapas Conservation Coffee Agroforestry Pro~ect, Mexico Map 2: CI Conservation Cocoa Agroforestry Project, Ghana Map 3: CI Chiapas Conservation Coffee Agroforesty Project Biosphere Reserve El Triunfo-Chiapas, Mexico \ Map 4: CI Conservation Cocoa Agroforestry Project Kakum National Park, Ghana Acronyms AESA AMSA BDS CABS CBA CBC CBO CBP CC CC AP CCBB CCCP CED CEDEP CELB CEPF CESMACH C1 CI-Ghana CI-Mexico CMCC COCOBOD COMCAFE COMON CONAXP CRlG DC DIP DOS A ECE A ECOSUR EMDAP FFS FIRA FIRCO FLO Ago-Ecosystem analysis Agroindustrias Unidas de Mexico. S.A. de C.V, Business Development Services Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (Cl) Cost Benefit Analysis Center of Biodiversity Conservahon Community Based Organisation Conservation Best Practices Conservation Coffee Conservation Cocoa Aroforesby Propam Coffee Cheny Boring Beetle Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Propam Conservation Enterprise Department (Conservation International) Center for the Development of People, Ghanaian SGO Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (Cansen-ation Intemational) Critical Ecosystems Pamership Fund Campesinos Ecologicos de la Sierra Madre de Chiapas (.Mesican cooperative) Conservation Intemational Conservation InternationalGhana Conservation Internatianal-Mexico Conceptual Model Conservation Coffee The Cocoa Marketing Board (Ghana) Consejo LMéxicano de Café Coman Yaj Nop Tic Cooperative Comisión Nacional de Áreas Saturales Protegidas Cocoa Research lnstitute of Ghana Washington DC Detailed lmplementation Plan Discussion-Oriented Self .4ssessment Escuelas de Campo y Experimentación para Agricultores El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (College of the Southern Frontier) Emerging Markets Development Advisors Propm Farmer Field School Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relacion con la .4picultura Fideicomisos Instituidos de Riesgo Compatido Fairirade Labelling Organisations FTV GEF GIS GPS HQ ICEAAC ICPM ICS IDESMAC ISMAM IUCN JAS KCA KKL KNP KNUST LFA M&E MOFA MOFA-ICPM NTFP OCIA ORPAE OPCAAC PCM PDMLC PLEC PPA PRA PSP PVC PVO REBITRI RDU SEMARNAP SMA sow SSS Fondo de Inversión y Contingencia para el Desarrollo Rural Triunfo Verde (Finca Triunfo Verde) Global Environment Facility Geographic Information System Global Positioning System Headquarters, CI Washington DC Indigenas y Campesinos Ecologicos de Ángel Albino Corzo (Mexican Cooperative) Integrated Crop and Pest Management Intemal Control System Instituto para el Desarrollo Sustentable en Mesoamenca A.C Indígenas de la Sierra Madre de Motozintla International Union for the Conservation of Nature Japanese Agricultural Service Kakum Conservation Area Kuapa Kokoo Ltd. Kakum National Park Kwame Nknimah University of Science and Technology Logical Framework Approach Monitonng and Evaluation Ministry of Food and Agxiculture, Ghana National Integrated Crop and Pest Management Program of MOFA, Ghana Non-timber forest products Organic Certification Inspectors Association Organización Regional de Productores Agro-Ecológicos Organización de Productores de Cáfe de Ángel Albino Corzo Project Cycle Management Project Design, Management and Leaming Cycle People, Land Management and Ecosystem Conservation, University of Ghana People and Protected Areas Participatory Rural Appraisal Preferred Supplier Program (Starbucks) Public and Voluntaxy Cooperation Public and Voluntary Organisation Reserva de la Biosfera "El Triunfo" Research and Development Unit Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca Strategic Management Approach Scope of Work Sociedad de Solidaridad Social STCP Sustainabie Tree Crop Program TAMARIN Tooibox of Applied Metrics and Analysis of Regional Incenmes TNC The Nature Conservancy (LSA) ToR Terms of Reference ToT Training of Trainers UCOAAC Union de Cafetaleros Orgánicos de Angel Albino Corzo USAID Gnited States Agency for lnternational Development 1. Evaluation Profile Sheet Agroforestry-Based Enterprise Development as a Biodiversity Consewation Intervention in Ghana and Mexico Award No. FAO-A-00-00-00012-00 Project Sites Washington DC El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve of Chiapas, Mexico Kakum Conservation Area, Ghana Principal Partners Ghana Kuapa Kokoo Ltd (a large famer cooperative with aboiit 40,00 members), Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), Integrated Pest and Crop Management Program (JCPM) of Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA) Mexico Six cooperatives representing over 1000 small-scale coffee farmers who live in the buffer zone and adjacent area of influence of the El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve. (CESMACH, ICEAAC, Coman Yap Nop Tic, ORPAE, OCAAC, FTV). ECOSUR, Research and Education College of the Southem Frontier REBITRI - CONANP, Management Unit of El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve Duration of Grant: August 2000- Apnl 2004 (no-cost extension from September 2003 to Apnl2004) Beneficias. Populations: Mexico: 857 farmers living in small villages of 100 or less people within the sparsely populated (20 people per square kilometer) bufferzone of the Reserve. The average household size in these communities in 2003 was 4.9. Ghana: an estimated 400 farmers; nine communities took part in the training and an average of 50 is considered to be members of a community; Farmers in these communities support an average of 5.5 children. PVC-PVO match totals ( PVC Total Expenditures ( $1,717,055 1 1 PVO Total Expenditures ) $1,737,708 1 DIP approved: Apnl 10,2001 Evaluation Start Date (Start implementing SOW): Noveniber 1,2003 Evaluation End Date (submission of final report to PVC): Apnl2nd, 2004 2. Summary of Conclusions and Recornrnendations Conclusions CI's Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Program (CCCP) supported by the L'S.AIDP\T matching grant "Agroforeshy-based Enterprise Development as a Biodi\ersir) Conservation Intervention in Mexico and Ghana" has produced impressive results and a great part of the objectives outlined in the 3-years gran1 proposal of 1999 has heeri achieved. The program has, as planned in the original proposal, sirccessfull~~ developed capacin to design agroforeshy-based conservation enterprises which biodiversity conservarion requires. The preemptive approach to conservation of nature through behavioral change based on biodivenity-fiendly cultivation practices, access to credit and markets and economic incentives for farmers has proveri its suitabilig,. The program team at headquaners in Washington and in Mexico and Ghana ha\-e developed and tested a series of tools arid procedures which alloii- the propm's successful replicatiori in other coffee or cocoa growing areas of biodiversity hotspots. Some of these tools, such as the Project Design and Management Frame\vork. are u&l for the implernentation of projects bq,orrd the borr~idaries of the Consenation Enterprise Depament a-here the CCCP is located. From the point of view of the USAIDiPVC matching gmnt program. the grant Izas rhus served its purpose. The grant was matched dollar for dollar with funds raised by CI in the U.S. and the host countries. The program's results have contributed to pow alleviariorr. US.AID's impomnt goal. artd ro biodiwrsiy conservation at the same time. Three years uere no! sufticie~it to achieve [he sustairiabili~j~ of the projects. Both need continuedsupport over a number of years. Sound pla~iriing arrd monitoring of performance is a major factor for effectiveness and efficiency of the operation. Due anention has to be dedicated at an ear/i. srage ro the fundamental issue of.liriarrcia1 and ecoriomic viabilio$o the benefit of realistic planning as well as sustainabilir). Quick!~ scalirtg up is the number one requirement in order to reach the necessaF income to make the Business Development model sustainable. Recommendations That CI continues to support Agroforestry Enterprise Development appropnate to foresr conservation, as exemplified by the Coffee and Cocoa Proprn. in locations \\-here commodity crops are already gro\ving over substantial areas of buffer mnes. That commodity crop enterpnse development suppon is seen by CI as a long term process. of at least 10-15 years duration, because of the need to change long held panerns of behaviour, and because of the innate long term nature of tree crop cycles and habitat restitution. That CI accepts that investment in supporting the propm will be considerable over at least the first five years, until some stability is achieved in the perception of shade gro\\n coffee as a valuahle concept by consumers, producers. cooperatives and clients (coffee companies). 0 That CI encourages its partners to take a long tem view too, and to have patience, especially with respect to the speed with which new schemes are introduced, for example changes to the purchasing chain. Mexico That support for the ongoing activities is continued for at least another 3-4 years. That efforts should he made to scale up. The parameters are laid out in the EMDAP study, but the model and its assumptions from July 2003 have to be verified and updated. That a realistic continually updated plan of operations and thorough monitonng of the growth path and the set financia1 targets is put in place. That the project is integrated into CI's regional structure, but that forceful and swift decision making is ensured by delegating as much as possible to the local project level. That in the short term, export services should he provided by an experienced institution (such as AMSA at the moment). However, in the long term, cooperatives should again he given this opportunity. Further training will be necessary. That full transparency in the supply chain is ensured to facilitate the transfer of economic benefits to producers. Transparency should apply equally up the chain (millers, exporters, roasters) as well as down through the cooperatives. That CABS, Washington, collaborate with the Reserve and other partners, on biological monitonng. Ghana That CI ensures careful monitoring of and support to its continuing pamierships, as the idea is still very new and will need CI to take a strong lead position in promoting it. That a full-time project coordinator be hired with a finance and business background with full decision power and operational independence within the framework of hisiher tems of reference. That a sustainahility study as it was done in Mexico is undertaken that would analyse different models of financing including other than full fees for se~ces. That shade reduction in existing cocoa is kept to a minimum until more is known about yield in relation to different shade regimes in traditional cocoa. That particular emphasis is given to support for establishing new plantings on abandoned cocoa fields, and for nurturing biodiversity within them That any future collaboration with the Sustainable Tree Crops Program hears in mind the preceding recommendation, that emphasis be put on ncw plantings on ahandoned cocoa fields wherever possible, with increased biodiversity as a component. That the conservative and flexible approach shown by CRIG regarding appropriate shade tree density is reflected in the messages given to trainers and farmers. That the initiative in the area of desirahle and undesirable shade tree types is taken up again, and that the direction for urgently needed. essential research on Conservation Cocoa agroforestq is formulated together with CRIG and the producers. that monitoring is integrated into the current activities of al1 staff, especially where CI has overall reporiing responsibility in activities involving partners. That brokering bemeen the chocolate industry and Kuapa andor other farmer associations be reinitiated to obtain organicifairtradeiConcen.ation Cocoa premiums and negotiate uith the Cocoa Board how these premiums can be made available to farmers and Kuapa in the context of the present marketing smcnire. 3. Program Background 3.1 Origin of the Matching Grant Prograrn for Mexico and Ghana USAID's Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation (PVC) located within the Agency's Bureau for Humanitarian Response (BHR) is the foca1 point for the Agency's partnership with U.S. Private Voluntary Organisations (PVOs). The PVC Matching Grant Program focuses on strengthening the technical and organisational capacity of U.S. Pnvate and Voluntary Organisations (PVOs) and through them on strengthening partnerships with local organisations to achieve sustainable service delivery. PVOs are awarded Matching Grants based on their capability to implement successful sustainable development programs. The major objectives of the Matching Grant Program are to: expand and strengthen thefieldprograms of U.S. PVOs in order to increase prospects for sustainability and results in program areas that are consistent with USAID policies and prionties; assist U.S. PVOs to further enhance their planning ,~yste:its~ management systems and technical competencies to cany out development programs; build the capaciw of local NGOs, govemmental and community-based organisations (CBOs), andlor for-profit enterprises through formalised partnership agreements with U.S. PVOs; and increase U.S. private resources directed to development assistance by matching private contributions on a dollar-for-dollar basis through a combined public and private partnership. Conservation Intemational (CI) is a global Washington DC based non-pmfit organisation active in more than 30 countries, with a budget of around US$ 100 million in Fiscal Year 2004. It was founded in 1987 and defines as its mission "to conserve the earth's living natural hentage, our global biodiversity, and to demonstrate that human societies are able to live harmoniously with nature". CI started operations in Mexico and Ghana in 1997c98 with the goal to conserve hiological diversity in threatened tropical ecosystems through the promotion of environmentally sustainable agroforestry crops, an increase in farmers' revenues and the reduction of pressure on the protected areas. Funded by the Ford Foundation and other donors CI had been working from 1997 with four Mexican cooperatives on organic certification, computer training, accounting and bookkeeping, marketing, contract negotiation, financing and coffee expolis. In Ghana CI had been working since 1993, when the govemment invited it to help develop the management strategy for the Kakum National Park. From 1998 CI, together with Kuapa Kokoo Limited, the trading am of Kuapa Kokoo Farmers Union, a cocoa cooperative founded in 1993, undertook a pilot project for organic cocoa with the objective of promoting conservation through sustainable farming techniques and of generating more benefits for Kuapa's farmers through market development. CI also had an agreement with Twin Ltd., a UK based NGO dedicated to the economic development of farmers' organisations, which had been Kuapa's business development partner since its inception to provide managenal and trade capacity building, as well as to coordinate Kuapa's intemational marketing plans in the event of extemal market liberalization. CI's grant proposals in December 1997 and December 1998 to CSAID's P\T ofice \vere unsuccessful. In August 2000 however, USAIDiPVC accepted an application by CI from 3rd of December 1999 for Fiscal Year 2000 for a matching grant of CSS1.717.361 (Award Number FAO-A-00-00-00012-00) for the program "Agroforesm- based-Enterprise Development as a Biodiversity Conservation Intervention in Mexieo and Gbaaa (Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Program - CCCP). The proposal 1999 u-as the result of hvo years of discussion, strategy development and the joint implementation of the mentioned pilot organic programs in both counities. The grant's purpose was to build CI's capacity in Washington DC to de\.elop and promote conservation enterprises based on coffee and cocoa on he one hand, and to build the capaci~ of CI's local parmers in two project sites: ChiapaCvíexico. and Kakum Consen-ation AreaIGhana on the other. For this reason the proposal contained three site specific sets of objectives for Washington DC, Mexico and Ghana with separate budgers. 3.2 Rationale for the program CI focuses, apart from wildemess and marine areas, on "biodiversity hotspots" in areas of unique biological nchness that suffer extensive human impact and and are facing threats of destniction. Currently, 25 biodiversity hotspots have been identified worldu-ide. Contran to consen.ative positions in the environmental discourse a-hich view people mainly as a threat to nature and tend to impose conservation policies on civil society ("fence and protect policy"). CI's hotspots approach is based on the assumption that consen-ation can succeed only if local people fully participate in, and benefit from, the presenation of their natural resource base. Consequently, CI's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS) include into their u-ork not only species, protected areas and landscapes (ecological comdors) in the biological and geographical dimension, but also the demographic, economic and political uends these are exposed to, the "socio-economic drivers to biodiversity loss.'. A fundamental assumption that led CI into inten-entions in the ama of coffee and cocoa cultivation is that the overall goal comen~aiion of tropical biodiiersin. can. given certain conditions, be achieved through agroforestry. Agroforestry is believed to conmbute to biodiversity in three ways:' by reducing the pressure to deforest rernaining forest land and to degrade foresü through excessive extraction of their resources (agrofores~deforestation hypothesis); by providing suiiable habitat for forestdependent plant and animal species (agroforestry-habitat hypothesis); and by creating biodiversity-friendly comections ("comdors" or "stepping stones for wildlife") behveen existing patches of natural habitat. buffering them against more hostile land uses (agroforestry-mamx hypothesis). Coffee and coca apoforesüy has an economic and conservation potential impact in the field which is critica1 to CI's broader landscape approach to consemation. Effective biodiversity comdors require economic development oppominities that can reach a large population of stakeholders, based on activities that provide habitat for local flora and fauna. These opportunities need to involve major export crops and engage globally important indusmes and policy makers who are important for future invesbnents using the experience from this program. This is true for coffee and cocoa. Diversified shaded coffee fields benefit the biology of tropical forest ecosystems by providing a critica1 habitat for plants and animals. In Mexico. researcliers found considerably more bird species in shaded coffee fields than in those with no shade, and for cocoa fields in Ghana a species diversification comparable to that of undisturbed forests whicb coffee and cocoa fields can thus successfully connect as corridors. Diversified shade coffee and cocoa reduces soil erosion and retains soil moisture, suppresses weed growth, supplies nutrients through leaf litter, hampers the spread of wind-borne diseases, protects trees from tropical sun and heavy winds and provides habitat for beneficia1 insects that help control pests. For both coffee and cocoa cultivation areas, plant species composition and the management ofshade trees vary much between plantations and from region to region. From a conservation point of view, the greater the structural and floristic diversity of the canopy, the higher the likelihood that resources will be provided for a greater array of organisms. However, the specific agricultura1 and economic needs of coffee and cocoa farmers and the prevalent extension policies might not coincide with maximum biodiversity. Coffee and cocoa cultivation, depending on the prevailing socio-economic conditions, can constitute as much a threat for the consewation of forests as an opportunity and has been, in fact, a major factor for the advance of the agricultural frontier in the past. The expansion of the coffee crop in Mexico due to booming coffee prices between 1970 and 1982 led to the incorporation of large tracts of forest into coffee production, and later, with falling prices and the corresponding pressure for yield increases, based on yield focussed technical assistance packages, contributed to a thinning or total elimination of tree cover ("sun coffee"). In Ghana, similarly, reduction in cocoa productivity has been motivating farmers to abandon their farms and clear additional forested land where this was still available, thinning or eliminating shade trees ("sun cocoa") to boost cocoa yields, with devastating effects on the number of species of nearly al1 groups of flora and fauna. and reducing the buffer effects on neigbouring protected areas. Also, legal systems that link land tenure to deforestation send perverse signals in terms of conservation of biodiversity. The higher profitability that tree crops such as coffee or cocoa show in newly deforested areas provides an equally penrerse incentive for farmers to establish new plantations in primary forest rather than replant already cultivated land, in order to take advantage of the ncher soils, as long as forest land is readily availab~e.~ This means that agroforestty practices have the highest biodiversity enhancing potential in those areas where forest land has either been reduced or even eliminated, as in the biodiversity hotspots, or where iis use been resticted through declaration as parks and other protected areas, making it unavailable for agricultura1 exploitation. Here, the combination of the classic protectionist and the more recent people-oriented approaches to conservation complement each other most effectively, creating synergistic effects. Biodiversity friendly coffee and cocoa agroforestry thus tum into a means to cope with reduced land availability, going hand in hand with measures such as access to special markets, ecotourisn~ development, payments for watershed functions, carbon credits trading etc., to compensate former forest users for the foregone forest products and foregone benefits of shifting cultivation. The ensemble of production practices, quality cnteria and marketing of so called "Consemation Coffee" and "Conservation Cocoa" lead towards a more biodiversity friendly land use in the buffer zones around protected areas and are well suited for small-scale farmers. The practices enhance crop health, require little capital, and use locally available materials and labor. The cultivation areas provide, at the same time, connectivity (corridors) between patches of primary habitat. With large, well-established markets and sufficiently high producer benefits forest frontiers become socially and politically acceptable and stable, reducing pressure on forest resources. Development of Consemation Coffee and Consen-ation Cocoa on small farms thus yields habitat protection for the conse~ationist and. from the point of view of social development, poverty reduction at the same time. According to the grant proposal from 3rd of December 1999 the El Triunfo Biosphere Resene and Kakum National Park \vere chosen because e they were biologically rich ecosystems under threat with a high consen-ation pnority; e the areas were surrounded by buffer zones with small-scale farmers practicing traditional production systems; e CI objectives and those of the local USAID mission were compatible: the respective CI counhy program was dedicated to increasing its capacity; parmerships with existing farmers' organisations with compatible objectives had been established; and e fatmers were detemined to be stakeholders in local consen-ation strategies These selection criteria, according to the proposal, reflect Cl's belief that successful conservation strategies must address the economic needs of local people through the development of community-owned businesses, based on the sustainable use of natural resources with a long-term viability afier the end of externa1 suppon. 3.3 Situation on the ground, status of interventions at the beginning of the prograrn and relevant baseline data The small-scale coffee and cocoa farms under modified forest canopies surrounding the El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve in Mexico and Kakum Sational Park in Ghana still harbor significant levels of biodiversity. They serie as buffer zones for the biodiversiQ' \vithin the adjacent protected areas and as comdors behveen them. In both project sites, coffee and cocoa respectively represent a significant percentage of beneficianes' household income (30% in Ghana and 900'0 in Mexico). Landholdings are small (on average 3 hectares in Mexico and 5.5 hectares in Ghana) and households are therefore very dependem on these cash crops. In both sites at the inception stage of the program, sociwconomic conditions of the majority of coffee and cocoa farmers had deteriorated over time and forceful action was required to stop further encroachment on forest areas. In Mexico as well as in Ghana in the past decades markets for agicultural inputs and for coffee and cocoa had been closely replated and supported by international andior Government dependen1 institutions. In the case of Mexico. these were the Intemational Coffee Agreement and the Instituto Mexicano del Café [NMECAFE], in the case of Ghana the International Cocoa Organisation (ICCO) and the Cocoa Marketing Board [Cocobod] of Ghana. Market had subsequently been fully or panially (Ghana) deregulated in the course of structural adjustrnent policies and the liberalisation of trade. As a consequence, fomerly subsidised input costs increased sharply. Many farmers abandoned the use of agrochemicals. resulting in increased levels of disease and pest infestations. Produce in Mexico had now to be sold to private intermediaries at 10% pnces as these were not supported any more by Government. Regulation before had discouraged the formation of producer organisations in both sites. Farmers in the project sites lacked affordable alternatives for chemical inputs. extension services and governmental credit schemes had ceased. Pnces gave them little incentive to invest in field renovation and replanting, a process essential to maintaining crop productivity. Yields decreased substantially. There was a critica1 need for increased research and dissemination of effective cultivation methods with locally available materials and labor and minimal capital investrnents, compatible with biodiversity conservation. In Mexico, in the preparation period of the project, farmers lacked technical skills to control pests and diseases prevalent especially at lower altitudes, nor did they how much about conservation practices such as terracing, compost, bamers against erosion and diversification of shade tree species and shade management. Due to inadequate processing infrasmicture, coffee quality was poor, transport costs high and farm-gate pnces correspondingly low. There were few credit opportunities available to finance time dependent coffee harvesting other than through advanced cash fiom private coffee buyers at high interest rates. Cooperatives in Mexico had been established only recently, after the Mexican Coffee Institute fe11 apart in 1989 along with the Intemational Coffee Agreernent. They functioned poorly with the exception of one that had profited from cooperating with CI from 1997 on , and the average annual membership turnover rate of the cooperatives was high (44%). People in the area were generally aware of the environmental benefits of nature reserves, but they had little awareness of the environmental benefits of organic coffee and they associated organic coffee only with a higher pnce. In Ghana baseline studies confirmed the threat posed to Kakum Conservation Area (KCA) by shifting cocoa cultivation by small-scale farmers. Farm productivity and profitahility in the area had generally declined to the point that farmers abandoned existing plots and moved on to clear new pieces of forest in order to take advantage of better soils. This destructive cycle, as pointed out above, had resulted in the loss of virtually al1 natural forest remaining ontside the protected area. The conversion of cocoa farms into crops such as maize, cassava, and oil palm represented another threat to the KCA as annual crops planted up against the park's boundary create a more abmpt transition from forest to farm areas, and oil palm plantations harbor less hiodiversity than diversified shade cocoa farms and are more taxing on soil fertility than cocoa. Key challenges and constraints faced by Ghana farmers were the lack of howledge of appropnate farming techniques, including biological pest control, and the high cost of farm inputs , combined with the complete breakdown of extension services due to the dismantling of the Cocoa Services Division of the Cocoa Board and the lack of credit. Given that farmers could not afford agrochemicals without the subsidies ofiered before liberalisation, virtually the only management practice was biannual weeding and harvesting. In total, the proposal mentioned five significant obstacles that the program intended to address: 1) Lack of knowledge of farmers and their organisations in effective, low-input agricultura1 techniques; 2) insufficient institutional capacity and management expertise; 3) low capitalisation and little access to credit at reasonable interest rates; 4) limited market access and lack of information required to operate effectively; and 5) insufficient scientific understanding of the ecological value of traditional agroforestiy systems and their impact on product quality. 3.4 What the program sought to achieve According to the grant proposal, the goal of the program - conservation of biodi\.ersi~ in threatened tropical ecosystems - could be reached if farmers substituted their traditional cultivation methods by biodiversity friendly practices ('.milestoneW)'. From its previous experience in coffee and cocoa, as \ve11 as non-timber forest product (NTFP) and ecotourism projects CI highlighted important lessons that were - even if not sufficient, as it tumed out - extremely important to put the program on the right uack: o Local paríicipants must see economic benefits early in the project; o accounting procedures and financial records should be as mnsparent as posible: 0 communities need to participate in al1 aspects of a project's design and implementation; o monitoring and evaluation must be fully integrated into enterprise achvities: o venfiable conservation links must be identified and monitored over the project's life. CIbelieved that the challenges in producing, processing, uading and marketing coffee and cocoa confronting small-scale farmers and their organisations were interrelated and had to be addressed concurrently in a comprehensive, "field-to-consumer" support program. It \vas to provide farmer organisations with the tools and capacity to uain their members in organic and agroforeshy techniques, and to generate market incentives for adopting rhem. thus turning the organisations into "conservation enterprises" based on diversified coffee and coma production. This field-based approach included: 1) institutional development to strengthen the organisational inhsmcture of the cooperatives, and increase their management expertise and capacity 10 pro\ide services to their members; 2) financial strengthening of these partner CBOs to generate the capital needed to compete with local intermedianes and obtain full market value for their members' products; 3) training and agricultura1 assistance in pest management soil conservation, field diversification and post-hawest processing techniques; 4) certification assistance in obtaining the organic and Faimade cemfication necessan for accessing premium markets; 5) a monitoring and evaluation protocol to understand and measure the social. economic and ecological benefits of agroforeshy systems; 6) design o€ a venfication system that builds on the existing organic certification systems to demonstrate a clear link beween farmers and conservation; 7) market information and access to the international markerplace: 8) market partnerships with industrial clients to benefit from technical assistance, quality control feedback and to create long-term demand for local partners' products; 9) creation of consumer products that contain CBOs' cocoa and coffee and served to educate consumers about biodiversity conservation and sustainable development: 10)media campaigns and related outreach actil-ities to raise auareness about these products and the biological and economic importante of apoforesq systems; 1l)standards for agroforestry production of cocoa and coffee to further promote community-based conservation enterpnses as a conservation tool; and 12) promotion of scientific and academic research to further understand the contrihution of agroforestry to biodiversity conservation. A central strategy of the grant proposal was to develop CI's agroforestry enterprise capacity in its Washington DC off~ce team and, jointly with the Ghana and Mexico offices, develop, evaluate and refine methodologies to continually improve the program's approach ("adaptive management"). This technical capaciiy was then to be transferred to the local partner CBOs, enabling them to promote agricultural techniques compatible with the conservation of these protected areas and buffer zones. CI would enter into brokering relationships between farmer organizations and the private sector. Whereas farmer organisations would benefit through higher pnces, guaranteed markets, the private sector's expertise, quality feedback and tbe reputation required for funding by financia1 institutions, the pnvate sector partners would profit from the product's quality and the association with environmental issues that would improve their corporate image and secure supply of high quality coffee and cocoa. Eventually, comparing expenences from both field projects and areas of expertise would allow identification of the variables that must be addressed in order to replicate agroforestry projects across the wide range of distinctive socio-economic and ecological conditions found in other coffee and cocoa producing countries. 3.5 Principal partners Partnerships with local entities were an integral part of the project's approach to create an efficient and sustainable model for producing and marketing Conservation Coffee and Cocoa. 3.5.1 lnternational Partners The international market partners involved in the project's trade, marketing, and quality control components for coffee ofMexican ongin were: The Starbucks Coffee Company, Seattle WALJSA, the leading retailer, roaster and brand of specialty coffee in the world with retail shops in North, Central and South America, Europe, the Pacific Rim, and the Middle East. Starbucks seeks sustainable sources of quality arabica coffee, typically grown in areas nch in biodiversity to demonstrate its commitment to the environment and meet the increasing consumer demand for more ecologically sensitive coffee. As early as October 1998, Starbucks and CI signed a first Memorandum of Understanding with which Starbucks committed to providing financing of US$50,000 per year for three years, and technical assistance to participating farmers. They were also developing a pilot purchasing program and contributing to raising awareness of the connection between coffee and conservation. Starbucks would later, after the operations had turned out a success, increase its cooperation: a second MoU was signed in 2000 expanding the partnership to include work with coffee farmers in 5 regions in Latin America and Asia, develop Starbucks' green coffee purchasing guidelines pilot program, create a year-round product line reflecting Starbucks' commitment to environmental and social quality, and enter into discussions with other leaders in the coffee business. A third MoU, from August 2003, extended the collaboration for another 3 years, including the following initiatives: At origin: Continuing to work with small scale coffee farmers in areas where biodiversity is threatened such as Mexico, Colombia, Pem, Costa Rica, and Panama through purchase of coffee, technical assistance, providing a market. a financia1 contribution of S350,OOO per year for 3 years, and continued in-kind technical assistance. In the Starbucks supplJ chain: Working together to implement the Starbucks coffee sourcing guidelines within the Starbucks supply chain, including growers. imponen. exporten, and processors. To support staff time and resources associated u-ith this work, Starbucks commited to providing S50.000 in year 1 and S125.000 per year in years 2 and 3 for this effort. m With Starbucks consumers: Publicly communicating the comection bemeen coffee and conservation to Starbucks consumen and the interested public. To partially offset CI's costs associated with this outreach effort, Starbucks commited to pro\-iding S75.000 per year in yean 2 and 3 for this effon. m Witli CI supporters: Publicly communicating about the parmership's effons to address the impacts of coffee production on biodiversity consemation. Starbucks came to visit the Chiapas project site, discussed coffee quality with farmers pronded feedback on coffee samples, helped to identiS. problems in processing. storage and handling and facilitated the export, impon and customs process. The coffee produced by the farmers participating in CI's program in Chiapas, called "Shade-Groun Mexico". was sold in Starbucks' stores. CI also worked with Green Mountain Coffee Roasters (Waterbur)., \'TEA) which purchased coffee from the organic project and prorided 535,000 per year. Fmntier Cooperative Herbs (Boulder, COIUSA) who provided quality control feedback and purchased coffee; the Organic Products Trading Company (Vancouver WA.VSA) who visited the project and made presentations on coffee sampling procedures and coffee contracü. In 1997. Rapunzel Pure Organics (Kinderhook, NY.USA) bought coffee from the pre\-ious project and donated S 15,000. For cocoa in Gliaria the planned internahonal market pamier in the project's trade. marketing and quality control components was Twin Ltd., mentioned above. a CK based SGO and trading company dedicated to the economic development and trading strength of farmers' organisations. Twin was to collaborate with CI in providing managenal and nade capacity building, as well as coordinating Kuapa's intemational marketing plans. M'K Trading Ltd buys directly from producers, chamels the product into the Fainrade neworks and had helped Kuapa Kokoo , together with Body Shop, to set up the Day Chocolate Company in the Cnited Kingdom, of which Kuapa Kokoo o\ms 33%. However, two factors caused the project to make a significant change of focus. First. in 2000. the Ghana government declared that it would not allow the production of organic cocoa. owing to the risk it perceived from pests and diseases to its major agicultural crop. Though challenging one of the basic premises of the project. it was not in fact problematic for CI to adjust its production focus to allow for appropnate use of chemicals to conserve yields where necessary, while still pursuing the agroforestry concept. The second factor had larger implications. The proposal had been annen on the assumphon that the govemment would liberalize the extemal market. so that Kuapa Kokoo uould be allowed to export directly. Though enabling iegislation mas passed. the go\.emment pulled back from the process and the extemal market remained under the control of the govemrnent's Cocoa Marketing Board throughout the project. As a result. the market development component of the project had to be played doun substantially. In spite of this, in collaboration with CELB, CCCP did maintain throughout the project contact with the major chocolate companies, pnmanly through their trade association. This dialogue provided a fomm to debate the issues of sustainability and biodiversity and established the relationships that enahled a collaborative process to he established for presenting a new project in January 2004 to UNDP for GEF funding. CI and, with a small amount, rhe Ricoh company who provided $15,000 funding to CI in each of the last two years of the project, have been the only sources of counterpart funding. Apart from them there was no extemal funding in Ghana until Kuapa received further financing from the Critica1 Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF) in 2003 which went into the extension of the project. 3.5.2 Local Partners The program focused on partnerships with cooperatives to deliver a complete range of seMces to their farmer members. 3.5.1.1 Partners in ~exico~ Before starting the PVC grant, CI had collaborated for the past three years with four cooperatives and a local secondary agricultura1 school, which was to assume the management of a training center to train agricultura1 "promoters". At the end of 2003, the number of cooperatives had ricen to six. The agricultural practices were developed in partnership with various organisations active in the reserve, such as ECOSUR, CONANP, and FIRA. 3.5.1.2 Partners in ~hana' The main local partner in Ghana, according to the proposal, was to be Kuapa Kokoo Ltd, the trading branch of the largest farmer association in the country with 450 local groups (societies) and some 30.000 famers at the time, the partner in the previous organic project. No other local Ghanaian partner is explicitely mentioned in the grant proposal. At the inception of the project however, a stakeholders identification and analysis was done that called for other partners on board. As a result of the Planning Workshop held in May 2002 the following institutions joined CI and became very important in the implementation of the project: the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG), the Integrated Pest and Crop Management (ICPM) department of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFA), MOFA'S Agricultura1 Extension Agents, PLEC-University of Ghana, and IRNR-KNLJST: The Institute of Renewahle and Natural Resources in the Kwame Nknimah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi. 3.6 Current implementation status The program based on this grant started on October Ist, 2000, for a penod of 3 years to Septemher 30" 2003. The original grant period was later extended cost neutral until Apnl 15th 2004. At the time of the evaluation the award provided by PVC has been totally spent, US$ 659,243 in DC, US$ 645,925 in Mexico and IJSS 412,195 in Ghana. The awarded amount was matched one-to-one (cash and in-kind) by June 2003, through fundraising and effective financia1 administration by CIICED and field staff. Apart from annual reporting requirements and quarterly match reports the grant agreement obliged CI to undertake this extemal project evaluation at the end of the grant penod hased on ' see4.3.1.1 for details see 4.3.1.2 for detailr detailed guidelines provided by PVC. An externa1 mid-tem evaiuation was not camed out. This Final Evaluation took place behveen November 1 1,2003 and Febmary 22.2001. 3.7 Cl's overall development plans The Proposal had outlined CI's future plans to replicate the propm's approach over the next five years within comdor strategies under development in Colombia, Pem. Indonesia. Brazil and Guatemala. In 2003, the focus was shifted to Costa Rica, Pem, Panama, Colombia and the Western Region in Ghana. Of the 25 biodiversity hotspots worldwide. 15 are major coffee producing regions and 14 are important cocoa growing areas; hence, unsustainable agicultural expansion represents a significant threat to global bioiogical diversity. The future projects are to sustain the capacity C1 will build \vith the program and allo\\- refining of the design and implementation of additional projects and ensure sustained funding of the International Support Team. The proposal predicted that these projecrs \vil1 be self￾financing in five years and sustain the program's increased capacity. (For a more detailed outline of CI's overall development plans see section 4.3.4.4). 4. Program Effectiveness 4.1 Program Model or Approach 4.1.1 The Business Development Services Approach The Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Propm's approach was based on the rationale. outlined above, that conservation of tropical biodiversity, if forest clearing is controlled. can be promoted through agoforestry by (1) reducing the pressure to clear remaining forest land (2) by providing suitable habitat for forest-dependent plant and animal species. and (3) by creating biodiversity-fnendly corridors behveen existing patches of natural habitar To achieve the conservation outcomes farmers had to adopt biodiversity ftiendly production practices on the one hand, and embrace consewation pnnciples in general, on rhe other. Coffee and cocoa farms had, so the assumption went, the patest potential due to their large scale, affecring land use over a large area and being major international commodities. The vectors for this change, as outlined in the Proposal, were the mentioned partner farmers' organisations, that is, cooperatives, in Mexico and Ghana. These would be the engines of growth and efficient buyers and suppliers of coffee and cocoa. This approach is in line u ith the Business Development Sewices (BDS) model that is favored by donors and the enterpnse development community. The BDS model aryes that senices should be pro\-ided competitively and the costs of providing them recovered as far as possible through transactions or other mechanisms such as payment of fees. The project med to make cooperatives eficient providers of sewices that famers needed. In order to operate according to the vision of the BDS approach as vibrant, competiti\e and independent organisations by the end of the project, the local partners' expemse had to be developed. Only then could they on their ou-n supply memkrs with sewices nhich. in turn. would be payed for by the program or their members. The propm's "field-to-consumer" approach included the above mentioned set of capacity building measures in the areas of production, processing and marketing of cocoa and coffee and thus involved agricultural training, business planning, credit, trade suppori and long-term market development. This training was to come from CI as a pro\-ider of sen-ices to the partner cooperatives. Once their overall expemse -as sufficient the CBOs themselves. through their staff and specially mined members would sewice the farmers. and CI could retire to the role of "service facilitator". The cooperatives would then be able "to operate as effective businesses that promote conservation" The advantage of this model, once in place, was that it was demand dnven, that is, dependent on farmers' expressed needs for services. Nothing would be pushed onto them they would not require. Also, it would be financially sustainable provided the benefits to farmers and their willingness to pay were sufficiently high. 4.1.2 Brokering between farmers and the private sector The tmmp card of the approach was less its comprehensiveiiess6, but what CI calls "brokenng relationships between farmers and the pnvate sector", that is, market outlets with very favourable conditions and cooperation in the technical field with clients. Coffee roasters (and client chocolate manufacturers, as it was still assumed at the start of the project) could benefit from the "green image" and a high quality product, and producers and their organisations from considerably higher prices than the mainsheam market, access to private sector expertise, quality feedback and guaranteed outlets which would also facilitate access to credit. CI's achievement of having brought the most important US and intemational coffee roaster and coffee shop chain on board with conservation, and equally the program team's success of tuming the relationship into a long-tem and expanding cooperation based on achieving production that benefits biodiversity, famers and coffee quality, are indeed extraordinay and unique and this type of private sector parinership is widely recognised as a model. On this basis successful business development was likely. In addition, CI's proactive, development-centered approach to biodiversity conservation tied two often conflictive goals - protection of the environment and reduction of poverty - firmly together. Conservation is clearly defíned as the overall goal at the top of the hierarchy of objectives, but socio-economic development is and has to be achieved in the process, according to CI's belief that successful conservation strategies must address the economic needs of local people. These projects, thus, appeal as much to conservationists as to development donors such as USAID. CI can confidently "fly their tnie colors"'. 4.1.3 Cooperatives as partners However, were cooperatives the nght partners to achieve CI's objectives ? Two consiraints come to mind: (1) The "outcome", conservation, refers to specific target areas - the biosphere reserve El Triunfo in Mexico and the Kakum National Park in Ghana, respectively. It was here where the ultimate program effects were to be produced. Only on the leve1 of means came the target group - coffee and cocoa farmers - into play and in both sites, especially in Mexico, the wide geographical dispersion of the cooperatives' members, some of them far from the protected "for which wiiqueness can hardly be claimed given the existenee of many other [development] projects with a similar layout in the past ("appmche filiere"), see for example from the recen1 past the prolect "Apoyo a los sistemas productivos sostenibles de los campesinos cafetalemr del Sur Onente de Ecuador". OLKOS - Coopera@o e Desenvolvimento: "Esta propuesta pretende ... lograr disminuir los niveles de pobreza en la Cuenca Binafional del Chinchipe. Para esto se errnicturará un Centro dc Servicios con capacitación, asistencia técnica e infmesmictwa para los productores organizados en Gmpos de Transferencia Tecnol6gm (GTT's). Paralelamente se crear6 una Empresa de Comercialización. (propiedad de los beneliciaks directos), responsable de vender rn el mercado internacional el caf6, en el mercado local y regional los subproductor elaborados en microempresas de los productores y operar con microcr6ditos para la cosecha de cafk, asi como capital de operación para las microempresas de transfomaci6n." nie PVC Technical Revicw Repon on the DIP 2001 had still noted with suspicion "Cl's me colors are showing here. For CI, the real 'goal of chis projeet in to cansemebiodiveriity' with caffeelcocoa CBOs mcrely veniing as useful taole to that end . In mith. C1 is ultimately uninterested in these products and peaple per se. Hence Cl's tendency to ihwg off ielated faning-system or agronomic issues, equityconcerns and . people-leve1 impacts." This statement. of course. is unlaunded ias ihe environmental and the social objective depend an each other, and recondly, CI proposes to build capacity in specifically poverty associaled areas such as, among othen, business and financia1 planning; credit and financing; marketing and trade. pmduit quality contri>l: organic agricultura1 rnethodologies; organic cenification; 2nd commwiih, based natural resource management, hiring far these ~iurposcs a Businns and TI& Suppofi Cmrdinator, a Cenifieation, Standards and Agicultural Assirmvice Cwrdinator and an hstitutional Developmmt and Finance Coordinator. areas, meant that the effect of the program on biodiversity through habitar creation would obviously be diminished. As A. van Leeuwen, the author of the three socio-economic studies in the .Mexico project forcefully argues, to conserve nature and to successfully introduce Conservation Coffee it is necessary to consider a cornnrir~ii# level approach without ivhich problems such as deforestation, contamination of streams and rivers, and the Broca infection from neighbrinp coffee planiations could not be attacked as successfullys. ihe Ghana household impact study of 2003 puts forward the same arguments, however, these are not necessanly backed up by local conditions in Ghana, as a good pan of its conclusions and recommendations are taken over literally from the Mexican Socio-economic Survey of 7002.~ The CCCP program went to some lengths to meet this geographical challenge to the approach. In Mexico, non-member farmers were allowed to join the project's verification scheme of best practices and to sell coffee at preferential prices'O. In Ghana the project team saw the need to open the scheme up to non-members of Kuapa societies when tensions rose in the communities, especially those with few Kuapa members, ober the unequal distribution of benefits bemeen members and non-members. But, as will be seen later, the initial focus on cooperatives prevented hill efficiency from the stan. (2) Given their checkered history in development in the pasf by applying the business development se~ces concept to the Mexican apicultural cooperatives as the main parmer. CI navigated into dangerous waters. In the decades long history of development organisations many of them have seen their projects nin aground due to the inherent \\-aknejses of cooperatives in certain socio-economic and cultural contexts. As it turned out in this program too, it proved difficult to conven these organisations into "effective and efficient businesses" and "service providers" for their members and the sustainability of the past efforts is, at presenf not ebident (see section 4.3.4). Cooperatives work properly when they are "democratic organisations connolled b>- their members, who actively panicipate in sening their policies and making decisions ... elected representatives (being) ... accountable to the membership7"l. If they profess and apply ILO's seven internationally recognised co-operative principleslZ, they can, in fact become competitive enterprises as efficient in their business operations and use of capital as others in the marketplace and a Business Development Services strategy can very well be applied to them. Moreover, cooperatives are likely to provide the services at less cost. When CI amved in Mexico, however, they faced 'cooperatives that had members'. and not 'farmers that had cooperatives'. The socio-economic surveys in Mexico confirm tk program's assumption that the main driving motivation of farmers to join and stay in the project is the economic benefits which they expect from their cooperative. In Ghana tk benefits did not originate as much from higher market pnces for cocoa - Kuapa Kokoo paid a small annual bonus and slightly higher buying pnces than competitor organizations - but rather from increased yields or, at least, the expectation of them. However it was, to a high degree, not the cooperative's members, that is the owners. who defined the operations and activities, as it happens in a mainstream enterprise. The ones for whom the incentives were conceived in order to change their practices, did not have a final say about the distribution of henefit~.'~ The Business Development Approach's main requirement, the existence of a "business" in the entrepreneurial sense, was, thus, not evident in Mexico. To people traditionally used to free or very low cost public services, a fee-charging business-to-business relationship - CI soon demanded fees for their services - was a concept that trickled in only slowly. Another important condition was not entirely met either: Very similar to an organisational development context, the services of strengthening their organisation in various respects that were offered to the cooperatives by CI, in order to be "owned" and put to use, ideally should have been demanded by the cooperatives themselves. At the planning stage, the question is not only "what services do clients really need ?"14, but also: "which of the services do clients want ?", and, importantly, "why don't they want (some ofl them ?". As it turned out, some of the cooperatives in Mexico did not especially care, among other things, for transparent, member controlled business plans and for the conservation goal as such either. The Mexican cooperatives failed to fulfill some of the hasic cnteria needed to appropnately function as future BDS providers because they were, essentially, not businesses: they lacked commercial focus and business culture, and transparent accounting and management systemsls. As the program depended on strengthening the capacity of existing extension systems before conservation practices could effectively be promoted, this turned out to be a hurdle difficult to overcome. In Ghana conditions in terms of cooperative efficiency were better. Kuapa had established itself well in the faming community as an appreciated market outlet among other cocoa buying organisations and as an agent for social concems of the communities. Here the problem was rather the geographical dispersion of its members with respect to Kakum National Park and, given the bamers to direct export and the reduced pnce advantages available to Kuapa, there limited commitment to conservation from which nothing tangible in the short term could be gained. In the light of the effectiveness and, especially, the efficiency of introducing biodiversity friendly production practices on a large scale, it would have been much more convenient, of course, to focus on medium and large coffee producers instead of small scale coffee farmers. However, apart from the political acceptability of this approach, the lesser impact on poverty alleviation and the eligibility of public development funding such as a PVC grant, it would not have addressed the origin of the main threat, shifting small scale cultivation. Whatever the inconvenientes, there was no other partner with some sort of extension system for small farmers available, and the creation of cocoa growing associations by communities close to the protected areas, with a business mentality and in competition with the recently founded " See the experienfes with Japanese agricultural cooperatives in D. Prakash: Development of Agricultural Cooperatives. Relevante of Japanese Enperiences to Developing Comilries Eiew Delhi 2002 '%e Alerandra O. Miehlbradt and Mav McVay (ILO): Developing Commercial Markers for Business Development Senices, Turin September2003, 14, et passim " For the BDS conceptual fmework iec Alenandra O. Miehlbradt and Mary McVay (11.0): Ueveloping Commercial Markets for Business Development Smices, Tunn Srptember 2003. paye 47 and passim; E. Miliard: Hur,nesr Planning for Environmental Enterprises, Washington 2003, proposes four main components for an enterptise assessment: (1) Strategic Leadeirhip and management (2) Financia1 resources. (3) Marketing and operations, and (4) Human iesources and service prov:sion. Whereas the split in the Menican cooperatives between oxner and decision rnaker might have been caught under point (1). accountability ir no1 really provided foi in these categories. cooperatives would have been a very difíicult task indeed. The dificulties that arose from partnering with cooperatives were unavoidable if the planners did not want to put rhe entire program in jeopardy. Tuming cooperatives into businesses in the first place became ine\itably pan of the project's mission. 4.1.4 Cl's comparative advantage As much as the unfamiliarity with current planning tools" constituted a major disad\antage. CI's comparative advantage with respect to the approach lies in its en\ironmental competence, especially the increasing biological impact monitoring capacity, although in both projects, dueto the short time of the program's activities, this has not become operational jet. Also, CI went into this program with lessons leamed from their pre\-ious Son-Timber Forest Product activities (oils, tagua, Brazil nuts and ecotounsm). especially the consciousness of the need for immediate economic benefits for producers which \\-as so excellently put in place in Mexico through the Starbuck's partnership, and C1 rightly. though not completely successfully, insisted on transparency and democratic procedures within the parmer organisations, notably the Mexican cooperatives. CI's considerable advocacy potential and ability to establish partnerships with parmers with. at first sight, apparently unreconciiabie positions, as the Ghana experience shows. is also a major advantage. The need for matching acquired funds, provides, of course. as much motivation for partnerships as the expected synergy effects. In total, CI's approach appears to have succeeded - sustainability is another maner and is addressed further on". 4.1.5 Sirnplification of the approach Possibilities of simplification of the approach, that is achieving similar conservation impacts at as broad a scale without an intensive site-leve1 engagement, are difficult to find. Soning posible biodiversity interventions on a scale of sirnplicity:directness. the program's acii\ities are adminedly rather complex and indirect." The propm's goal is the consemarion and or increase of biodiversity habitat on the basis of the existing forest in a buffer zone. .Altemative ways to the program's effons towards reduced-impact land and resource use could. in theon and ordered by increasing complexity, be o increase of the legal protection status of the area and enforcement of stnct regulations: creation of economic altematives for the absorption of the agicultural labor force by the agro-industrial or service sector inside (ecotourism, bioprospecting, other STFPs than coffee and cocoa), or outside areas of high biodiversity; investment in biodiversity products such as u-atershed protection and carbon sequestration; o investment in biodiversity use rights, such as conservation con~essions'~; performance based payments for biodiversity conservation (e.g. bird breeding etc.) However, apart from the fact that some of the above altematives are highly unlikely to be successful, given the socio-economic. cultural and political enklronment in Mexico and Ghana, altematives to the selected approach are not visible to the evaluators. The areas in question are, afier all. occupied by high value agiculniral cash crops on which the livelihood of a large population depends. The program, for both sites, intended to draw instead upon a powerful driving force to encourage farmers to change their farming practices towards conservation: strong income incentives. This succeeded only for Mexico. ln Ghana, due to the Government's marketing policy, the income incentive is not strong and a sustainable conservation effort uncertain. Al1 in all, continuing and developing agoforesiry is the only practica1 and promising altemative; conceptually as simple as it can be, in its implementation, however, inevitably complex. 4.1.6 Competing or cornplernentary prograrns andlor approaches The Business Development Services Model, the basis of the program's approach, aims at financia1 self-suffíciency through the commercial activities of the process of financing and trading coffee produced by the participating farmers. The associated services required by farmers and cooperatives will be paid for by establishing market mechanisms to supply se~ces. The necessary economies of scale required to successfully implement such a model make it critica1 that a certain minimum production and sales volume be achieved. The question is if there are other programs or approaches available to famers that might limit these economies of scale from heing attained. The following discussion is reshicted to coffee, as it does not, presently, apply to cocoa in Ghana. The CCCP's cooperative partners are selling the participating farmers' coffee in the gourmet or specialiy coffee market (almost exclusively Starbucks. which represents 60-70% of the North American Specialiy Coffee market). The requirements for farmers participating in the Conservation Coffee program are related to the adoption of the best practices for Conservation Coffee. The degree to which farmers adopt these best practices determines the amount of coffee they can offer to the CCCP's marketing partners and the amount of credit through the financing sources made available through the program. These practices were developed collaboratively with several organizations over the past eighteen months. These hest practices are based on the Consewation Principies ,for Coffee Production, a global framework for promoting environmentally and socially responsible coffee production. CI assisted in developing the principles, to which over a dozen of organizations and institutions subscribedZ0, and now uses this framework as the hasis for al1 of its work in coffee. These principles were designed to be compatible with existing sustainable coffee initiatives sucb as Fairtrade, certified organic, shade grown (Bird-Fnendly) and Rainforest Alliance certified coffees. In terms of marketing the coffee produced by participating farmers, the CCP approach accesses markets that are compatible with the conservation coffee approach and the products available from the project sites. One element of this approach is to access markets for other schemes that seek to promote environmental and social benefits in agricultura1 production: Organic labeling of food like coffee or cocoa focuses on conditions at the point of production, such as the absence of chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides from the production process. Certification costs are charged to producers and can be as high as 5% of the sales value. Fairtrade certification criteria cover both trade andproduction conditions. Producers must be small family based growers, organized into democratically ruled associations and pursue ecological goals conserving natural resources and limitiny chemical input use. Buyers' purchasing agreements must extend beyond one harvest cycle, guarantee the relevant 'TAB htemational, Coffee Board of India, Coffee Quality Instinite, Comen-ation Inremalional, Conswner's Choice Council, Gveenpeace, lndian Instinite of Planration Managcment, National Wildlife Federation. Oxfam. internatianal Pfivate Sector Consultative Board. hternational Coffee Organization, Rainforest Acrion Nelwork, Rainforest Alliancc. Seanle Audubon Society. Smithsonian Mi!p.tafory Bird Center, Songbird Foundation, Specialty Caffee Associalion ofAme"cs. minimum price and pay a premium of 5 US centdpound above the world market pnce (Sew York "C" and London "LCE prices). Certified organic coffee gets a further CSS 0.15 per pound. Importen must offer pre-financing equal to 60 percent of the contract value upon request. The cost of Fairtrade certification is bome by Northern impones, not by producers.'' Another element of the program's approach is to access the growing market for specialty or high quality coffee by developing long-term relationships with coffee companies. Specifically, the major market for participant's coffee, and the program's main private sector partner, is the Starbucks Coffee Company. Over the period of the PVC grant. C1 has taken the lessons leamed from its work in Mexico and elsewhere, and worked with Starbucks to develop a purchasing program based on the Conservation Pnnciples for Coffee Production. Launched in November 2001, Starbucks Preferred Supplier Propm (PSP) seeks to reward farmers for the their performance in applying the Pnk5ples Dunng the firsr phase of the PSP, farmers were rewarded through a sustainability points system that increases the pnce by 10 cents per pound for meeting the full score of 100 points. 50 points relate to environmental ,, impacr-, 30 points social conditions", and 20 points for economic issues". Additionally. organic certified coffee is awarded 15 cents per pound equal to Fairtrade. To belong to the scheme, farms have to be verified by an independent inspector. The cost for verification is borne by the vendor. In Mexico, CI assisted two cooperatives+ representing 310 farmers. and 14 large-scale farmers were qualified as PSP participants in 2003. The CCCP's approach to market access and development has provided the Mexican coffee producers with four outlets for their coffee options: (1) The conventional market with low prices but without any costly practices to obsen-e; (2) Fairtrade with a small premium over world market price. certification costs borne by the cooperative as well as the buyer. This market has no special requirements for coffee production over and above the generic requirements on social. economic and environmental development (prohibited pesticides list). However. it does imply significant costs to the cooperative to become qualified. This option is not open io new cooperatives as the list is currently closed to new applicants. Additionally. coffee buyers must pay an additional ten cents on top of the minimum pnce to the Fairtrade labeling organizanon; (3) Organic certification wiíh a higher price premium. but a cemfication process uith significant annual costs. The process to certified organic status takes three years during which yields may be reduced by the lack of chemical inputs uithout an) additional revenue yet. While most farmers in Mexico are not using aphemicals the cost of being certified during transition combined nith the costs of applyng ihe organic practices during the transition period represent a significant barrier to enm. (4) Specialty coffee market provides farmers with the highest prices as it provides farmers with access to the above markets. This category includes co-branding of product nith market partners, which includes "Shade Groun Mexico", (5) Preferred Suppliers Program status, which incorporates the first rhree categories above, and includes a verification process that can be conducted in conjunction uith the other cenifications. This opportunity also creates opporninities for in-transition coffee, which are higher than for conventional coffee. and "sustainability points" are awarded. All of these options represent the CCCP's comprehensive approach to providing farmers with market access. What are the threats for conservation coffee ? First, there is a general potential threat for the conservation goal originating from the conventional coffee market. If prices rise suhstantially to or above the level of shade grown coffee, farmers would abandon the scheme as its production costs are higher than for conventional coffee. If prices fa11 further than the present low level, pressure on natural forest would rise again. Although both developments are said to be unlikely, the degree of threat can only be determined by a thorough market study which is not in the range of this evaluation. As for organic lahels, Conservation Coffee qualifies for organic certification as well, and there would be, consequently, additional market outlets for farmers apart from Starbucks. However, the threat consists in the fact that, at equal prices for both "lahels", organic practice reqnirements are less than the ones for Conservation Coffee. This is certainly true for the environment category (water buffer zone, forest and biodiversity conservation etc.) which increases production costs. The Fairtrade market is definitely the greatest threat for Conservation Coffee insofar as it gives local actors the opportunity to utilize the cooperatives to access their clients on behalf of other cooperatives elsewhere in Chiapas. This has repeatedly disturhed the program. For little additional cost a coffee farmer, when the opportunity anses, can sell his prodnct for a price that leaves him a higher margin than for Conservation Coffee. After previous events, when cooperatives working with the project had considered this option, the recent "walk out" threat in late 2003 of 4 cooperatives was also dueto the opportunities they thought they might have on the Fairtrade market. However short-sighted such decisions might he, they are not conducive to a steady development of the program towards self-sufficiency. A continuous effort is necessary to keep farmers and organisations on board, showing them that only Conservation Coffee offers a guaranteed market and operational support. The likelihood of competition of other NGOs offering similar services for lower pnces is small. CI's program is reputed for quality and reliability as the socio-economic surveys confirm. IDESMAC's GEF-funded project El Triunfo Biosphere Reserve: Habitat Enhancement in Productive Landscapes started in 1999 and its "Café Amigable para la Naturaleza" did not get as far2'. The "competition" that existed from 1999 with the GEF project was clearly won by the CI coffee project. At its present stage, a program such as the CCCP is too complex and difficult to he duplicated quickly by competitors, especially if they do not have the backing of an internationally dominant client. However, in the end for the sake of the conservation objective, such projects could and should become partners, even though it didn't happen in this case. Such partnerships would be another way to scale up and enhance conservation as the overall goal. '' see Ayuda Memoria GEF Proyecte de Mediano Tamaao Conservaci6n de la Biodivenidad Mediante el Mejoramiento del Habitat en Paisajes Roductivos de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunfo, Chiapas, México, 14-01 -!9W Memorias del Taller "Indicadores para una Cafeticultura Sustentable: Conservacilin y Ilcsmollo." Llevado a cabo los días 29 y 30 de junio del 2000 y organizado por Pronanira Chiapas A. C. e IDESMAC; Memoria 3'ReuniÓn Sobre Nomas para la Certificación del Café Sustentable en Menico San Cristóbal de las casas, 19 de febrero de 2001; according to oral infomatian this prqlect concenhated too much on oiganisation and o> link un conseivation content and on market outlets. Their vision in that respect was so limitcd that thq cntirised Cl's heavy involvemcnt with marketing support. The GEF fin& finished at the end of 2001. Some work was eontinued with national funds. Tñe sustainablecoffee conccpl nwer gol offthe ground. Ayuda Memoria Evaluacion de Medio Plazo. GEF Proyecto de Mediano Tamaiio hlcjoramiento del habita en paisajes productivos de la Reservade IaBiosfera "El Triunfo". Chiapas, México. 2 a 10 de Mayo del 2001 4.2 Achievement of Objectives The evaluation of the program showed some peculiantiec different from other projects in the development area: M, with the pronouncedly "adaptive management" environrnent in this program. the evaluation of the program's main achievements and the propess tos-ards each major objective as defined in the Detailed Implementahon Plan (DIP) was not easy because of the substantial change of strategies that had become necessary dunng implementation. It Ied to what might be called an excessive "drifi of objectives" and of their corresponding acrkities over time, so the evaluation had to "hit moving targets". While the broad conservation strategy - behaviourai changes at the fam level in fa\-our of conservation - has been maintained over the entire period, at the objectives (or "key results" in the terminology adopted by the CED) level this driít is notable from the first unsuccesshil grant application to USAID of December 1997 and December 1998 through the DIP and the subsequent implementation phases of the progtam in 2001 and 2002, until one year before the end of the propam. In a situation of moving targets like this, the evaluation focussed as much on the manner in which this pilot phase - the gdnt - was used to adapt to reality. that is. if the right steps were taken in adjusting objectives (see sechon 5. Program Management) as it does on achie\-ement of targets. This is especially he for Mexico where an imponant pan of the currently stated objectives and indicators were intrcduced only in June 2002, that is 15 months before the original closure date of the project. In Ghana, mainly objective So.1 had to be substantially modified dueto an incorrect assumption about the Govemment's cocoa snateB. Secondly, the introduction of objectives for headquaners separate from those in the field sites is somewhat unusual, but stems from PVC' strategy to create capacity in CS-P\'Os. The distinction made it possible to separately monitor spending of funds abroad and in the CS. However, from a methodological vieupoint, it duplicated most objectives. The DC specific ones, capacity building and monitonng (objectives 1 and 6). were. in fac~ preconditions to reach results in the project sites and could very well have been incorporated into these. jusr like any other backstopping from headquarters. In this way there \vould have been only nvo framework mahices with their corresponding share of creation of capacity in headquaners. This should be kept in mind for the planning of the ongoing replication process. m, some deviations from the LFA standards have to be noted which also have to do with the capacity building objective in headquarters and the field. lnsemng monitonng as a project objective is, in pnnciple, an abemtion (M- objective 6, Mexico objective 5. Objective 4 for Ghana, for this site misnomered "F'roject partners apply adaptive management approach" - adaptive management comprises more than rnonitonng !) Objecti\-es do not refer to implementation prerequisites or tools, but address clearly identified needsiproblems of the target population, not of the implementers. That is, objectives are-future desired benefirs to which the beneficianes attach priority. Monitoring at project and CBO level should in fume be introduced asan activity at each project cite. 4.2.1 Major successes, challenges and constraints in achieving each objective at the three sites 4.2.1.1 Washington DC siteZ6 CI, in following PVC's guidelines for reporting, separated as well as it could the documentation of contributions made in Washington DC from those resulting in-couníry, but this was difficult because there was so much integration in activities, naturally, between headquariers and Mexico and likewise between headquarters and Ghana. The overlap in objectives and indicators present in the three DIPs would have been avoided by using just the DIPs from the two countries. Another point relevant here is that in the original DIP for Washington, there were tbree objectives (1, 5 & 6), but this was increased in the second year to six2'. DC-DIPObjective 1: CI has the capacity to develop consen:ution enterprises based on coffee and cocoa The challenge here was to appoint suitable new staff and to broaden and deepen their knowledge and understanding, together with that of existing staff in HQ, so that they couId anticipate, avoid, or tackle the many difficulties that would inevitably arise when conservation and specialty commodity crop enterprise are brought together in an agroforestry setting. Several constraints around hinng of personnel resulted in a considerable delay and consequent gaps in staffing. The Business and Trade position was not operational until mid￾2001, and then only for a relatively bnef penad, the Project Implementation Manager could not be hired until the end of the first year (October 2001) as a result of a hiring ban (resbucturing of CI's Field Support Division), and the Finance and Organisational Development position was not filled because by then CED had appointed a full time enterprise finance manager. There were also changes in existing staff early in the program. Nevertheless, the program worked hard and increased its capacity substantially, to a leve1 where conservation enterprise development has been put on a sound footing. Deleted DC-Indicatorl. 1 Proportion (%) of CIS Me.xico <,offee project budget for FY 2003- 2004 dedicated to projects outside the target area Deleted DC-Indicator 1.2 Proportion (%) of Cl's Ghana cocoa program budget for FY 2003- 2004 dedicated to projects outside the target communities These two indicators were deleted following the DIP Review in the first year because they were not sufficiently specific to measure increaces in field project capacity. CI did not replace them. DC-Indicator 1.3 # of CI conservation enterpriseprojects hased on coffee and cocoa production From a baseline of two projects, Mexico and Ghana, CI was to haved moved to five projects by September 2003. The evaluation mission did not visit Costa Rica, Colombia or Peni to see progress to date, but quite large scale Conse~ation Coffee projects are apparently going ahead at threatened locations in these countries, with a Project Design Workshop held in '6 A comprehemive tahle containing the entire logical framework manix for the thrw silcs is anached in Anner 7.2. R can be referred tu in the course ofthe following discuision under Section 4.2 " Unfortunately. the revired M&E pians presenfed in the secand year uhich detailmi :he sdditional objectiver did not include baseline data in several inrlmces. In oider to keep the data manageable, the Reviscd M&F Plan contained anly those baseline data where adjusnents/correcrions needed to he made or wherc new indicators have been inlrodiiccd. Al1 other baseline data are duly documented in the Apd 2001 DLP. Colombia in July 2001, in Costa Rica in January 2003 and in Peru during the first u-eek of February, 2004." Deleted DC-Indicator 1.4 Change (# ofpoints) iti overall mean DOS.4 score for Cl's Coflee and Cocoa program The Discussion-Onented Self Assessment (WSA) methodology" was expected to help in following cbanges, hopefully improvements, in the performance of staff during the evolution of the project. But. aíier applying it to evaluate themselves. the Washington team found it to be a rather general tool, that examined many areas which were not directly relevant to. or within the sphere of influence of, the operations of the unir. The DOSA approach \vas discontinued, because it did not address the performance of discrete units within an organisation at al1 well. Being a process onented tool the lack of suitability became ob~ious only aíier having run through it / tested it. The DOSA matenals don't provide any hint that they are not suited for a single deparitnent. However, in the meantime CI has invested in developing a methodology for conducting partner assessments in the field in order to e\.aluate the capacity of a future parmer organization. This instniment uses a combination of extemal review and self-assessment and will be tested partly in Costa Rica in March 2001. DC-DIP Objective 2: Participating farmers have access to trairiirig iri agroforestn aiid organic meihodologies The requirements and timing of training in Mexico and Ghana differed considerably because agronomic and agroforeshy techniques were much better known for organic coffee than for traditional small farmer cocoa and, as it turned out, organic cocoa was not a route that could be taken in Ghana anyway. There was a common challenge for CI Washington with regad to agroforeshy training in the two counbies, however. in as much as appreciable numters of farmers would have to be trained to implement best practices for their beneficia1 effecü to be translated into effective biodiversity conservation. DC-Iridicator 7 1 Agricultura1 teciiriical assistarrceplari developed and operaliorial in Gliana and Merico The agroforestry specialist based in Washington was instrumental in yiding the de\-elopment of the technical assistance plans by means of a range of activities including visits to the countnes for discussions with farmers, local CI staff, and partner organisations combined -ith literature searches, consultations in the USA, and anendance at a training course in conducting organic inspections. One constraint was that the best practices were still under development, and training had to await their finalisation and field testing. Xevertheless. by the end of the three years plans had been successfully implemented. DC-Indicator2.2 Conibirted total riuniber ofcomniirriin. lmel project rxterision oficers iri Ghana and Merico One unexpected challenge was the difficulty in convincing the CBOs to take on the extension role and provide appropnate candidates from their staff for training as extension officers. Eveniually, through the Farmer Field School approach, 35 "promotores" were trained in Mexico and 14 Kuapa staff in Ghana, plus 16 farmers aside from 2 .MOFA staff. See wnin 43.44 " Seon Pullai. Evan Blmm. Beryl Levinger. Sabrina Aniarrr and Jm McLcod: DOSA Dphefing \luiuai .4 sur* io *i%2-%zxZl..a& interpreling and mins DOM r~sulU. Waihinpx LX. \cuion. M.4. Jvne - 2MQ DC-DIP Objective 3: CBOs have access to capital at competitive rates DC-índicator 3.1 Partner CBOs in iWenico have access to capital at interest rate.7 that are X% less than the established rate for thatperiod Washington's involvement in this objective was highly successful in the first 2 years. The challenge was to find substantial funding to finance the coffee harvest for project farmers, and to ensure that the loans were repaid. In Chiapas, the constraint was not the rate that might be obtained, more whether credit could be obtained at all, especially for CBOs with no track record in managing credit. In response to this situation, CI designed the Evergreen Credit Fund, which was capitalized with a loan from IFC/GEF. CI introduced the Fund into the Mexico coffee program and developed a partnership with Ecologic Enterpnse Ventures, Inc, to provide low-interest loans to the six Mexican cooperahves. Due to the success of the loans made in year one, an additional USD$ 500,000 in financing was loaned and repaid by the cooperatives last year. However, according to the socio-economic sunfey, financing of coffee production has drastically declined in 2002. The Evergreen Credit Fund could not counteract this situation. In fact, according to the survey, it did not have any impact at al1 and the fund is practically unknown jO(this information could not be followed up). In December 2003, CI loaned instead of an estimated $1,500,000~' a mere $234,500 to the cooperatives to finance the 200312004 coffee harvest, because of the threatened dropout of 4 cooperatives from the scheme. Over the three years. CI has facilitated the Mexican Cooperatives in obtaining over US$1.3 million in financing for their coffee exports. It is not clear if the target that, as of October 2003, partner CBOs have access to capital at interest rates that are 5% less than the established rate for that penod, has been met, hut the system is obviously well received. Old DC-Zndicator 3.2 Partner CBO in Ghana access tn copita1 at interest rates less than the established yate for that period This indicator was revised hecause Kuapa Kokoo had access to local bank finance @acked by international guarantee). If this could have been established before the planning stage, a more useful indicator might have been employed from the start. CI did have a discussion with Kuapa about an application to the fund but Kuapa didn't pursue it as they then had other sources available; these were not al1 in place at the outset. Revised DC-Indicator 3.2 Manufacturing company of Partner CBO able to build market through access to capital The Day Chocolate Company in UK, partly owned by Kuapa, has been selling Fairtrade chocolate made from Kuapa cocoa beans, largely in the 1JK. CI made two investments in the company totalling $250,000 to help finance its growth and hopefully to enable Kuapa to increase its market for premium-pnced cocoa. DC-DIP Objective 4: CBOs have increased access to premium coffee and cocoa markets This objective is dealt with under the report of program effectiveness for Objective 2, Mexico. DC-Indicator 4.1 Change in number ofongoirrg clients purchasing coffeefrom Mexican partner cooperatives This is a duplicate of Indicator 2.1 in the Mexico section with the difference that the target there is that CBOs have sold coffee to a minimum of 3 clients for more than one year by Apnl " Socio-Economic Monitonng 2002: Household Level Lmpacls oí Consewation ?ofTer Praduction. Second year implementation of the parrieipatory monitming and evaluatian pmgram of the Conservation Coffee Project in Chiapas. Merico. Arthur C.J. van Leeuwen Jaltenango. Chiapas. Mexico and Managua, Nicaragua October 2002, page 41 '' H. Haase, Sustainability and rinancial lndependence Analysir foiihe C<' Prograrnm in rhiapas, August 27,2003, pase 9 2003, while here it is to a minimum of two clients only. The latter was achieved but not the former. DC-Deleted Indicaror 4.2 Charige in % of CBOproduct sold to clients at prentiuns ofIj% or niore of world price Stalled liberalisation of the Ghana cocoa market was the reason for deleting this indicator. DC-Objective 5: CI develops Consen~ation Coffee and Cocoa standardr and thq. are iznrjied in Mexico and Ghana progranis DC-Indicator 5.1 # ofMe.xican CEO members verfied to meet Consen~atio~i Co&e Standards This objective and indicator are dealt with under Objective 4, Indicator 3.1 for Mexico DC-Deleted lndicator 5.2 # of Kuapa farniers verified to nieet Consemarion Cocoa Standards This indicator was deleted because the objective was a longer process than anticipated. and might, like organic certification, touch sensitive govemment policy areas. It could not be finished in the timeframe of the PVC project (see also Old Objective 3 of the Ghana section which was merged with Objechve 2). DC-Objective 6: CI dodops M& system and it is applied in Me.rico and Ghana progranm Discussion of the merits of this as an objective was initiated above in the introduction to this section, and is continued below in Section 5 on Program Management. The aim here is to examine the effectiveness of the development work done in HQ on monitoring and evaluation, and how it was applied. DC-Indicator 6.1 Projecr level M&E swem operational and nioriitoring achiewntent of project targets and berichniarks ir1 Gliatia arid Merico The definition of project level M&E was not made clear in the original DIP. particularly in just what would be monitored and to hou8 high a level (performance vs. impact). This indicator 6.1 is vety general and leaves the scale of activities open for interpretation. From comments in the fírst year report (e.€. Mexico Objective 5) it seems it \vas hoped that farm￾based faunal biodiversity data collection could be included, but this was not realised in Mexico and only to a limited extent in Ghana through the habitat and fauna surveys which are mentioned below in section 4.2.1.3. Development of the methodologies for high lewl biological monitoring (impact monitoring at the level of Consen-ation Outcomes as it was later to be called) in the two sites u-as subsequently passed to CI's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, which developed the commihnent during the lifetime of the project to introduce regional outcome monitonng programs. C'nfortunately. this realization could not be translated into CI assuming these responsibilities by the appropnate depamnents at the appropriate levels. Although the individual hired to do this monitoring was transferred to the appropriate department, the fact that CI's monitonng program was yet to be developed. the organization has not yet been able to address this need in El Triunfo to date. Howe\-er. it seems that this work is now moving fonvard with the support of USAID and CI's emerging regional structure. The socio-economic surveys in Mexico and Ghana were separate elemenü of project M&E. again not specifically identified in the DIP, which were aimed at impro\ing understanding of any relationship between the adoption of Conservation Best Practices for coffee and cocoa produchon, and the well-being of the farmers. The consultant who camed out the surveys in Mexico faced the challenge that in the first place he had to design for the entire project a detailed conceptual model which did not exist on his amval. He succeeded fairly \ve11 in developing the parameters of the study, but the logic of linking activities and the ultimate goal of conservation would have benefitted from the preexistence of a sound mode~~~. However, he integrated well with HQ and the Chiapas team, and the three annual surveys were camed out successfully, bringing much useful feedback. Afier the arrival of the advisor, project design and management, when a general monitonng system was eventually designed in headquarters, it was too late to change the survey model (in need of improvement) in order to preserve comparability behveen the years. However, it is not clear why the consultant who had voiced strong opinions about the project's approach in his first survey, puhlished in December 2001, was not invited to the replaming workshop that took place behveen June 20-25 2002, the second survey being scheduled for the period between July 27 and September 24,2002. CI-Ghana installed an M&E team which, together with HQ, developed the habitat and household surveys. These surveys were compromised in as much as there was uncertainty as to the degree of actual implementation of practices on the ground as distinct from notional adoption, and anyway insufficient time had elapsed between farmer training and survey for certain effects to be apparent. Despite these difficulties, the surveys were a first step that may help in designing future activities. The major contribution from HQ was the development of a set of project design and management tools, which had been introduced and partially adopted in both sites, more extensively in Mexico than in Ghana. These are discussed more fully in section 5, though it could be said here that if there was any shortcoming with the system as it was used in Mexico it was that, at tbe processlperformance level, lessons leamed were often not documented for individual activities rather just aired in project meetings. This lack of narrative might prevent important lessons from being passed on. DC-Deleted Indicator 6.2 CBO level M&E system operatiunal and monitoring achievement of CBO targets and benchmarks in navproject site In the cases of both Mexico and Ghana, the Original DIP had assumed that the level of organisation already present in the CBOs would allow the rapid development of M&E systems that could feed back information into the planning process, development of best practices etc., but this assumption proved unfounded when CI assessed the existing capacity, and the indicator was dropped. 4.2.1.2 Mexico Site M-DIP-Objective 1: Cooperatives have the capacity to operate as effective businesses that promote conservation The provision of organisational strengthening and business training to the CBOs was originally to be conditional on increased participation by cooperatives in reserve management. The related indicator, which concemed increased reporting of park violations, was dropped early because it was deemed to be a poor indicator of farmers respecting the reserve, nor did it capture the full range of activities that cooperatives could do to related to better park management. Also, the reporting mechanism was not very reliable due to limited capacity by the reserve itself, and the reports that were received tended to be motivated by revenge or political motives rather than as a response to real violations. CBOs were to be considered as effective conservation enterpnses if their records and project reports confirmed a decrease in membership tumover, growing credit funds, and improved coffee quality. " There ir continued confurion about means and ends: whereas thc new Project Management Framework considem cotfee and coma agroforers. with its effectr on liveiihood ar a meanr ("milentone") to achieve consewation, the repon on the Socio-Economic Survey of 2002, wrinen affo the introduction of the new PMF, sfates: The fundamental mpact pumued by the projen is to improve well-being oF eoffee gowing families. which inciudes (sic !) ecanamic well-being as wil as ecolo@l well-heing (a kner environment now and in the future). It is an indirect objectire For the lang tem fa which Consewation Coffee isiuri n meons. no1 nn end" Socio-Economic Monitonng: Houshold leve1 impacts of Conserrarion Coffee Production. laltenanzo Onohcr 2002. rection 4.8 M-Indicutor 1.1 Change in average annital rate of turnover of CEO nienibers participaring in the program. The challenge for CI was that individual cooperatives would be able to stabilise membership by offenng the advantages of working with the CI project, and by managing their affairs responsibly. The average annual baseline membership turnover in 2000 was very high at UO.ó. and this was successfully reduced for program participants to 9.6% in 2001 and 11 .?O0 in 2002, easily passing the mid 2003 target of not more than 29%. The situation over membership in late 2003 following the threatened withdrawal in Sovember December of four of the cooperatives (¡.e. afier the end of the PVC grant) remains to be seen but, prior to that of the 1018 participants a total of 889 remained. M-lndicator 1.2 Increase in amount of CEO savings (LrSS/ resultingfroni re>,o/iirrg credit fund (Eterno Verde). There was a need for CBOs to be thrifly if they were to be a sustainable partner of the Consewation Coffee project. The CBOs achieved sabings which originated from their coffee export revenues, and they did that in each year from the stan of the project. and ended by passing the target of USS43,OOO by more than 10% in the harvest year 2002 3. CI rightly regarded this track record of savings and credit history (al1 loans to farmers were repaid in full) as a considerable success, and one justifying the project's invesunent in training for business plaming and credit management. M-Indicator 1.3 Change in yield from dry nlilling ofparchment co#ee. Many factors determine the out tum in the milling process, including the initial quality of the coffee beans (minimal pest aitack in the field, only mature beans harvested. careful processing employed, suitable weather conditions for drying, etc.) and the eficiency of the mil1 machinery and operators. The challenge was to raise the milling yield consistently through improved extension, but this did not happen in the 2000!1 harvest when the yield fell to 64% from the baseline of 66.6%. CI responded by changing to another mill, and resmcting the amounts of coffee that each farmer could sell based on cooperative membership, performance on his farm management plan and on a part of his production, so that the introduction of lower quality coffee was blocked. The yield picked up in 2001.2 and ended at 74.J0o in 200213, amply surpassing the third year target. Together these indicators undoubtedly reflect an augmented business capacity, but the last part of the objective - the extent to which the cooperatives themselves have improved their promotion of conservation - was not really tested. The only conservation linked element was the farmer's compiiance with his farm management plan, which is dealt with more fully under Objective 3. So a question remains as to how commined the CBOs can be to conservation when they do not have a real invol\-ement or say in the Reserve management. M-DIP Objective 2: Cooperatives realce Iiigherprices through increased access to coffee niarkets Cl's challenge was to help cooperatives to tind increased direct market access, to ensure that participating cooperatives (and surely farmers too!) received a higher price for their Consewation Coffee, and that a bigeer proponion of production went as expon grade coffee. All this to ensure that a differential could be maintained over the pnce generally obtained to act as a snmulus for farmers to continue along the conservation line. Due to the eficient brokering relationship of CI with the coffee industry, this part of the propm proved to be a great success. However, there are doubts about the validity of this indicator mentioned below (M-lndicator 2.2) M-Indicator 2.1 Change ir1 the number of ongoing clients purchasing coffee from partner cooperatives Although a profusion of clients does not necessarily guarantee higher prices, it would give some reassurance that Conservation Coffee is here to stay. In addition to the efforts made from HQ to find new clients, CI worked with the cooperatives in Mexico to maintain the existing clients. From a baseline of two clients there %as a temporary increase to three, but Frontier Organic Coffee Company was bought by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters who, with Starbucks Coffee Company, continue as the main clients today. Only one of these accepted in-transition coffee. This is a narrow base from which to operate, and the recent reticente of certain cooperatives to agree to the 2003 CIIStarbucks revised marketing plan through the buying agent AMSA highlights potential difficulties in relation to sustainability. M-Indicator 2.2 Change (96) in thepricepaid to cooperative members per lb ofparchment coffee This indicator began as a comparison of the absolute prices paid to cooperative members over time but because of falling world prices adjustments had to be made to the target. The project did reach and just surpass the amended target, but the achievements are perhaps better seen if the comparison used is the superiority of member price over local market price at a given time. In the three years of the project, the average CBO member price for organic coffee exceeded the local price by between 61 and 97%. Even those with in-transition coffee fared considerably better too. However, according to the 2003 socioeconomic survey, farmers perceived a fall in the added value of Conservation Coffee in 2003 because the price for conventional coffee is rising, and some questioned whether the extra effort was worthwhile. There is, however, a factor which puts the general validity of this indicator into doubt: the incentive for the farmer to implement Best Practices is not so much a higher price but a higher income. As Best Practices are likely to affect not only the pnce but also production costs, the indicator should have been based on net income from the start. The same choice was made in the socio-economic surveys, apparently also due to the convenience of data col~ection.'~ M-Indicator 2.3 Change (%) in the quantity of exportable grade cofee sold by CBO members An increased volume of sales of high grade coffee would reflect more farmers signed up for consewation and therefore greater areas in the buffer zone protected, plus a better standard of living for the farmers. The target of a 200% increase from the baseline of 532,406 lb of green export grade coffee for 1999I2000 was passed by 36% in 200213 when cooperative members sold 1,787,363 lb. If the threatened withdrawal of some cooperatives from the CIIStarbucks market in 200314 comes hue, it will presumably markedly reduce the volume from members for the current harvest, but it seems that there are discussions in progress regarding altemative mechanisms for members who want to sell, but whose cooperative doesn't. M-DIP Objecrive 3: Famers adopt agroforesty and organic agriculture methodoíogies and consewation techniques This objective combined the promotion of low impact agricultural practices which would guarantee organic and preferred supplier status with possibilities for stabilising and improving biodiversiiy, and thus was a central focus of the Coffee Project. There were major successes, with targets exceeded in al1 four indicators (Annex A). One potential weakness comes from the current uncertainiy regarding the future involvement of certain cooperatives and their -- - I3The 2003 survey itates (page 29): "Como resultado de Im tendencias en nivel de cosecha y precia, la rentabilidad de una hectárea de fafe ha aumentado más para bs heneficiaios que para los no-beneficiarios. llna hectitea de Café de Conservación genera un ingreso a promedio de $4,878 en 2001 y $6.754 en 2003 mientras (que) una heet&ea de Café Conwnc~oniil eenera en 2001 $4,098 y en 2003 $5,368." Working the numben it tumr out that the so called "rentabilidad" ii obtained by mulriplyinp yield (10 quintales) by price (675 pesoslquintal) withaut conrideringpmduction corts (see also sertion 5.1.5.2) associated farmers, in the face of the revised 2003 purchasing arrangements. Continuing panicipation in the agroforestry and conservation elements depends on the continuing presence of an extra incentive through the price premium over organic or Faimade coffee. M-Indicator 3.1 lñe nuniber offamiers that lime niet Fami Managenient Plan Torgets.for hvo cotü.ecufive years. The Farm Management Plan was intended to idenhfy specific areas where a pamcular farmer needed to improve his husbandry and coffee processing facilities to reach the required standards for organic coffee, and for preferred supplier coffee in terms of agroforesq and conservation. The major challenge uvas to carry out and process surveys on al1 farms in sufficient detail to check al1 of the many aspects which needed verification and posible improvement. This was done through two visits per year, one in the middle of the year for agronomic practices and the other during the harvest when processing practices could be seen. There were various conshaints including transpon to remote areas in the wet season, but perhaps the most serious was the time needed to define and validate the sun.ey elements and then to assembie and train the survey team. The first year \vas a diagnosis process and spscific recommendations were made. The second year it was examined what of the recornmendations were followed. The Farm Management Plan system was not ready to be applied formally until the second year, so the revised third year target was that 800 farmers had achieved their plan for at least one year. This was surpassed by 7% and further, 600 farmers recently were reponed to have met the targets for two consecutive years (Annex B). Operating the Plan has meant a pt deal of additional data collection, processing and storage, but this has been handled appropriately (with one reservation regarding the switch away from .Microsofi Access to Excel as the handling software), and the data set is a valuable resource from the agronomic. agroforestry1consewation and GIS vieupoints. A{-Indicator 3.1 The number offamlers applring Beauvaria bassiana as a parr of rlreir IP.\I for Broca. The ability to manage the broca pest (Coffee Cherry-Boring Beetle) organically can be crucial to good coffee yields, and the original indicator 3.2 was directed at monitoring the overall degree of infestation on the entire hectarage under project farmers. This \vas found to be over￾ambitious and not likely to be cost-efficient, so the indicator was duly revised as above to something more feasible. The target for the third year of the pnt, that 600 farmers were spraying the fungus on to their coffee, was surpassed by 12%. The baseline was that zem farmers were using the fungus. M-Indicator 3.3 TTie number of native shade tres planred or tturtured from wild seedlings by farmers in their farms. One feature of appreciable areas of the buffer zone coffee farms (this is seen especially in the "fincas") is that the shade layer is almost monospecifíc or at best monogenenc with Inga spp planted widely. CI recognised the need to increase the diversity of the shade. and the original indicator dealt with the percentage of farmers' fields that had six or more species of shade tree. However, it was realised that a long time would be needed to see changes in shade me composition and that botanical identification was too much of a challenge to be wonh the investment. As a result, the indicator was revised to apply to young mes only, which could be assessed year by year. The challenge was to encourage farmers and their workers to recognise and preserve valuable self-sown seedlings or regrouqh during weeding with the machete, and also to interest them in sowing seed or planting seedlings or other planting material of species seen as desirable hm the biodivenity and coffee perspective and, ideally, that might be useful economically. One constraint was that there were no native tree nurseries in the region, nor supplies of seed. A further constraint was the recalcitrant germination of some species. CI began promoting shade diversification by using farmers and others to assist in collecting seed and then establishing its own nursery at the Training Centre in Jaltenango, from uhich approximately 19,000 seedlings of 18 different species were distributed to farmers (Nursery records, 2003). The year 3 target was that 10,000 native shade trees should have been planted or nurtured in the farms, and this was exceeded by 16% according to the latest Farm Diagosis records. Although the Centre continues to produce seedlings, CI's feeling is that long-term selection and protection in the farms is the preferred option and not a series of smaller community nursenes as originally envisaged. This is appropriate provided suitable saplings are still appearing in sufficient quantity, which may not be the case in the older farms and fincas which have been bereft of forest species for nearly a century in some cases. M-Indicator 3.4 The number of Mexican CBOs certzfied orgunic. Organic certification has been a useful basis for the development of Conservation Coffee not least because it has conditioned farmers to the need for self-regulation and also for ove~ew of their activities by extemal verifiers, as well as the CBOs to which they belong. There are relatively few chemical challenges to organic certification where farmers are poor and access to agrochemicals is already resüicted, as is the case with coffee farmers in this region. Nevertheless, the benefits of organic certification had to be demonstrated and the main indirect constraint was uncertainty in the CBOs regarding the price obtainable in the market. The baseline was that 126 Mexican CBO members were certified organic as of December 2000, and the target was to have 200 members certified organic by December 2003. This was amply exceeded when the CBO records showed 405 farmers certified at the end of 2003. However, it is not clear how many of these farmers are selling their coffee through the project in the crop year 200314, given the threatened withdrawal of some of the cooperatives from the scheme. M-DIP Objective 4: Farmers are being verz$ed for Conservation Coffee Standards M-Indicator 4.1 The number offarmers verzfied to meet Conservation Coffee Standards The original DIP saw verification for Conservation Coffee Standards as providing clients with a guarantee of product authenticity and social and ecological benefits. These Standards included the development of a set of Conservation Best Practices for coffee production to be promoted by farmers active in the program. Organic certification was to become the 'substrate" or preexisting system with which the verification would be merged with. In this way verification could be done by training inspectors and could use a costly process that the market was paying for as a way to achieve this additional semice. It was also a way to engage certification organizations and promote the inclusion of conservation considerations into their standards somewhat validates this hypothesis. The best practices were developed initially through Cl's experience on the ground, and later in partnership with various organisations active in the reserve, such as ECOSUR, CONANP, and FIRA. (ECOSUR first developed some teaching modules financed by CI, then contributed them for free, with FIRA contributing to course costs.) The challenges were to decide which agroecological, conservation and socioeconomic practices to include, how to define them and how to ven@ their application. Some of the constraints met were inadequacy in the Interna1 Control Systems for organic certification within some of the cooperatives and a lack of information on certain agronomic aspects relating to maximising production while maintaining biodiversity. The project did succeed in developing a set of best practices which has been subject to a pilot verification. The target was to have 100 farmers verified to meet Consemation Coffee Standards by December 2003, and this was readily attained with a total of 248 farmers verified, 236 of them small farmerslmembers of cooperatives and the remainder finca onners. As in Indicator 3.4, from a sustainability point of \iew it is important to know how many of the smaller farmers are in cooperatives still selling through the project and ho\v many outside. M-DIP Objective 5: Moriitoring and Evaluarion (M&) sJstent implemented. ir&orniing nianagemeni decisioris atrd contribuiing io Corciervation Cofie Standards de\~elopnie~ii. According to the original DIP, the realisation of this objective would facilitate project managemenf measure socioeconomic impacts, and provide critica1 data for the development of local Conservation Coffee standards. Presumably M&E was also set up as a separate objective so as to emphasise its importante and to be able to track the costs \vhich are allocated per objective. In reality, if a DIP is designed with appropriate objectives. indicators and targets in the first instance, there should be no need to have a separate system because monitoring is already built-in to the DIP. As an unwanted side-effect there was some indication from interviews with staff in Mexico and Ghana, particularly the laner. that the separation of M&E as an objective and the allocation of a specific staff member to ir. diluted the individual recponsibility of other staff members for M&E in other objectives. Consequently, there was a tendency - possibly also due to CI's lack of "propam management language" - for the term M&E to be used when refemng to one-shot selected activities (impact monitoring through the socioeconomic survey and consen.ation leve1 biological monitonng) rather than as a necessary continuing control of performance in activities, outputs and objectives. Nevertheless, a sirengih of the Mexico project was that the staff were aware of the overall system, and used it appropnately. M-Iiidicator 5.1 Project leve1 M&E sysieni operaiiorial and mortitoring achievement of projeci targeis and benchniarks A detailed socioeconomic survey was designed and successfuliy camed out at the household level by a consultant for the coffee project across seven communities in the buffer zone in each of the years 2001,2002 and 2003. This survey had its onn separately defined objectives and the main challenge was to identify the impact caused over the years by the Consen-ation Coffee Project on participating households, comparing project and non-project farmers. for a range of indicaton. Among the constraints were the shifting population. the remoteness of the farms and the changing relationships behveen the cooperatives and the project dunng the period. Reports in Spanish and English and the fui1 database in Microsoft Access are available. The surveys have been very useful in identifying stxengths and weaknesses in the approach. Results of these surveys are reported in section 4.2.2. With regard to the reliability of the data, the evaluators had no opportunity to participate in inteniews and to gain insight into the approriateness of the methods employed on the one hand and the intenie\r-ers' diligence on the other. In the wake of headquarter activities under their objective 6 the project developed and used a new Project Design and Management Framework in Mexico from June 2002 because of the difíiculties for developing work plans and targets for monitonng project performance from the original DIP. The design side of this is dealt with in more detail in the section on Propam Management. Three-year work plans have been produced, and documents are readily available to al1 staff through the program staff s web-based collaborarive work~lace Emm. and both headquarters and Chiapas staff are using it to update documents and eschangs tiles. The position is less advanced in Ghana but the implementation plan will be developed in 200-1 as part of the GEF planning grant. Deleted M-Indicator 5.2: CEO level M&E system operational and monitoring achievement of CEO targets and benchmarki This indicator was deleted in the second year because CI found it not to be viable in the time frame of the project. It was not replaced or revised in the New Plan for Mexico M-Indicator 5.3 Conservation Coffee Standards revised to reflect data collected by project and CEO level M&E systems This indicator should have been changed to acknowledge the deletion of Indicator 5.2 relating to the development of CBO level M&E systems. In the event, the Conservation Best Practices for coffee production and land use management for the project region were produced from a combination of analysis of project data, farmer intewiews and expert consultation, without new CBO M&E input. 4.2.1.3 Ghana Site Old G-DIP Objective 1:Xuapa operates as an effective and efficient business This objective was changed in 2002 when it had become clear that the Iiberalisation in the Ghanaian cocoa market hoped for by CI was not going to happen quickly enough, if it happened at all, for it to be relevant to the PVC project, and neither were the possibilities for the production of organic cocoa realizable owing to the government ban. This meant that the selected CBO, Kuapa Kokoo, would not be able to market overseas directly and thereby obtain premiums for Conservation Cocoa. The lack of pnce incentives for famers affected definitely Kuapa's effectiveness in terms of the conservation goal, though not necessanly its business effi~ienc~.~~ The insuperable time constraint led to a new objective, and those indicators which had related to the development of premium markets accessed through Kuapa were dropped (Annex 7.2). The emphasis of the project was focused even more on the provision of extension sewices to farmers, and on the influence Kuapa could have at that level - the local society level. New G-DIP Objective 1: Kuapa S organisational capacrh. at the Socieq level strengthened An early constraint was that reorganisation in Kuapa of Society Development Officers (later to become Research and Development Unit Officers, RDOs) left it unclear who was available to work with the project, and when. There was also the difficulty that the project team had overestimated the organisational infrastructure of Kuapa in terms of documentation, standard procedures, methodologies etc. and additional capaciiy building was needed. A third constraint operated at a higher level in as much as the relations between Kuapa HQ in Kumasi and CI detenorated as a result of CI's inability to meet its financia1 obligations in the MOU signed with Kuapa. In particular, it could not finance the purchase of a vehicle which Kuapa claimed was essential for its travel to farmer field schools. As a result, Kuapa temporanly suspended its participation in the project until CI facilitated a successful application by Kuapa to the Critica1 Ecosystem Partnership Fund (CEPF). The difficulties ended in November 2002, and a vehicle finally reached Kuapa in June 2003. G-Indicatorl. 1 Annual ranking of society performance using established Kuapa criteria. The aim here was that through the project the "health" of the Kuapa societies in the four selected communities bordering Kakum would be improved. There was an improvement for Kniwa, which moved up from "intermediate" to join the other three communities that remained "healthy". At the same time, however, the selection of just Kuapa members for the project out of a much larger group at Kmwa caused jealousies that were resolved when selection of members and non-members was managed at a local level through traditional seesection 5.15 for thir distincrion authonties. CI now believes that farmers will be mobilised more effectively through building relations with dishict assemblies and traditional authonties than through Kuapa alone. This adds weight to the argument (van Leeuwen. 2003) that cooperatives are not the ideal vector for Cl's messages as they are geographically dispersed and CI does not control the impact on the reserve. G-I~idicator 1.2 Percent change in rarger societies ' annual rnenibership The use of this indicator has been questioned subsequently by CI, because some fames joined Kuapa just to participate in the Project, thinking that Kuapa was leading it. and also there were requests from nearby communities for Kuapa to start new societies. Kuapa did not supply oficial mernbership figures, but it is estimated that numbers increased by less than the target of 20% growth per year. G-Indicator 1.5 Prenriiun Kuapo members receiiv for rheir cocoa over local prices The target in year 3 was for Kuapa to be paying 3.5% premium over local pnces (pnce plus year end bonus). It was hoped that additional sales under Fairtrade tenns to the Day Chocolate Co would provide this premium, as CI had invested in Day as an alternative marketing strategy. While members also received access to Kuapa's credit union and occasional community development projects, the premium achieved in year 3 kvas belon target. In the DIP Results for DC, Mexico and Ghana attached to the 2003 Annual Repon to P\T the premium is reported to be at 2.1% over the government-set interna1 market pnce. In the four meetings the evaluators had on December 9-1 1 in the communities around Kakum. cocoa pnces per bag were consistently quoted by community members as being 530.000 Cedis bag and the premium being 1200 Cedidbag for the farmer and 500 for the Kuapa Trust Fund which gives a premium of 0.32%. Revised G-Indicator 1.6 Gender issues i~icluded in socien-leve1 capaci~ybuildi~ig progranr The original idea that women would be enlisted to plant trees was dropped because the Year I gender survey revealed that ihey were not interested and rather n-anted suppon to p\v vegetables, which was not within the project's mandate." Cf's joint analysis with Kuapa revealed the challenge of a por understanding of gender propms at society and area leve1 - even though Kuapa's gender program staned in 1998. CI introduced activities to broaden the understanding of gender within Kuapa including training of the pemn responsible for gender issues through preparation of fact sheets and appropnate modules for the Society Training Manual developed by Dr Collen Osei. A'w G-Indicator J. 7 Sociey leve1 capacih building nraierials produced andpilor resred As mentioned above, Dr Collen Osei was commissioned to work nith Kuapa and CI to prepare a Society Training Manual covenng a broad range of topics relevant to impro\ing the capacity of the RDOs. One constraint was the temporary withdrau-al of panicipation by Kuapa, which prevented Dr Osei completing the training of RDOs in wo sechons of the manual, but the manual was produced successfully, largely pilot tested with RDOs, and handed over to Kuapa in electronic and hard copy. By the time of the evaluation it did not seem to have been multiplied and distributed by Kuapa, yet it was said to be useful by the head of the RDU. New G-Indicator 1.8 Number of RDOs h-uined All of the 14 RDOs available for training were duly trained and the target met. Twelve more officers have been trained since the project ended. Kuapa has been expanding its activities in the Kakum area under the CEPF Project, and evidence was seen of the new communities incorporated (hand drawn maps of locations - definitive maps not available in Kuapa or CI apparently), together with written reports on meetings with farmers. A continuing challenge will be to maintain and monitor the quality of extension advice being given to farmers, especially in respect of shade reduction. G-DIP Objective 2; Project farmers adopt conservatiorz agroforestiy practices for cocoa This very broad objective brought with it several challeiiges, not least being the task of trying to define conservation practices that could be adopted profitably by smallholder farmers in a short penod, while at the same time improving production and either not damaging biodiversity or ideally encouraging it. Then there was the challenge of finding the means to train large numbers of farmers in these practices in such a way that they would go on and adopt them. A principal initial constraint, that the CI-Kuapa approach was in conflict with the Cocoa Board's objectives for Ghanaian cocoa, became clear following the September 2000 Workshop "Biodiversity Conservation and Cocoa Cultivation" organised by CI. Tensions within the cocoa sector regarding organic certification led to Kuapa being asked by the Cocoa Board to stop any such plans pending the outcome of CRIG's long-term research on certain organic-approved pesticides. CRIG feared that the capsid problem may get out of hand if spraying with conventional insecticides ceased, and there was a wider concem that the introduction of organic certification would tamish the quality image currently perceived for bulk cocoa production from Ghana. One early success then was that following these difficulties CI Ghana and Washington were able to reaffirm its Conservation Cocoa strategies and clear the air with the Cocoa Board so as to continue working in the sector, and eventually huild a partnership with CRIG. However, the stalling of the organic route meant a further constraint in terms of reduced possibilities for price premiums to attract farmers to the Conservation Cocoa route. Another constraint needing mention is that the long history of subsidised pesticide application against cocoa capsids has left a legacy of dependency on. and a desire to use, chemicals, and also the tendency to look for solutions from the govemment rather than from within. Another challenge for CI in implementing Conservation Cocoa best practices was to bring together the vanous players and encourage them to reach decisions on the practices and how they may be extended to farmers. In the '80% activities on cocoa had been strongly comparimentalised. CRlG had done research on cocoa, and Cocoa Semices Division the extension, but CSD was dissolved suhsequently and the extension remit had passed in the '90s to MOFA-ICPM who had not been concemed with cocoa previously. G-Indicator 2.1 Proportion of farmers adopting recontntended conservation agroforestiy practices. In terms of this indicator, the definition of the baseline, the constitution of the target group and the practices to be recommended were al1 to emerge as part of the Farmer Field School methodology. This approach, which had only been applied previously in Ghana to annual crops, is normally a two step process where the proposed practices are validated with an initial group of farmers during a complete crop cycle, and then expanded by the trained farmers training others in tum. CI convened, in CRIG's HQ at Tafo, a Farmers' Field School Cumculum Development Workshop which was successful eventually in achieving consensus on a set of farmer and validation mal practices. and on outlines for modules aimed at promoting agroforestry for cocoa farmers. The Conservation Cocoa best practices were logically separated into two areas: the establishment of new cocoa plantings on abandoned cocoa land. and practices for existing cocoa. There was a time constraint however, because validation, even of the relatively rapid process of establishing new cocoa would only begin to show results two years fmm stan-up, and the effects of certain new management practices, e.g. shade manipulation, mi& take longer to have a clear effect on yield. CI decided that, because of the tight timeframe for the PVC budget, it would not be possible to do the FFS methodology as a nvo step process, and took the risk of expanding the training at the same time as doing the validation. The risk n-as low with validation on the new plantings, which compared sowing seeds "at stake" ¡.e. directly in the field, with nursery-raised bare root transplants and also with ceedlings nuumired in polythene bags. Planting from polybags was knoun. from prebious work in Ghana and elsewhere, to be superior, and this was ably demonstrated in the renovation plots established by the FFS in four comrnunities. These plots which included adequately spaced impmved planting material from CNG, together with appropnate intercrops (cassava and plantain in particular) and planted Glincidia shade are already considered a success. The FFS plots certainly encouraged farmers to take more interest in the farm. and many farmers increased their understanding considerably, particularly of pests, diseases and beneíicial insects ihrough individual "agro-ecological systems analysis" (AESA) which was taught at the FFS. The demonstrahons on existing cocoa were also considered a success buf as a model. they could be crihcised from the conservation point of view in as much as it appeared rhat the CRiG recommendation for preferred shade density of 15-18 trees per hectare \vas taken and passed on in a very simplistic way, without really considering the shade (or biodiversic) situation in much detail. Using such a specific range immediately implies shade removal where tbe density is exceeded, and normally in traditional cocoa chis means killing entire mes because shade pmning is not feasible on tal1 forest mes. ClGhana did query with HQ the wisdom of accepting this prescriptive approach, which seemed to guarantee the loss of some biodiversity without the knowledge that yield would be increased. The Habitat Sumey also mentions the need for more intensified preparation of trainers in this atea of what constimtes appropnate shade. There is virtually no information available on how well traditional cocoa yields under different densities of variable, thinned forest shade in the Kakum area or elsewhere in Ghana. CI's second year repon mentions the need for research. but alco noted that time was too shon to obtain meaningful results dunng the pmject'b. The CRIG recommendations come mainly from an on-station mial planted with a regularly spaced single shade species (Gliricidia, which is not an emergent nee) and well-managed cocoa underneath". CRiG staff did say during the evaluation that they adxise a precautionan.. conservative approach to shade removal and not the prescriptive approach. Some of the practices intmduced on existing cocoa (chupon removal. pmning. mistletoe removal, removal of diseased black pods, more frequent weeding. shade manipulation and the like) have the potential for impro\hg yield, and nearly al1 the farmers said that yields had increased, and maybe they had, but no actual data were seen which compared project farms with similar cocoa under continuing traditional management. Year to year vanation can easily account for 20% differences in production. In relation to the degree of adoption, CI decided to check just five of the recommended practices: shade diversificarion (only in newly planted " CRIC has pmposed a neu ibde sud?. largely a( detailed ecoph'iolog>. bu% CtCRlG has nm found fding kpia iuo arimpr~ Perhapr a more applied pmjecr for bmad wale $rld dara callerrm hom dllimni rhade mpmm vould hate a bmn cb~e o¡ kmg fwided. and k of more immedihe and direct ure m planning and refining cocos ki prsciice. hhmkora, Y.. Sluofi. G.S. and Adn. A.K. 1197.1) lñe end oC!he tirrr cmua rhadc md mmwal crp~nmmi ai Ihc Cmiu Rea~b InrriniieofGhana. Jwml of Honicuhurai kimre W4?-5 1 cocoa); role of wildlife in the ecosystem; no conversion of forest to agriculture; nursing of cocoa seedlings; and phytosanitary control of diseases. The target of 30% of the baseline 140 farmers implementing at least 50% of the recommended practices, was passed by August 2003 (40%), according to CI's Household Survey 2003. With respect to the field monitonng of adoption and implementation in that survey, there were several constraints including the remoteness of some of the farms and occasional logistical problems for the survey team. Another basic conshaint was that by the time of the final assessment in 2003, only a little over one and a half years had elapsed since the start of FFS preparations, and harely a year since training began. This had been long enough to find out if project farmers had accepted some of the ideas, but the survey mentions that implementation of certain practices depended on the situation of the farmer, for example, only those with abandoned areas on their farms would undertake replanting. It would have been useful to have more detailed results presented in the survey, particularly with regard to which practices were known to have been implemented in the field, versus theoretical adoption. Also, it was not clear what information will continue to be collected on the selected sample farms and from the larger community; certainly the sustainability of tbe training from the pilot project needs assessing so that lessons leamed can feed into the expanded program. A very important socio-agronomic success for the project appeared not to have been emphasised as such by CI, CRIG, or MOFA, thouph several farmers seemed to have registered it. This was the fact that because they had been encouraged to visit their farms more frequently3', farmers had increased the number of barvests and, as a result, apparently their cocoa yields and quality too were improved - as a result of timely pod removal to prevent overmatunty and help reduce losses to black pod disease. Increased harvesting is the most direct way of improving yields in small farmer cocoa that previously was visited just a few times ayear. Deleted G-Indicator 2.2 Proportion (4d;) of annrral targd fnmers' cocoa harvest classiJied at society depot as Grade 1 quality (Indicator deleted december 02 because the project is not able to distinguish the grades of cocoa according to farm practices) Deleted G-Indicator 2.3 Yieldper hectare of dned cocoa beans for target famts (Indicator deleted December 02 because the increase in yield could only be measured in the long term, not in the project life time.) New G-Indicator 2.4 Cocoa Conservation Best Practices FFS/ToT Extension Program Training Manual availahle There has been partial success in as much as a draft of best practices has been prepared, but further data collection on certain fundamental aspects, such as yield in relation to a range of shade regimes, and a more conservative handling of ideal shade densities, would help to refine recommendations. The Training Manual had yet to he consolidated; at the time of the evaluation there was a collection of fact sheets in the FFS Reports, and a training manual for conservation. New G-Indicator 2.5 Numher of ToT trainees trained in CCBP FFS implementation The target of 18 ToTs hained was passed with 2 MOFA staff, 2 21 staff, 4 Kuapa staff and 16 farmers trained in the various modules. ""at last", the coma extensiomists of the '70s and '80s would say New G-Indicator 7.6 Nuniber offarmers trained 01 Cocoa Comen.ation Best Practices The challenge here was to use the recently trained ToTs to coach Kuapa and non-Kuapa farmers in the various communities. A monitoring constmint mentioned by CI in the first year annual report was the lack of documentation of the FFS process, in particular of levels of participation, content and outcomes of FFS sessions. ICPM thought that the AESA records were suficient, but CI interided that M&E staff would repon on al1 field level activities subsequently. This issue was not properly resolved when training moved to the expansion phase. Attendance records proved difficult to maintain because of people coming late or leanng early and, at the time of the evaluation, tables showing individual farmer anendance over the entire FFS cycle were lacking or incomplete. Hence CI had to estimate the number of farmers trained, which they did based on an average of 40 members per community in the 8 communities located in the immediate buffer zone of Kakum. This would be an overestimate compared to a count of only those farmers who had completed al1 FFS modules. Old G-DIP Objective 3: Co~lsen~ation Cocoa agroforesty prograni startdards dejned arid adopted by Kuapa This was merged with Objective 2 when it seemed posible that the sensihxities around organic certification might also become apparent for cocoa standards. if it seemed they u-ere being imposed on Ghanaian farmers by outside interests. New G-NIP Objective 3: Political decision-makers at local and nario~ialeve1 recognise the value of Conservation Cocoa Following the difticulties early in the project, CI decided it needed to introduce a policy component into the project so as to consolidate its collaboration with the critica1 govemment organisations in the cocoa sector. .Vtw G-Indicator 3.1 Stakeholder Evaliration Workshop co~lducted CI organised an end-of-project workshop in Accra in Auyst 2003 which presented and discussed leaming from the FFS field trials, defined priorities for hiture propm development and strengthened alliances for implementation of the next phase of the project. The sil institutions with which CI collaborated: CRIG. Kuapa Kokoo. MOFA-ICPM. PLEC-IJG and IRNR-KNUST sent representatives, and the workshop was successful in drawing anention. through extensive press coverage, to the work done in the first phase. ,Vew G-Zndicator 3.2 MOUs signed with -i. po1ic-y irisrituiions.fornralizir~g their irrrolvemenr with project This was accomplished appropnately with CRIG, MOFA, MOFA-ICPM. Kuapa Kokoo Lid.. PLEC-UG, and IRNR-KNUST and, apart from the intemption mentioned with Kuapa's participation, the arrangements worked well. The targets for signed agreements \vere met and updated with CRIG, MOFA and PLEC in 2003. iVm G-Indicator 3.3 Relevant National and District leve1 policy ntakers haw participared in developmenr of CCBP The challenge was to involve representatives of district assemblies and others at policy making level 'om CRIG and MOFA in the FFS. so that they would see for themselves the progress being made, and go on to suppon Conservation Cocoa in the funire. One consaaint was that cocoa in Ghana had not been looked at from the consemation point of \iew before CI's intervention, and the extension senice had not long been responsible for cocoa. Nevertheless, CRIG and MOFA fully participated in the FFS, and the District Chief Executive and leaders of other partners visited FFS in the communities at least once and gave their support. New G-Indicator 3.4 Government disseminutes positive information through national foru and media about sustainable cocoa. The target here was partially met through the broadcasting of a program covering the FFS on National Television, and speeches made by govemment representatives at workshops and other fora. Press articles have yet to be published. New G-Indicator 3.5 FFS lessons learnedpresented to STO The Sustainable Tree Crops program, funded by USAID and major chocolate manufacturing companies and involving cocoa as a main component, had been slow to take off in Ghana compared to other countries, and still at the time of the evaluation there was uncertainty in some of the institutions involved as to the objectives and approach being used in the STCP. The challenge for CI was first to establish a dialogue with the STCP, and to this end STCP representatives were invited to the project sites in December 2002, which resulted in their consultant subsequently making a recommendation for collaboration, and they were also invited to the program evaluation workshop. They could not attend, but the regional coordinator and national representative visited CI's offices in Acera in September 2003, and participated in a meeting in Washington in October 2003 that CI jointly organised with the United Nations Development Program and the World Cocoa Foundation to discuss future collaboration. CI has informed STCP that it hopes to develop a joint curriculum and set of Conservation Cocoa best practices in 2004. DIP G-Objective 4: Project partners appiy Adaptive Martagement Approach This is an inappropriate objective to include at the project level because objectives do not nomally refer to project tools. Rather, M&E are prerequisites and should be evaluated not under objectives reacbed, but under program management. Also, the wording of the objective is unfortunate, as the indicators refer exclusively to monitoring, but not to evaluation and feedback into tbe system through decision taking which is the essential feature of adaptive management. The only case where the installation of an M&E system as an objective would be appropriate is where it applies to the CBO, Kuapa Kokoo, yet the indicator relating to this (4.2) was deleted in the second year. G-Indicator 4.1 Project level monitoring and evuluation (M&@ system operational and monitoring achievement ofproject targets and benchmurks As inferred above, this should be a normal part of program management. That notwithstanding, CI noted in the first year PVC Report that diff~culties in defining the FFS methodology had delayed the development of the M&E system. Pa~ticularly, there was concem from CRIG and MOFA ICPM regarding CI's desire to measure changes in attitudes, productivity and habitat on farm plots other than the demonstration plots. The FFS philosophy relies on famer interpretation for validation of introduced practices, and for their ultimate adoption. From a project impact point of view CI felt, quite rightly, that it was also necessary, independent of farmer interpretation, to measure other socio-economic and ecological variables in a rigorous quantitative as well as quantitative manner. Perhaps this difference of approach led to the inadequate recording of FFS attendance for example (see New Indicator 2.5 above) which in tum gave rise to uncertainty over how many farmers had been trained, and how complete their training was. Project partners clearly need to be encouraged further to understand and collaborate with CI's need for measurement leading to evaluation. A project level M&E system was designed, but not implemented widely, so the target of an operational system was not met. Deleted G-Indicator 4.2 Kuapa l~vl M&E swrem operarional and ntoniroririg achiewnierirs of Kuapa targers and benchmarks This indicator was deleted because CI felt that Kuapa could not introduce a monitonng and evaluation system until farming practices had been defined. Recent reports of work by Kuapa in the 2003 CEPF-funded FFS haining in new communities in the Bobi and Kmu-a areas confirm that there is potential capacity for adequate monitonng and evaluation already present in some RDOs. As in CI-Ghana itself, this facility for reponing needs fostenng through adequate interest in and feedback on reports at vanous levels in the organisation. Old G-Indicutor 4.3 Consenution Cocoa Agroforestp Progrant K'CAPj Staridards development rejects data collected bv project M& wsrents The incorporation of the old Objective 3 refemng to cocoa standards into Objective 2 on best practices was done as a result of the possibly sensitive nature of standards development (see above). CI has not suggested yet that it is may be appropnate to reintroduce standards development, and this is a question which will no doubt be addressed in the elaboration of the plans for the second phase. New G-Indicator 4.3 Corcien~atiort Cocoa Agroforesrn Program ICC.4P) Bar Practica developnient rejects data collecred -1 projec! .M&E systenis The target was to have best practices drafted, with data from the project and Kuapa le\-el M&E systems included, by July 2003. This became unattainable in respect of the Kuapa system because of the deletion of that indicator and supporting acti\ities in the second year. Likewise, the limited development of project level M&E, with the exception of the indi\-idual household and habitat surveys, restricted the data available for incorporation. The project has drafted a set of conservation best practices, but these still need validation, panicularly in the area of recommendations for shade removal. The basic field data on yield in relation to various shade regimes that are needed to begin resolving the outstanding questions are not being collected, but trees are being nng-barked around Kakum to meet a prescripnon that may be inappropriate. .Yew G-Indicaror 4.4 Household stu4 provides socio-econontic dafa-for nteasuring inipacr The initial challenge here was to persuade other pamiers (CRIG, MOFA ICPM) that the collection of comparative data for project and non-project farmers outside of the FFS methodology was reasonable and necessary. The pamiers' opposition seemed to have caused some difficulty for CI, but the patiners' views on this were not assessed dunng the Ghana evaluation visit. Another challenge was to design an adequate sampling procedure given the dificulties of access to remote farms and the need to identi@ plots that combined the necessary aspects of gender and age of farm and farmer, u-hile being appropnately distributed geographically in relation to the Reserve and FFS Demonstration Plots. One of the constraints was that the companson of Kuapa and non-Kuapa members. or beneficiar). and non￾beneficianes in a community lacking Kuapa, could be complicated by the fact that recipients passed on new knowledge learned at FFS to those not attending (also suspected'found in Mexico). Another constraint recognised by CI was the shori time between training and assessments of adoption, and the fact that yield changes might not show up immediately amidst the background noise of year to year vanahility in production and the relatively crude measures of yieldísales by bag. Not to mention the need for 5-6 months to elapse benveen improved flowering intensity for example as a result of the reduction of hea\y shade. and the harvesting of any extra pods produced The household survey amassed and reported on a large quantity of useful information and. as far as could be determined without having been able to see al1 the raw data in Accra. there is yet more to describe because the August 30, 2003 report considers just five best practices for the adoption assessment, together with socio-economic parameters. If al1 the questions in the CI questionnaire were asked and answered then there is much work still to be done in analysing al1 this interesting and potentially useful information. However, in order to determine how sustainable the lessons and adoption have been, it will be necessary to do another survey later on in 2004 of the same farmers where available, repeating at least the main questions, and making sure that the adoption of cultural practices is verified in the field by visits. New G-Indicator 4.5 Habitat survq~provides duta for nieasuring biological impact There were two main components to the habitat survey: one dealing with faunal density in 100 selected cocoa farms which was camed out by Dr William Oduro of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNIJST); and the other addressing shade tree density, types and their effects on soil fertility, pests and diseases, weed control, and their changes over time in cocoa farms of different ages. It was clear that these studies could not hope to do more than begin to look at the biological backdrop to cocoa agroforestry around Kakum, and the changes that might be brought about by the Conservation Cocoa project. CI recognised that the short time scale of the PVC project was a serious constraint, compounded by the delays in starting the FFS. A baseline survey was done and data were collected at the end of the first year following the farmer field schools. As with the household survey, the results necessanly deal largely with changes in attitudes to shade, wildlife etc., rather than with the physical and biological effects of the implementation of cocoa best practices. Nevertheless, the habitat survey did focus attention on the need for a much more comprehensive approach to the many unanswered or partially answered questions conceming shade in cocoa, and its relation to cocoa production and biodiversity. The need to utilise farmers' knowledge on desirable versus undesirable tree species was also stressed, together with the need for better training on the appropnate number of shade trees per hectare. 4.2.2 lmpact of the program on the main target group, the coffee and cocoa farmers, and the intermediate groups The information available from which to evaluate the impact on the main target group, the coffee and cocoa farmers in their respective countneso falls into the following classes: (i) the evaluators' observations on the sample of farmers interviewed or witnessed in meetings, and during visits to their farms, (ii) the results and perceptions from the CI staff in-country and in HQ, (iii) the results and perceptions from the CBOs and other partners, (iv) the results and perceptions published in the socio-economic surveys. 4.2.2.1 Coffee Farrners Mexico Clk presence It was plain that CI was a household name for the farmers associated with the project in the seven communities. The project field staff appeared to be well known generally in the buffer zone on the eastem flanks of El Triunfo Reserve, and not only because transport is infrequent in the region. Al1 857 farmers registering for the program received repeated visits by CI to cany out farm diagnosis, venfication of processing methods and compliance with the preferred supplier program, meetings for training and disiribution of "tickets"(etiquetas). These visits and the socio-economic surveys have established an important presence, and a forum for interaction with the project of famers and their families (amounting to approximately 4,500 beneficianes whose age and sex breakdown was documented in the survey S). Adoption of agronomic and coffee processing practices The systematic, organised approach that CI has had to stimulating the adoption, implementation and verification of Conservation Coffeee best practices through management plans has resulted in project farmers improving their own practices to fall in line with nearly al1 of Cl's agronomic and coffee processing requirements on the farm. The database of detailed farm information will be a most valuable resource (once the spreadsheet data are incorporated) testifying to the project's considerable impact in this area and facilitating the verification of standards for the clients. Nevertheless, according to the socio-economic studies and what was seen in the field, the advantages of Conservation Coffee for the emironment have not yet been internalised fully - price is still the main, if not, sole motive. Adoption of coffee conservation practices As far as those conservation practices relating to activities on the farm itself are concemed. shade diversification, stream side protection, erosion control, water and waste management etc., the verification data showed a veiy clear beneficia1 impact from the project and this was confirmed in the field visits to farms. However, it was not so easy to gauge the farmers' attitudes to consenation outside the confines of the farm, that is whether there really had been a change in the way farmers saw the intact forest, and the buffer zone in general. Many members could repeat ihe lessons leamed in the mining sessions about the value of the Reserve, but to what extent they believed in the need to stop expansion into the forest was left unquantified. The findings in the 2003 socio-economic survey suggest that general forest consen.ation awareness has been achieved, but at the same time there was still, or again, some talk of the need, sometime in the future, to put the remaining forest areas in the farm to apicultura1 use. To date. there has been no commercial expioitahon by project members, forest use has been restricted to obtaining firewood and building timber for local work. Some exploitation has occurred in communities where the project operates, however, and there is a clear need to expand the scheme further within communities to cover more farmers. Price benefits The good harvest of 2002 and the higher prices in 2003 were available to project members and non-members alike, so there was an increased feeling of well-being among the coffee farmers generally. Nevertheless, project members through their production of organic coffee received a premiurn relative to non-members growing conventional coffee. The average prices received by the two groups respectively in Mexican pesos per quintal were 573 versus 5 15 in 2001, 573 versus 445 in 2002, and 676 versus 576 in 2003 (\an Leuuuen, 2003). As \%as pointed out above (M-Indicator 2.2 and footnote) the validity of this indicator for le\el of livelihood is doubtful. Benefts in the Home Project members showed slightly bener conditions of housing and diet and less need to work for others than non-members, which seems indeed to hint at greater net family income year by year. 4.2.2.2 Coma Farrners in Ghana Project presence CI staff visited 110 farmers in the eight communities for sampling in the Habitat and Household Surveys at least two to three times during the project. There was no systematic recording of basic farm details for example of overall farm size, presence[size of abandoned areas, type of shade, current yields etc. from the other 200 or so farmers who became involved in the project through the FFS, but there were community visits by those involved in the development of the FFS cumculum (CI, CRIG, MOFA, Kuapa) and there were the FFS sessions themselves given by the same group. No precise figures are available for the overall number of beneficianes attending the FFS, but age and sex breakdown information was collected for the 110 benefíciary and non-beneficiary households sampled in the Household survey. Adoption of cocoa agronomicpractices The household surveys registered a mixture of "notional adoption" and apparently some actual implemeniation by the 55 farmers sampled after the relatively short exposure to the training and the hrief period in which adoption could he assessed, but there was no systematic field monitoring of these or the remaining farmers. The impression gained was that the communal replanting exercise would lead to adoption of virtually al1 the recommended best practices for restonng degraded lands to production, by the so far unquantified number who had land to restore, and that the interest generated had led to consideration at least of the practices recommended for existing cocoa, including more frequent visits and harvests, and thereby better production. Adoption of cocoa conservation practices The communal replanting of cocoa encouraged farmers to nurture forest tree saplings and to plant a tree species with an acceptable cocoa shade and conservation profíle (Gliricidia sepium), but, as indicated ahove, there were no data presented on the number of project farmers applying these practices on their own land, so the impact remains unverified. Similarly, it was not clear how many farmers had adopted the prescriptive recommendation for 15-18 trees to be left per heciare on their own farms, but this approach, in the absence of information on cocoa yield under a range of shade types and densities, certainly put at nsk the hiodiversity offered by the emergent trees which are still found in some areas. Low impact here may have tumed out to be more favourable than lngh. There was evidence fom the surveys that there was a greater recognition of conse~atiou issues in project farmers, but this was distinctly patchy, and for some the loss of use of the forest (no lianas for "sponge", no snails, no medicinal plants) would not he compensated for by small increases in the income from cocoa. This was forcefully expressed by a woman partipant in the meeting with the community of Kmwa on Decemher 9,2003. Price and yield benefits The small price premium paid by Kuapa Kokoo (according to the source between 2,3% and 0,32%) derives from Kuapa's commitments to pay a fair pnce to its members and it was available to al1 members with adequately processed cocoa irrespective of whether they had adopted best growing practices or not. In other words, Kuapa maintained its pre-existing payment arrangements with producers, and the project had no impact on those. When the premium is pooled, there is no impact on pnce variability and on production incentives at the farmer level. A further benefit to project farmers could come through increased yield as a result of better management, including more frequent harvesting, and the perception by the farmers was that this had indeed resulted. Yield information for project and non-project farmers was not recorded in the surveys, however, apparently because CI felt there was insufficient time for longer tem effects to become manifest during the PVC financed phase of the project (but if records are not started how can changes be followed?). Benefits in the Home There were no records of changes in well-being reported in the household survey, though baseline data were collected in order to identify appropriate indicators. There is a remark about different ability to put aside savings behveen participants and non-panicipants but this seems to be a one oK 4.2.2.3 Intermediate Groups, Mexico Project Cooperatives, Industry, Business Service Providers, Credit Proxiders and Govemment al1 acted as intermediaries behveen CI and the main target group, the farmers. In the case of the cooperatives, one important beneficia1 impact from CI came through the introduction of business plans which, though not focused beyond a single year and not used often as guidelines in the course of the year, have helped combat comption.Aiso farmers have been made aware of their rights through courses. At the industry level, the ver). valuable inreresr from the Starbucks Coffee Company in the project in Mexico and elsewhere was fostered through continuing dialogue and a visit to Chiapas by senior Starbucks representatives. To date Starbucks has conmbuted a total sum of USSI.5 million to Consemation Coffee initiatives as a result of the project. The project's impact on Business Sen-ice Prmiders (ECOSUR), Credit Providers (FIRA) and the Government (RETRIBI) has been iargely through the bnnging together, as a result of workshops and the like, of different pames who previously might not have collaborated or been aware of each others roles in the sector. 4.2.2.4 Intermediate Groups, Ghana Project The main impact of the project on the Kuapa Kokoo cooperative was the introduction of the RW training manual which has provided a framework and purpose to the RDOs. the mainstay of Kuapa's activities in the field at the society level. A further impacr has been the contribution of new agronomic training to its RDOs and farmer leaders. which addresses some of their majar production problems. CI's financia1 suppon for the marketing of Faimade cocoa through the Day Chocolate Company, of which Kuapa Kokoo is a shareholder, has supported the growth of this industrial intermediar).. As in Mexico. the project has helped to bring together players such as sewice providers (MOFA ICPM) and Govemment (CRIG) with a concomitant cross-fertilisation of experience and ideas. highly relevant to the furtherance of the cocoa agroforestry consen-ation scheme. 4.2.3 lrnpact on the Capacity of CI's Operations at HQ and in the Field to Deliver Sustainable Services Washington DC The Consewation Enterprise Department in HQ was the hub for the Coffee and Cocoa Program throughout the PVC Project, and considerable capacity development took place there, panicularly through those working in the project from the eariy days. Tñese included the head of the CED, the Coffee Project Coordinator. the Advisor on Agricultural Practices. and the Advisor on Project Design and Management. The last two \vere new appointments that brought additional experience into CI, that would be valuable in pmviding sustainable projects and sustainable senices. A Manager of Business and Trade was also appointed within CED, and when he left his responsibilities were transferred to CED's entepise development advisor. During the life of the program restructuring in CI altered the focus from implementation to strategy, stafíing plans changed and certain expenise, for example credit, trade support and market development, was built up in depanments other than CED. bur interchange with the coffee project has continued. The project at Jaltenango brought in new staff, come of whom received training in areas such as surveys, organic certification and verification, coffee processing, business planning. information technology and extension methodology, not to mention the selling of the conservation message. Although there has been tumover at the local coordinator level, the project has established a strong core group able to deliver sustainable services. Ghana CI-Ghana has the responsibility for several projects including Conservation Cocoa. Two appointments were made through the project which increased capacity considerably, namely the Agro-Forestry Officer and the M&E Officer who are still both working on Conservation Cocoa. 4.2.4 Unintended lmpacts 4.2.4.1 Mexico Land belonging to the community Capitan Luis Vida1 was located within the nuclear zone of El Triunfo Reserve and after vanous incursions by farmers the Reserve Authorities began to take steps to sanction them. But a change of heart after intervention by the project led to the Reserve granting an exchange with land outside the nuclear zone to solve the problem. Relations between the Reserve and CI had heen distinctly cool early in the project. Starbucks Coffee Company was more committed than expected to the CI cause. The local coffee trading system had improved much more than expected in response to CI's scheme with Conservation Coffee. AMSA had consolidated their bases in Chiapas with a view to reaching the producer, because they saw something positive in the project. There had heen a domino effect spreading from project to non-project farmers following CI's persuasion of project farmers to stop discarding coffee processing waste into streams and nvers. Medium and large growers had approached CI, interested in joining the scheme. - One negative unintended impact as far as CI-Jaltenango was concemed, was the loss of qualified staff as they bettered themselves. This is difficult to avoid, especially when the project office is in a quiet, relatively remote, rural town with few facilities, and the prospects for a career in conservation enterprise are not yet strong. - The main negative impact from the project recently must be the threatened withdrawal of several of the cooperatives from the Starbucks Preferred Supplier Program because of changes to the marketing system. It is not clear whether a slower rate of introduction would have given more chance of the changes being accepted. 4.2.4.2 Ghana Non-project farmers have quickly copied project farmers and adopted certain cocoa best practices, such as raising improved cocoa seedlings in polythene bags. - Setting a prescriptive shade tree density (15-1 8 treesiha) may have put some large emergent shade trees unnecessarily at risk. Evaluation of the relationship between cocoa production and shade in traditional cocoa is urgently needed. 4.2.5 Major Factors Affecting lmplementation Implementation proceeded best when the objective and activities were clear and well￾reseamhed but not overelaborated, attainable in the time available, and hacked by a strong mandate from the partners and HQ. - Implementation went ill when the objective or activities were diffise or poorly defined; overambitious in scale, scope or timing; and one or more pamers \vere not on board because of disagreement over this issue or for other reasons. - Both in Mexico and Ghana, overeshmation of the organisational preparedeness and receptiveness of the CBOs led to delayed or denied implementation. - Similarly, CI and Starbucks seemed to underestimate the time needed to introduce reform aimed at transparency, and also the new agreement for coffee sales. 4.2.6 Efíicacy of Main Strategies In Mexico, the main strategy might be summarised as the documentation and monitoring of al1 farms in the project, and veritication of compliance with agronomic and consen.ation related best practices, in order for the farmer to be able to sell coffee at a premium through his cooperative. The farmer side worked well, as long as cooperatives were collaborating with the project. The strategy for getting cooperatives on board to take over extension, tighten up on their transparency and accept indirect export through a single route was less successful for a varieiy of reasons. In Ghana, the main strategy was less robust because it lacked a clear price incentive. project presence was restricted to sampled farms, that is there was no diagnosis or verification on the majority of farms, and benefits in terms of yield could not be demonstrated. 4.2.7 Mid-course corrections and their effects There was no mid-term review in this project of only three years duration; the first and second year annual reports to PVC were well received apparently. A PVC Officer made a very shon visit to Ghana in July 2002, and expressed some concerns about the delays arising fmm stalled liberalisation and also regarding data safekeeping and accessibili~y. A visit to Mexico in FebmaryíMarch 2003 reported satisfactory progress in most aspects, though there \vas concern regarding the lack of preparedeness in the cooperatives to administer and finance their own extension oficers for venfication and other duties. The major mid-course correchons were the change of objective 1 in Ghana from business development for independent export operations by Kuapa to building capacity in Conservation Cocoa practices through the farmer field schools. This usas a logical move rhat made the best out of the situation. The Mexico project changed course after about a year of operations when it became clear that the cooperatives did not meet expectations with regard to conveying the conservahon messages and the Conservation Coffee practices in an effective way. Another major shii? was the introduction of a completely overhauled set of project design and management tools that benefitted the project as much as ir is an asset for the replication of agroforestry efforts in other areas. 4.3 Cross-Cutting Issues 4.3.1 Partnerships One of CI's major achievements in this program was, apan from their brokenng role between the progam and the industry, building in-country parmerships with instimtions that could contribute to the research and introduction of Consenation Best Practices, marketing and credit. 4.3.1.1 Partners in Mexico The main active parmers in Mexico were El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR) and Universidad Autónoma de Chiapas (UNACH), academic institutions that participate in capacity building in subjects conceming the Conservation Best Practices. Comisión Nacional de Areas Naturales Protegidas (CONANP), the Administrator of the Reserve "El Triunfo" (REBITRI) that contributes to environmental education through courses in the framework of the Escuelas de Campo y Experimentación para Agricultores (ECEA), who from Febmary 2002 had been offenng courses in the Conservation Coffee Training Center in Jaltenango. Fondo Acción of Banco de Mexico (BANAMEX) who offer credit for cooperatives, and finance technical assistance to cooperatives. Fideicomisos Instituidos en Relación con la Agricultura (FIRA) of BANAMEX who cooperate also in credit and technical assistance. SAGARPA through the Junta Local de Sanidad Vegetal provide farmers with material for hiological pest management (Beauvaria bassiana). The agricultura1 cooperatives (6 in 2003) who promote the adoption of Conservation Best Practices among their members, market their member coffee produced under CBP and offer credit to these memhers. These partnerships in pnnciple tumed out to be very successful. The key elements that contributed to this success were the (1) high interest of farmers to benefit from the marketing scheme introduced by CI's brokering activities, that created a corresponding demand for technical services and (2) the "matching pressure" exercised by the grant agreement which made any conbibution in kind by a partner the more desirable. However, the decision makers in the cooperatives, due to poor transparency and reduced influence of the "owners", that is, the members, disturbed the success story at the end of 2003 when 4 of the 6 organisations threatenend to opt out. A lot of organisational development is still required to make their performance more predictable. The fact, that cooperative boards change every three years represents a chance for improvement, but adds, of course, an element of instability. In connection with the establishment of the Conservation Coffee best practices in a workshop in May 2003, a proposal was developed to found a Conservation Coffee Network (Red de Café de Conservación) to further exchange experiences with the present and a number of future partners in a "leaming community" and to make the Conservation Coffee Best Practices to be the accepted standard in the entire region around the El Triunfo Reserve. 4.3.1.2 Partners in Ghana The main local partner in Ghana was Kuapa Kokoo Ltd, the trading branch of the largest farmer association in the country with 450 local groups (societies) and some 30.000 farmers at the time. Later, another five institutions joined CI and became very important in the implementation of the project: 1) The Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana (CRIG) to prepare and deliver the technical information on cocoa agronomy; 2) the National Integrated Crop and Pest Management program (ICPM) of the Ministry of Food and Agiculture (MOFA), to prepare and deliver topics teaching methodology and extension strategies; 3) MOFA'S Agricultural Extension Agents to participate in and later facilitate the training programs; 4) PLEC-UG: People Land Management and Ecosystem Consewation, a project in the Universiiy of Ghana, to prepare conservation modules for the training program; 5) IRNR-KNUST: the Institute of Renewable and Natural Resources in the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi to undertake a study on faunal assemblages in the target communities. 4.3.2 Gender, New Tools, Guidance or Standards, 4.3.2.1 Gender In the DIP Review, one conbibutor suggested there was a risk of CI's apoforesq initiatives becoming men-specific projects, and recommended that CI hire tu-o highly experienced social science experts in gender and agriculiure, knowledgeable in the culture-area and ecology to implement appropnate studies of farm women's roles for the purpose of designing gender mitigating activities. This was not taken up, perhaps in part because the baseline studies showed considerable parhcipation by women in discussions at farm level, which was repeated when the FFS began. CI viewed the project principally as one of apoforesq and environment, not of mral development, and was probably wise not to embark on the uncertain road of attempting to change social values in relatively closed societies. In Ghana. following indicator 1.6, gender issues were included in the society-level capaciv-building program in the form of fact sheets and appropriate modules for the Society Training Manual. 4.3.2.2 New Tools, Guidance or Standards Mexico CI's project design and management approach for Mexico, which is seen as a new tool b!- Cl. is dealt with in section 5, Program Management. Another approach new to Cl's Consen-ation Enterprise Development was the combination of farm diagnosis. application of Consen-ation Coffee best practices, farm plans and their verification, al1 in a geopphical information system that facilitated speedy analysis and visualisation of the results. Cnfomnately. the database stmcture was not updated immediately as the project evolved and the combination tool was not used to the full as a consequence. Nevertheless. progress was made during the third year socio-economic survey with incorporating second and third year data and che situation now needs reviewing to determine if the approach, which seems to have much potential, does indeed ment broader application. The September 2003 Generic Monitoring rotoc col'^ still referred to Excel rather than Access as the medium for data storage and analysis. Conservation Coffee Best Practices were developed successfully and these now constitute important guidance in the field for coffee production and land use management in the El Triunfo region and beyond. If there was a difference behveen Best Practices and Consen-ation Coffee Standards early in the project, the distinction is less clear now, but the merit of the practicesístandards is without question. 4.3.2.3 New Tools, Guidance or Standards Ghana Conservation Cocoa Best Practices were developed for new plantings and are currently under validation, but it is confidently expected that they will be effective and merit broader dishibution and application. Best Practices for existing cocoa are not yet defined entirely. and will depend on an improved understanding of the complicated area of suitable and unsuitable shade species, appropriate densities etc. The application of the Farmer Field School approach to extension for cocoa farmers \vas novel as it had only been used for annual crops previously. It was not entirely effectix-e in cocoa, however, because the slow crop grohth and long period for changes to become visible meant that it could not be applied as originally designed with validation first and training following. It was reasonably successful with new plantings where results are seen in tu-o years. In existing cocoa, however, validation was necessarily incomplete given the time-scale and training was effectively camed out simultaneously with what validation was possible. Although the system was not as effective as the original, farmers were enthused by the training to visit their farms more frequently and follow crop growth and problems more closely, and that was a considerable achievement well worth propagating. 4.3.3 Advocacy The Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Program model advocates for best practices in coffee and cocoa production and conservation of biodiversity. It also advocates for bringing farmers a fair living wage. Advocacy has been a part of the program in headquarters, in Mexico and Ghana, and elsewhere, at both policy and program levels. In the USA. in-house advocacy in CI HQ was seen as necessary at both levels, while outside a lot of effort went in to maintaining established relationships with coffee companies such as Starbucks and Green Mountain, and also into looking for others who might be interested in Conservation Coffee and Cocoa. The efforts were successful in continuing to prornote the program with established users, while new markets are still being sought. The policy environment was strengthened in Mexico through the advocacy of coffee best practices which help to stabilise land-use in the buffer zone, but certain govemment agricultura1 policies remain deleterious to El Triunfo Reserve. Advocacy of the program promoted it well in the region at vanous levels, and the efforts by CI to establish the coffee conservation network will be repaid if the network can influence govemment policy. The PVC Mexico visit report (2003) mentions the need for advocacy in problem agronomic areas where CI was not able to engage fully, e.g. broca infestation coming from abandoned farms, and this remains appropriate. In Ghana, advocacy has been particularly important for the development of the program, following the rocky start on the organic cocoa road, and Cocobod's and CRIG's uncertainty over low technology, Consewation Cocoa as a possibility for Ghana. CI prevailed, such that policy was strengthened nationally, and the concept of environmentally and socially sustainable cocoa was promoted well both in the Kakum area, and as a model for wider distribution in Ghana through the GEF and STC Projects. 4.3.4 Sustainability and Scale-Up 4.3.4.1 The sustainability model of the CCCP Once the behavioral change of coffee and cocoa farmers which would produce the conservation outcome is achieved - as currently in Mexico for around 1000 farmers and in Ghana for at least a part of those 400 farmers or so addressed by the program - the question is, if the adopted consewation best practices will be maintained in the long term. The sustainability concept - continuation of activities after the end of technical assistance and outside funding -- has a technical, institutional, sociallcultural, environmental and financia1 dimension. Technically and, for this program, also environmentully, the program has introduced cultivation practices for coffee and cocoa which are based on previous experience and experience during the intervention itself. Most of them have been tested in the field and found viable and sustainable in the future although many questions bave still to be validated, particularly regarding the shadelyieldlpest and disease interrelationships. The coverage (some 1400 farmers with perhaps 5000 ha altogether in both sites) is, of course, still by far insufiicient to speak of any significant contribution to biodiversity conservation. At the milestone/outcome level, in both sites, the approach \ia cooperatives and not geographically selected communities limited the technicalienvironmental sustainability of the conservation effort. In Mexico, as mentioned above, problems such as deforesiation. contamination of streams and rivers, and the Broca infection from neifhboring coffer plantations can not be attacked as successfully as with a community approach lvhich \vould also be a bener basis for the planned comdors between the nuclei. In Ghana the Kakum Park was only touched on the southeastem and northwestem side and, as a systematic continuation to protect the entire boundary was not foreseen in the remaining stretc.hes, remains open to possible elimination of the buffer zone. Institutionallv, the program hinges on farmers' organisation which have not and or not yet proven fit for certain tasks, and on CI's country offices and headquarters which already in the past were stretc.hed in staff and financia1 means. They were supposed to end their intensive intervention at the end of the grant period and another institutional setup u-as to be established (see the sections on Mexico and Ghana). Social- and culturallj:, the conservation concept is not well established yet in the sites and needs further nurturing to avoid an eventual decay. Socio-political-cultural sustainabilir) in the long term depends on the extent to which the protection of biodiversity aquires a high value in the mind set of decision makers on the political level and the level of CBOs and farmers. In the Mexico site, the last socio-economic survey shows that after the initial "shock and awe effect" of the project, farmers who commined themselves entering the propam to conserve the intact forest found on their farms are staning again to talk about clearing forest on their plots (although not in the re~erve)~. In Ghana, although CI has acquired tremendous merits in gemng high level political and research instituhons like CRIG and MOF.4 on board, lacking funds for a vehicle was enough for the main partner Kuapa to suspend cooperahon for some time. Commitment to conservation which would motivate the partner to extra efforts in the program was apparently not high among the management of the organization at that time. FinancialiJ, the CCCP was piamed with the goal of long-term self-sufficienc). in mind. Sustainability was defined from a Business Development Sewices point of \-¡e\\- as the long￾term availability of services in the business sewice market through unsubsidised. commercial chamek". Financia1 sustainability is the basis of the technical and institutional sustainabili~ mentioned above. The grant-funded foreign assistance was to pro\ide initial suppon only: it would eventually be phased out and would have to be repiaced by revenues generated throufh increased business opportunities. The development of apl~~i~ral and trade expemse \\-as to pronde the panners with the institutional capacity required to produce and sell coffee on tk intemational market, which would secure long-term funding of their acti\-ities. This scheme was thought out from the stan in 1998, slightly modified over the years until the proposal of 2000. At that time organic cenifícation was still the core pan of he strategy in both sites and in both projects the results were assumed to be achieved within the 3-year pnt penod, and would then be followed by the replication of the descnbed supposedly successful operations in other areas. Although both projects have met a great pan of the specific numeric targets set in the DIP of 2001, however, in January 2004, both do not stand on their own feet yet. ni-. have essentiali~ missed to achime institutional. social~cirltirral aridfiriancia~. silctainabilin. in rhe targeted time and srill needfurther support and inr.esr'sr>nent. No contingency plans, such as designing an altemative longer-term time frame for this project, were formulated for this eventuality at its start. Future plans referred to replication in other sites only42. In the beginning and during most of the implementation period, expectations were, as conversations on the sites and in Washington conveyed, that, if the goals were not met, additional funds would be made available to complete unfinished business. However, the fact that, at the moment, the CCC Prog-am Mexico and Ghana is not sustainable yet, is due to over-optimistic targets rather than a general failure to implement established plans. NGOs, pressured to convince donors to provide funds, often present too short timeframes for their projects, so the planners of CCCP do not stand alone here.43 The challenge is to avoid this in tbe future. 4.3.4.2 Sustainability of the Mexico project 4.3.4.2.1 The Mexicoproject is no! sustainable a! thispoint in time As long as market incentives for farmers are available, Conservation Coffee will remain attractive. However, the further introduction and maintenance of standards requires a secure financia1 basis to sustain the cbosen extension methodologies. In Mexico, the revenues from coffee marketing of the four cooperatives the project worked with at the time of the proposal were expected to be high enough to cover operational costs in 3 years and to build up a credit fund. The projections in the 1999 proposal were backed up by numbers quoted from interna1 papers". Once CI staff could be replaced by the specially trained members orpromotores, the cooperatives' training costs would be sustained by annual membership dues which would also cover exchange visits, marketing materials and market updates. The training center would become self-sufficient by selling coffee and shade tree seedlings, beneficia1 organisms and by collecting fees for its training courses. CI's ongoing marketing and irade assistance to the cooperatives would be sustained by small royalties paid by market partners. Credit services would be funded by interest payments and funds raised by members' contributions from export sales. However, the introduction and institutionalisation of Conservation Coffee Best Practices in the field and the establishment of efficient export services will take longer than tbe planned 3- year grant penod. Some of the cooperatives and their extension staff - especially those who tookitake part in the project's training courses - show ownership of the extension methodology and the conservation content of the training sessions, have internalised the extension methodology and have integrated it into their respective institutional framework. The political and institutional environment for continuation of the seMce delivery and the continuation of the practices is very much improved compared to the situation a few years ago when CI still "competed" aith iDESMAC and its GEF-funded project. However, iraining and extension seMce providers are likely to stop delivery, as the activities cannot be continued in the future through the partner organisations', that is, the cooperatives', own sources of funding. If CI's interventions were teminated now - which is not the intention - , the project in Mexico would inevitably fold. Continuation of CI's support is critical. A Sustainability and Financial Independence Study was finished in July 2003 and came to the following conc~usions~~: " The PVC Annual repon of 2003 which was wrinen afler the evaluator's visits lo Washington and the sites. does nat contain. apan From general shztegic liner, a specific plan for the follow up in Menico and Ghana. althoiigh the Scope of Work for the evaluatian had announced it would be available by the rime ofihe eraiuation (3.d] footnote 5) a3 One of the evaluators in 2003 panicipatcd in an evaluation during which he had the opponunity to look at about 250 grant applications of NGOs for rural development prqlectr to the European Commission where ve? rhon tinie Games wre a general feature. a see fmtnater 4-6 and 20 of the proposal 2000. These data were nat amched to thc docummt and no1 available to thc evaluators. " H. Haase, Sustainability ind Financial lndependence Analysis far the CC Programm in Chiapas. August 27,2003. page 3 The Jaltenango offíce can be finorrcial(i independenr onli b). June 2006 uith an additional donor investment of USS 1.4 million over a three-year period. provided farmers are charged the pnces recommended by the study. 0 The sustainability of the project depends on the deniond of the program's clients for more Conservation Coffee and, likewise progranr growh through new farmers to achieve economies of scale. The Jaltenango offíce has the realistic poienrial o/ inrpociing 15,000 - -hectares of coffee and facilitating the export of nearly 400 containers (15 million lbs) of Conservation Coffee each year. The proposed strategy to achieve financia1 sustainability requires the adoption of (i) a new five-year model, (ii) a new farmer profile, and (iii) a new commercialisation scheme. All Conservation Coffee Best Practice goals per new farmer can be accomplished in the five-year transfer period with the adoption of the new Farmer Profile. Farmers can expect an average increase of S 21 Mexican pesos above an inflation￾adjusted Mexican minimum wage during the five-year transfer period and, upon graduation, a wage equivalent increase of up to four times the minimum \vage \vhich would support the farmers' ability to pay for the semices CI institutional suppon and bener integration of the program into CI's Mesoamerica program is fundamental in achieving the project's goals. lntegration of local stakeholders depends largely on institutional suppon to facilitate the development of these relationships. 0 Development of local capacity to perform key Consewation Coffee Best Prachces se~ces is feasible and economically viable. These judgments are based on the situation in July 2003. In the meantime additional problems have called them further into question: Four cooperatives of a total of six threatened to opt out of the marketing scheme at the end of 2003 (though some of them, as of January 2004, are considenng coming back) \vhen the client Starbucks demanded that direct exports by the cooperatives be stopped and extemal marketing be organised through Agroindustrias Unidas de Mexico (AMSA) to u-hich rhe cooperatives were to sell from the 2003.>04 harvest onwards. Starbucks wanted to impmve on the reliability of deliveries (80% of delivenes had been not on time). The cooperativer in tum, resisted the sale of parchment coffee to AMSA. as cooperative staff lost access to funds originahng from second quality coffee (desmanche). They would rather conúnue direct marketing through their cooperative association Comercializadora Mexicana de Productos Agroecológicos S.A. (COMPRAS) and not. as they expressed it retum to a relationship of dependency (from their perspective - of exploitation) on a "coyote", that is, a traditional exploitative coffee assembler. As the project's fmancial self-sufficiency is based on the rapid expansion of production and sale of high-pnce specialty coffee to distribute the costs of semices over a larger sales volume, the cooperatives' reaction constitutes a serious setback. If he "renegade" cooperatives fail to sell at premium pnces the Mexican branch of the program is in danger of falling apart. It cannot be left alone yet. even if al1 the cooperati\-es decided to re-join the scheme. In this context it is aiso worrying to see that farmers' consciousness of the imponance of consewation in 2003 has fallen back to the levels of 2001 as no courses on that subject were given by the project nor the cooperatives in 2003. If the numbers are not statistical noise this would demonstrate how quickly farmers' participation declines when their solidanty with the scheme is so closely dependent on financia1 benefits. Another critica1 factor for sustainability is the very narrow market with just one client (Starbucks). CI had sought to provide each cooperative with at least two clients, but the large amount of in-transition coffee dunng the implementation period of the best practices in each farm is not in high demand by specialty market coffee clients. The project's future hinges on the stability of Starbucks' commitment to consewation . 4.3.4.2.2 The way foiward in Mexico At the time of the evaluation in November 2003, the current thinking of project staff about the future of the project presented to the evaluators corresponded to the strategy laid out to USAID in CI's and Starbucks' invitation to join their "Consewation Coffee Alliance 46 and comprised the following lines of action: Conservation Intemational in the future would continue capacity building of sewice providers for the control and evaluation of management plans and would train and graduate extensionists for the FFS. CI would build capacity in procedures of certification and preferential buyer programs and promote the Consewation Coffee Network through workshops, meetings, communication and fund raising. CI would assist the cooperatives not as directly as before but through service providers, except support in business planning to promote economic transparency. From now on CI would validate the CCBP, facilitate cooperatives' negotiations with sewice providers and clients, monitor export and payment processes, rnediate in conflicts between the cooperatives and sewice providers, evaluate their performance and infonn farmers and sewice providers about the nsks involved. Ax-independent local organisation ("despacho local") would be established to use the newly-developed tools and sewices in the ongoing promotion of Conservation Coffee in El Triunfo and other regions of Mexico. The new sewice would be available to small as well as to medium and large farms. Al1 sewice providers in the field would link their activities in agricultura1 production projects with the business plans of the cooperatives. The cooperatives would in future have to be accredited as service providers for the promotion of Consewation Best Practices to members and non-members and for marketing and credit operations. The cooperatives would take over the evaluation of their members'compliance with the CCBP. Their extensionists would train farmers in the CCBP and control of coffee quality. Cooperatives would strengthen the Reserve Management in their Management Plan. ECOSUR and the University were to continue their engagement in participatory field research, in the courses on Conservation Coffee Rest Practices for promotores in communities and in the evaluation of Farmer Field Schools (ECEAs). Extension work, including participatory research, would be camed out in the framework of farmer field schools (ECEAs) by the 40 promotores who have been trained. More promotores would be trained by ECOSUR in different fields and accredited by the Ministry of Education. Farm planning and evaluation would be camed out by sewice providers, with the Conservation Network (see 4.3.1.1) overseeing the quality of the sewices. " The Conservation ColBe Alliunce. A proposal ro The United States Agency for lnrcrnational Development. Submined lo The Global Development Alliance Secretariat By Consmation lnternational and Starbucks Coffec Company On Febnialy 27, 2003 far the APS No. GDA-03401: Resultados Clave 182 Resultados Clave 3.4 y 5, Powerpoint presentallon. 17.1 1.2003 Export services would also be provided by specialised institutions, as cooperatives had proven not suficiently eficient to meet clients' expectations. The Park Administration (REBITRYCOSANP) would incorporate the activities of the Conservation Coffee Project into their management plan and would engage in joint management of the resources with the cooperatives. The financia1 institutions such as Fondo Acción and FIRA (Banco de Mexico) \iould continue to cooperate with the project in financing capacity building in extension, and offering credit to performing cooperatives and individual farmers. Govemment institutions such as SAGARPA m~ould continue to assist in Integrated Pest Management through the Junta Local de Sanidad Vegetal, especially in sumeys about broca, its control and the sale of products. Farmers would continue to participate in extension courses and in participaton research. In future they would contribute new ideas with regard to the CCBP and they pay al1 the senices of extension, evaluation and verification they benefit from. However, whereas the Alliance in the begiming of 2003 still remained over-optimistic. expecting a project growth to the leve1 of 5,000 small-scale farmers appljing the Conservation Coffee best practices on more than 15,000 hectares "over the next three (sic!) years", no timeframe or tangible plans were put fomard by the team for soking the sustainability problems of the project. 4.3.4.3 Sustainability of the Ghana project 4.3.4.3.1 The Ghana project is rrot susiainable either at ihis poinf ir1 time As in Mexico, increasing sales and the corresponding revenues were supposed to sustain the services of the farmer organisation Kuapa to implement sustainable cocoa practices. The program was to generate three sources of income for Kuapa: 1) dues from farmer members, 2) revenues from increased sales, especially direct exports, and 3) premiums from the sale of organically certified cocoa. These revenues would be used to support Kuapa's extension activities, connibute to marketing costs and be reinvested in management training and capacity development. Monitoring activities were to be incorporated into Conservation Cocoa standards veritication supported by certification fees. Kuapa would pay the ongoing marketing assistance prmided by CI with royalhes from the licensing of consumer chocolate products. Profits generated by its ownership in The Day Chocolate Company would finance Twin's suppon of Kuapa's business operations". However, the entire Business Development concept failed in this site because the extemal market was not liberalised, Kuapa could not export directly and the premium pnces for organic cocoa did not accrue. What Kuapa had to offer to farmers \vas reduced to a continuation of its Faimade premium only which, distributed among al1 farmers, amounted to an increment of less than one half of a percent of the sales price'8. Without the momentum of the Mexican branch which could count on price incentives on top of yield increases through the application of Conservation Coffee practices, the Ghana project thus was reduced to a training scheme and advocacy program for the introduction of practices for Consenation Cocoa. Interviews with farmers and project suneys sho\v that the amaction of Consemarion Cocoa for farmers consists, in contrast to Mexico, mainly in higher yield. The question is. if " Pmporal ZWO. \krico. DZO: Ghana D20 " according #o tk Rognm'r ZW3 repon to PVC !he amovnl ir ?.Y, rlill miqtificani See seaton 4.2 1 3. G-lcdicaa : : this, over time, will be sufficient to guarantee adherence to the scheme without being topped up by a substantial pnce premium. The extension of the program in Kakum and other communities around it after the end of the grant period, was left to Kuapa and MOFA who are expected to sustain the project. CI, in December 2003, was planning to present a new project to UNDP for GEF funding in which the provisional learning would be applied to the biologically pnonty south-west of Ghana. They recognised that the CEPF funds, supposed to finance an expansion to 2000 farmers over the next 3 years, were not sufficient to cover al1 communities around the park. Kuapa, on the other hand, apparently expected CI to take the initiative for c~ntinuation.~~ After the grant penod technical staff, according to the original plan, were to work with other KKL cocoa societies and be financed by the organic premiums on certified cocoa exports. As in Mexico, the activities are unlikely to he continued in the future through the partner organisations', that is, Kuapa's, own sources of funding, although the Kuapa staff directly concerned with FFS training have well internalised and integrated the methodology into their institutional framework. It was noted that the sustainability of the training program also depends on financially motivating farmer ToT trainees to continue their work. With support funds failing, the program would be stalled. Kuapa currently continues activities with the support of the Critica1 Ecosystems Partnership Fund (CEPF). These CEPF funds allow a continuation of the scheme in 80 communities around the 8 original communities in Kakum. The CEPF funding provided the counterpart to USAID funding necessary to enable CI to fulfill its 2002 agreement with Kuapa and made additional funds available for Kuapa to maintain project activities after the PVC project ended50. The project has not yet aquired the momentum to continue on its own without support. Moreover, the commitment of the partner Kuapa, let alone the farmers, to the conservation goal, without the tangible benefits that accrue in Mexico, is not evident. The sustainability of the program in Ghana is doubtful with respect to the 8 original communities as well as to an expansion in the rest of the buffer zone, and it cannot be taken for granted that al1 of the achievements of the project can be safeguarded over the long term as the 2003 report to PVC claims. The political and overall institutional environment in the Ghanaian cocoa sector is not conducive to the inkoduction of the originally envisaged Business Development Services model. Under the present circumstances it is unlikely that the externa1 market will be liberalised in the short and medium term. If conservation of the Kakum Area is to be achieved, substantial support over a number of years is critical, as the introduction of a business-based extension model is difficult due to the absence of a specialty market as in coffee with incentives over and above both the organic and Fairtrade premiums. 4.3.4.3.2 The way fomard in Ghana Already in July 2002 PVC on a local visit to the project had expressed concern about the lack of achievement of critical targets and that farmers would need continued support after the end of the grant period. PVC in their Project Monitoring Repori of July 2002 suggested that CI consider requesting a revision of onginal project objectives, or alternatively request an extension to by to meet the original objectives. Objective 1 was revised in December 2002, hut an extension was not requested. 49 Convenation with the Mana& Director MI. Ohemeng-Tinyase on December 15.2003 m CI seemingly believes that the approach in Ghana was already "rolied out'. becauar thc 2003 annual report la PVC clasaifier the pmlongation of capacity building at Kuapa as an "unintended benetít". Third Year Annuiil Repon (October 1, 2002- December 31, 2003). page 16 '' Lo" Pommerenke, AAAS Fellow: PVC Project Monito"ng Repon for Coniervotion Inlernitional, 25-27 July 2002 The future general strategy of cocoa interventions in Ghana \vas formulated in a Workshop in August 2003 with participation of CI Washington. CI Ghana, the Cocoa Reseach Institute of Ghana (CRIG), the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MOFAICPM), the Regional Director of Agriculture, Kuapa Kokoo, the University of Ghana, the National Cocoa & Coffee Association, and Wildlife Division. The specific purpose of the workshop was to define pnorities for program development and to strengthen alliances for the implementation of the next phase of the project. Kuapa Kokoo's Managing Director reiterated his resolve to continue the training program that had been initiated and highlighted the benefits of the project to Kuapa as an institution and to their farmers. The essential conclusions of the participants for the way fonvard uere: 0 The Farmer Field Schools shoitld be scaled up to cover a minimum of nvo thousand (2000) farmers within three years. Efforts should be made by the partnership to sustain the existing pilot farms and farmers to reap the ultimate benefits. The FFS approach should be eiterided to ilte southwesterri portiori o/ Glio~io 'S tropical rainforest, a part of the Upper Guinean Hotspot ahich is being threatened with the adoption of sun-cocoa growing practices. A minimum of 2000 farmers for a three-year period should be covered there. Various partners should also take the inihative to prepare project proposals to source /un& for specific FFS projects, in collaboration ~ith CI. 0 MOFA should take advantage of the collaborative FFS program to e~tgoge the teont to provide extension services to cocoa farmers. The Sustainoble Tree Crops Progrant (STCP) should endeavor to work in close collaboration with FFS partnership to avoid conflicts and work at cross-purposes Apart from these documentary sources, no more specific plans for the continuation of u-ork in the Kakum area were presented during the evaluation. The future activities that \vere mentioned referred to the GEF-funded Westem Region project only. Ho\\ever. the continuation of funding from Ricoh in 2001 will enable some continuity and contact with communities to be maintained in the Kakum area. 4.3.4.4 Replication of the project's approach elsewhere Following up the replication plans outlined in the 1999 proposal. in October 2002 a peer leaming workshop focusing on the agricultura1 aspects of the program was conducred in the Mexican project site (Jaltenango) with participants from CI-Peni (Proyecto Cafe Orginico Alto Tambopata), CI-Costa Rica (Proyecto AMISCONDE), CI-México (Proyecto Cafe Chiapas), the Biosphere Reserve El Triunfo. the Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSCR). and CI-Washington. Invited representatives from Colombia could not anend. The workshop \vas to exchange experiences in the different projects and create a shared vision about the \va' fonvard to design a "strategy model", replicable in other coffee gowing areas. In So\-ember 2002 these projects were outlined in more detail in a proposai to Starbucks for a netv cooperation agreement" and later in February 2003 in the proposal to CS.4ID for he "Conservation Coffee Alliance" mentioned earlier. In addition to the lines of action explained above for Mexico. CI want to replicate their conservation agroforestry approach in Costa Rica. Panama and Peru. In Costa Rico the Alliance would underiake. with 2,500 or more farmers on about 25.000 hectares of coffee, the following: !' Starbucks and Cmsewaiion Intemarional: Achkbinp Scu Scale in Cotfee 3rd Conwnaiion A pmwi !o Wu Coz?-e Cm.pm!. Sovemk ZMZ. A nec (rhinil Memorandum ofL~ndmwding utlh S&ks uas rigned in .Auwt ?M> o Formulating a local set of best practices for Conservation Coffee for the Amistad Biosphere Reserve; expanding the agricultura1 training program to include coffee cultivation techniques; working through the local offícers of the Ministry of Food and Agnculture, the Alliance would train local extension officers as best practices community promoters; o introducing a system of integrated farm management planning and review that uses the community-based promoters to establish and evaluate participating farmers' annual targets; increasing farmers' access to capital, to make low interest loans available to tbe farmer cooperatives and strengthen the existing community's credit funds; o establishing channels for participating farmers to access new market opportunities that can be linked to their adoption of the best practices for Conservation Coffee; o evaluating project performance and impacts to provide measures of project success. In Panama, the initiative involves 2,000 farmers and 10,000 hectares and is comprised of the following major components: o Defining local best practices for Conservation Coffee for La Amistad Biosphere Reserve within Panama; o establishing an agricultura1 training program; o creating a comprehensive farm management plan and evaluation system that employs specially trained cooperative members; providing farmers with the access to credit, and o developing systems to provide market access for farmers who are adopting the Conservation Coffee best practices. In Peru, the Alliance is currently working with 1200 farmers on 3,400 hectares of coffee fields on: o o o . o Developing local best practices for Conservation Coffee for the Sandia Valley; expanding the agricultural training program working with the local chapters of the cooperative in training farmers who have excelled in applying the conservation best practices as community promoters; coordinating the farm planning and evaluation process to include the Conservation Coffee best practices; improving access to credit and diversifying the sources of finance available to the participating farmers; developing reliable channels for accessing market opportunities so participating farmers have several options for selling their coffee. In Colombia CI is already working with 168 farmers on approximately 2,500 acres of coffee and the Colombian Coffee Federation in the Deparhnent of Valle de Cauca to conserve the cloud forest of the Serranía de las Paraguas . Aside from that, CI is explonng the possibility of a future conservation coffee project in Northern Sumatra and the CCCP has started providing technical assistance to the CI counhy program for the assessment and design process 4.4 Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Program Effectiveness 4.4.1 Lessons leamed The following statements are drawn from recent project documents and represent Cl's present vision of the experience gained within the three year penod of the PVC grant. They refer, consequently, to items which, at the planning stage of the project, had been assumed differently or had not, or in a different way. been taken into account. Items. including fundamentally important ones, that belonged to the strategy from the beginning - and are not lessons leamed during the program - , are not mentioned in this context. These lessons have been intemalised by CI and its parmers, and are aniculated for instance by the Project Design and Management System. They are supported by the evaluators and constitute a body of experience on which the future continuations:replications of the CC program will be based. The statements are grouped by "Key Result" according to the Conceptual Model for the Conservation CoffeelCocoa Program. Some additional recommendations from the evaluators are given in sechon 4.4.2 below. 1. Relevant stakeholders insti~utionalize Consen~ation CofieKocoo Srandards arad Conservarion Best Practices Any intervention in the coffee and cocoa sectors needs to be well aliped with national policies so as to avoid disturbances when launching he project. In order to acquire a realistic understanding of the nationai and local policy environment. a thorough context assessment has to be performed in the planning stage. Policies for the coffee sector and target regional institutions must be compatible with the best practices so farmers do not receive contradictory messages or disincenuves. This is the case when subsidies and other govemment actions conflict u ith the effons to make farmers adopt conservation best practices. 0 The introduction of environmental awareness and the importante of agroforestry and biodiversity-friendly production practices into the mindset of private and public stakeholders such as Govemment agencies, NGOs, cooperatives and porential private semce providers is a long term process and cannot be fully achieved in three years. Intervention strategies to promote the institutionalisation of Best Practices are best developed via a network of stakeholders such as the Consewation Coffee Sework in Mexico, or the informal "Cocoa Nehvork built around the Kakum project in Ghana. 2. Extension Service Providers promote and al ira te the adoprion of CBP Selecrion ofpartners/sen.ice providers At the planning stage a thorough assessrnent of technical capacities, motivation interests and political influence of potential parmers should be conducted to select those that respond to farmers' needs. Cooperatives as senice providers have to be or become transparent. democratic organisations to ensure that the project's benefits reach the farmers. 0 Clear agreements regarding the scope of work and responsibilities of each partner have to be in place prior to the start of any project ach\-ities. Cooperatives cannot be effective senice providers unless the relationship beni-een their social and business objectives is clear. Extension systems and Best Practices The change of traditional cultivation practices is a long-tenn process (see evaluators' remark on this item in recommendations). In terms of conservation outcomes, a community approach has advantages over partnership with cooperatives for technical as well as social reasons. These advantages must be balanced against those of paanenng with producer organisations. The practices required of farmers must be both scientifically sound and economically attractive if they are to be adopted. They should be based on the local context and defined with the full and active participation of local farmers. The adoption of best practices by farmers requires high quality cervices which are well adapted to local conditions and use participative research methods. Existing extension systems generally have to be strengthened first before they can effectively promote conservation practices. Receipt of benefits and se~ces must be linked to farmer performance in adopting the conservation best practices through ongoing farm planning and evaluation by extension officers, combined with regular independent audits. Ongoing training of farmers in the conservation best practices is required if they are to tmly understand and properly use these new agricultura1 techniques and methodologies. Farmer Field Schools in their configuration in Mexico as well as in Ghana have proven successful. However, potential for improvement of their cost-efficiency has not been fully exploited.3. Providers of commerciulisation services support farmers who adopt CBP in accessing market opportunities Market for services Fanners should have a variety of opportunities to access se~ces and benefits necessary and conducive to adopting conservation coffee best practices in a competitive service market. The degree of democratic control of farmers over decision making in their organisation is decisive in determining the extent to which benefits are being passed on to them. Cost recoveiy o Appropnate cost recovery mechanisms are critica1 for the sustainability of se~ces and set standards for farmers to evaluate the quality of services they receive. SeMce fees must be based on realistic cost analyses. o Fees should be phased in as soon as the value of services is starting to be perceived by clients. Export sewices Cooperatives are not efficient exporters. Sustainability depends on the use of professionals in the field (see evaluators' remark on this item in recommendations). Business Planning Business Planning can identify fraud and mismanagement and connect credit applications to real needs. Business plans take a long time until they are accepted and used as an instmment for monitonng and decision making. 4. Financia1 irisrituriom provide access to capital for CBP furniers and ro semire providen Irregular Govemment subsidised credit distons the market and leads to farmers organisations' building up of debts. Secure financing allows cooperatives to gow and shmulates savings. Credit needs to be pan of an integrated package. 5. Coffee indusrv provides reliable niarket opponirriiries for farrners ~ho adopr CBP Bridging the gap beiween producers and buyers is a fundamental first step in developing long-term, mutually beneficia1 relationships. Coffee quality and consistency is the most critical factor and driver in promoting ecological, economic and social sustainability. Full transparency in the supply chain is critical to ensunng economic benefits are being transferred to producers. (See evaluators' remark on this item in recommendations.) Consumers can be influenced to make powerful purchasing decisions if they have sufficient information. Pnvate-sector partners have the ability to reach an extensive audience and can build awareness of the critical issues related to coffee.'cocoa areas and biodivenity conservation. The success of "Shade Grosn Mexico" dernonstrates that in-store promotions and media campaigns can increase sales, but not necessarily sustain them. Innovative. multifaceted promotions are essential to the products' long-term success. Quality can be achieved by eficient feedback of technical expenice and market information through the entire marketing chain. 4.4.2 Evaluators' recornrnendations for CI and partner organisations with regard to progam effectiveness 4.4.2.1 Recornmendations for DC That CI continues to support Agroforestry Enterprise Development appropriate to forest conservation, as exemplified by the Coffee and Cocoa progams. in locations where commodity crops are already growing over substantial areas of buffer zones. That commodity crop enterprise development suppon is seen by CI as a long term process, of at least 30-15 years duration, because of the need to chanp long held panems of behaviour, and because of the innate long term nature of me crop cycles and habitat restitution. That CI accepts that invesnent will be considerable over at least the iirst five years until some stability is achieved in the perception of shade gronn as a valuable concept. That CI encourages its partners to take a long term view too, and to have patience. especiaily with respect to the speed with which new schemes are innoduced for example changes to the purchasing chain. That any development of a new. all-encompassing database rheme at CI Headquaners for stonng project information, does not delay or inhibir best use being made of the large quantities of data already collected, for example in Mexico. That for future projects involving large-scale data collection, relevant staff at headquarters are trained - in addition to those in-country - in the use of the chosen database program (be it a commerciai product like Microsoft Access or a bespoke CI program); that the system designed is appropnate for the type of information envisaged and, as far as possible, has sufficient flexibility to accept likely changes or new developments in the program; and that the costs of designing and servicing databases are budgeted for. 4.4.2.2 Recommendations for the Mexico project The Mexico project has a series of proven tools and procedures at their disposal: 1) a set of CC Best Practices; 2) the training of farmers as informal extension agents; 3) farmer field schools for the extension of practices; 4) validation of practices in farmers' fields (participatory research); 5) evaluation of farm plans as a means to secure the conservation effect and to verify compliance with CCBP more easily and cheaply; 6) sound information system for farm monitoring. including a GIS to relate farms to the Reserve 7) linkage of groups of farmers with clients securing a guaranteed market with attractive prices; 8) export operations via specialised enterpises instead of direct export; 9) credit mechanisms. The evaluators commend the Mexican component for these achievements, especially for the decision to take CI's intervention back to facilitating the expansion of conservation se~ces markets rather than providing these services directly the transfer of their technical services to an independent for-profit organisation the expansion of the target group to medium and large farmers and the implication of the cooperatives in management of the Reserve However, these plans can onlv succeed if the following conditions are met: Support for the ongoing activities is continued for at least another 3-4 years. Currently, the number one requirement to gain the necessary momentum for sustainability is scaling up. The parameters are laid out in the EMDAP study, but the model and its assumptions from July 2003 have to be verified and updated. A realistic continually updated plan of operations and thorough monitonng of the growth path and the set financia1 targets have to be put in place. Fees for services of commercial or suppliers at profitable pnces as proposed in the EMDAP study is the most direct route to sustainability and should be maintained. The support of the project by CI's regional structure is essential. Forceful and swifi decision making is required, delegated as much as possjble to the local project level. In the short term, export services should be provided by an expenenced institution (such as AMSA at the moment). However, in the long term, cooperatives should again be given this opportunity for which further training will be necessary. Under the section on market oppominities above (4.4.1, section 5), CI propases that full transparency in the supply chain is critica1 to ensunng that economic benefits are being transferred to producers. A nder could be added here to the effect that openness should apply equally up the chain (millers, exporters, roasters) as well as down through the cooperatives. Also in the area of bndging the gap between producers and buyers, some consideration should be given to the amount of time to be allowed for transparency to be attained, and for new marketing schemes to be introduced. bearing in mind the differences in pace and degree of sophistication of the southern cooperatives and the northern business cultures. Feedback from CABS, Washington, is essential in determining the way forward, in collaboration with the Reserve and other parmers, on biological monitoring and its relation to enthusing producers and their families about biodiversity. 4.4.2.3 Recommendations for the Ghana project As the 2003 report to PVC states, "the rural cocoa farming communities in Ghana abound in trainable talents, which can be tapped to sustain a farmers' extension training prograrn. \\lile the approach requires a substantial investment in the start-up phase, once it is rolled out through trained farmer leaders and extension agents, it can cost-effectively reach large numbers of farmers. " The Ghana project has, as the Mexico project, acquired a lot of experience during :he 3 yean of the grant period but it cannot be considered "rolled out". It has to its credit, among others. (1) an outline of Conse~ation Cocoa Best Fractices; (2) experience in training of farmers as informal extension agents; (3) the farmer field schools for the extension of practices; and (4) the validation process of practices in farmers' fields (participatory research) In view of the lack of monetary incentives for farmers and Kuapa it is necessan that CI regaiti the initiative iin this project which seems to have been nansferred to Kuapa after the end of the grant period; to hire a full-time project coordinator with a finance and business background nith full decision power and operational independence within the framework of his terms of referente; to undertake a sustainability study as it was done in Mexico that would analyse different models of íinancing including other than full fees for services. to seriously consider the possibility of pumng particular emphasis on suppon for new plantings on abandoned cocoa fields and biodiversity numring therein, while reiping back shade reduction in existing cocoa until more informarion is collected on shade versus yield relationships; other best practices for existing cocoa would be maintained with special attention to frequent harvesting, the yaranteed yield enhancer. that any future collaborahon with the Sustainable Tree Crops Program bear in mind the preceding recommendation, that emphasis be put on new plantings on abandoned cocoa íields wherever possible, with increased biodiversity as a component; that the conservative and flexible approach shown by CRlG regarding appropriate shade tree density should be reflected in the messages Wven to minen and farmers; to take up again the initiative in the area of desirabie and undesirable shade tree ~pes. and in formulating, with CRIG, Washington and the producers, the direction for urgently needed, essential research on Conservation Cocoa agroforesrry; although in 4.4.1.2 CI states that the change of traditional cultivation practices is a long term process, the enthusiasm which CI reports in Ghana on behalf of farmers for the adoption of new planting methods and increased harvesting frequency is really noticeable. Thus, the recommendation here is not to mle out the possibility of rapid change just on the grounds of tradition; m to integrate monitoring into the current activities of al1 staff, especially where CI has overall reporting responsibility in activities involving partners; m that database and GIS capability is improved, including registration of al1 farms and producers involved in FFS, and their monitonng for yield, shade, cocoa condition including area of deyaded cocoa available; that brokering between the chocolate indust~ and Kuapa andlor other farmer associations be reinitiated to obtain organic/fairtrade/Conservation Cocoa premiums and negotiate with the Cocoa Board how these premiums can be made available to farmers and Kuapa in the context of the present marketing structure. 5. Program Management 5.1 The Conservation Coffee and Cocoa program's general approach to project design and management 5.1.1 Principles of project design and adaptive management The core part of the CCC program and its activities as a means to achieve conservation of biodiversity refers to agricultura1 development. Pnnciples of planning and implementation of agricultura1 development projects that have emerged over severa1 decades in the past are a useful frame of reference for the evaluation of the CCC proyam's design and management. The pnnciples standing out for their imporlance in the present context among the multitude of planning and implementation systems in this field are: involving stakeholders, performing a detailed situation analysis, ensuring a logical intervention strategy, planning for sustainability and for learning and adaptations3 The most useful tool that incorporates these principles is the Logical Framework Analysis and its associated participatory planning process, employed by many majar development agencies, research institutions and many conservation organisations including IUCN and CI's donor USAIDIPVC~~. The 1999 proposal refers to it as its basis, to~.~~ However, the methodology was not properly applied. The conservation community widely uses "adaptive management" techniques. Adapative management implies an iterative process to systematically test assumptions in order to adapt and leam. It is about continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs.56 CO-authors Salafsky, Margoluis, Redford and Robinson list the skills required for an organisation able to do effective and, therefore, successful conservation distinguishing five fundamental functional roles that a project team ''Fm one of many useful guidelines see Intmational Fund for Agricultura1 Development (IFAD): A Cuide for Prqiect M&€, Rome 2002 "A quiek, nonenhaustive U'eb search showed the following organisations applying I.opical Framework Analysis in me fom or the other: Asian Development Bank (ADB). Australian Agency foi htemational Development . BOKD CK, United Nations lnternational Labor Organiration (LO), Canadian Iniemational Developrnent Agency, Consultative Cmiup on htsmational Agriculturd Rerearch (CGIAR), hninh Derrlopment Agency (DAVIDA). Dppamnent fai International Development (DFID) LK, European Commisrion, German Society for Technical Cooperatiun (GTZ), lnteramerican Development Bank (IDB). Internarional Fund for Agticulhiral Development (LFAD), htemational Monetary Fund (LMT), htemational Service for hational Agri~~itiiral Research (ISNAR). lntemational Union for the Consewarion of Naturi (IUCN). Vew Zeoland Apcy for International Development , Sowegian Agcncy for Development Cooperation (NORAD), Regional Enviionment Centei for Cenml and Eastern Europe. SNV Urtherlands Development Organisation, Unifed Uations Economic and Social Commission for Aria and the Pacific (ESCAP), United Uations Development Program (LXDP), Cnited Nations EBvironmental Promm IlJNEP), Cnited Nations Papulation Fund (LKFPA). World Hiink (IRRD). World Conrervation Monitoring Center, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). and othcrs. " "Over the past four years CI has invested increaringly in monitoring and evaluation in order to ensure that iis pragrams are effectively pmmoting hiodivemity conservalion CSs wonitonng and Evaluation (M&E) Program has been developing an instinitional propm management system based an the logical fiarnewoik methodology and other monitoring fechmques", C16. '"ick Salafsky, Richard Margoluir. and Kent H. Redford: Lee. K: Adaptive Managernent: A Tool for Conservation Practitionerr ,1993. Salafsky, h., Margoluis. R., Redford. K.H. .Robinson. J.: Improving the Ractice ofConserration. A Conceptual Framework and Reseaich Agenda for Conservation Sciencc. NY 2002 (or organisahon or alliance) needs to fill to undertake effective adaptive management". These are: design, management, monitoring, analysis, and communications. 5.1.2 Basic assumptions failed The initial failure in plaming consisted in gemng a pan of important assumptions \\-ron@. One of the main assumption was that cooperatives would relatively easily function as the main conveyor belt for the messages and techniques the propm wanted to send to and employ with farmers. The potential diffículhes with the cooperative partners nere underestimated due to an insuficiently thorough context assessment and too rigid a mental model. in shon. the absence of a suitable planning methodology. In Mexico, cooperatives as the planned main performer of activities turned out to be controlled by their technical staff with different interests, little trusted by clients. N-ith Fraud by part of the boards andior the technical staff, high membership turnover, high internal and extemal debt, business plans on paper, no business outlook and mentality. As for the extension se~ces tofarmers, the project originally relied on the cooperati\-es technical staff. However, capacity turned out to be limited, with farmers gemng infrequent and irregular advice, incomplete course content not synchronised with operations in the field. and focussed on organic certification. In consequence, conservation techniques ~ere incorrectly applied, pests not efficiently dealt with, coffee quality threatened to remain low and the consenration message to be insuiliciently conveyed. CI, as a consequence, had to, with suong resistance from the cooperative technical staff. address the farmers directly through a modular extension propm offered by CI and ECOSUR in communities, with visits to farmers plots to improve consen-ation practices and knowledge about the reserve and conservation in general. For the monitoring of farmers' management plans to guarantee Conservation Coffee standards and quality control, the project had also relied on the internal control system of the cooperatives. It turned out that their information systems were defective, with S-ghost members", unrealistic production projections, introduction of coffee of dubious origin into the marketing chain of the cooperative ("coyotes"). linle focus on the requirements for Conservation Coffee, and farmers left in the dark about their rights and obligations. Thus, farm plaming and evaluation also had to be taken over directly by CI. diagnosing farmers and visiting their plots hvice per year, performing evaluation. controlling wet coffee processing, and estimahng harvest volume and credit needs. CI's BDS intervention approach - haining the cooperatives as "service pmidei' - had quickly failed. However, the important subsequent shifts in the approach did not lead to abandoning the cooperatives as such. Training of their staff in the mentioned areas continued and the Business Planning course was camed out as planned. However, as justified as it Has, the direct involvement led to high costs for CI through additional staff and management needs. conflicts with the technical staff of the cooperatives and it led to confusion of farmers about the roles of CI and their organisations. The problems did not end there: as explained above several times. in Sovember 2003 four of the six partner cooperatives threatened to opt out of the CI scheme because the client Starbucks' requirement to sell the product, under the same conditions. to a national buying agent it appointed, instead of the cooperatives exponing directly to them as in pre\.ious years. went against their institutional and other interests. By Januar). 2001 some of them seem to "\.Salafsky. RMargoluir. K.H. Redlord J.C. Robinron lmpmving Ihe RdCrice ofConunailai. A Cwqtua! Fruncuotl m Rae;r+. Agenda for Consenaion Science, Consenanon Biolog). Decembm ZM2. page 10 consider re-engaging, but any reduction in sales by the cooperatives will result in a delay of the Mexico project's threshold of profitability. Interestingly, one of the two Mexican cooperatives who did not vacillate in their support of the project was the indigenously based organisation Comon Yaj Nop Tic in which interests of the Board and members seem to be more integrated, perhaps also due to the fact that these cooperatives do not have any technical staffS8. In Ghana, events were similarly dramatic in the beginning. There, a small organic pilot project had been under way from 1997198 which grew into the Consemation Cocoa Agroforesiry project. The list of critena for the selection of the specific country and program sites in the proposal 1999 (Mexico-Chiapas, Kakum Park-Ghana), quoted above, stipulated that projects had to conform to CI objectives and those of the local USAID mission, but the Govemment's strategy is not even mentioned. This backfired soon afier in mid 2000, when work on the project, shortly before the inception of the grant period, ground to a temporary halt. The Government blocked CI's plans for organic cocoa and of direct export by the Kuapa c~o~erative~~. As a consequence, the planned capacity building of the local partner had to be resiricted to the development and application of the Kuapa Reference Manual and the Farmer Field Schools. No credit program was implemented, the foreseen incentive system based on quality and price differentiation became inoperative in the face of the nondismantling of the Cocoaboard , the export capacity development was no longer relevant and the partner Kuapa Kokoo suspended cooperation temporarily for some months due to quarrels about financing a vehicle and did not fulfill its reporting obligations. A more carefully negotiated agreement and delaying funding until the agreement was signed would probably have strengthened the partnership. Remarkable in this context is that wrong assumptions were made as well with regard to CI itself. The 1997 proposal had included staff positions on the leve1 of CI-Chiapas: an agicultural specialist to support the technical assistance and M&E components and a specialist in coffee qualiiy and trade to assure that coffee meets contract specifications. Local staff would report to the CI-Chiapas program director. But the regional stmcture failed to commit to the coffee project. This placed an unexpected heavy burden on the local team, especially in terms of fund raising which would have been one of the tasks of the CI-Chiapas office and diminished the team's overall effectiveness. Ironically, cooperation could be more readily secured from Mexican Govemment institutions than from CI's own regional office. The project thus had to be steered in its day-to-day operations directly by CED from Washington DC. It has remained somewhat enigmatic to the evaluators as to what could keep the Mexican CI office for over two years from providing supervisoiy support to the work in the El Triunfo site. 5.1.3 The absence of a suitable planning methodology in the beginning So, in both project sites a whole string of assumptions had failed. The evaluators are quick to acknowledge the speed and the rigor with which the mentioned adjustments were made and this constitutes a merit in itself. The current plaming process used by the program team is, as we will see, now on its way to grow into an excellent tool. However, for the benefit of readers not so familiar with the problems the team has faced and overcome, it is worthwhile analysing the root of these difficulties in some detail. '* Some indigenously based organiratians in Menico like ISMAM have had rcmarkabls succers due lo a hybrid fom of organiíational smimire that combines apeas of tmditional Mayan lndian comrnuniV dcmocracy with the characteristics of a modcm corpoiation. Ni&, R.. "Organic Ap'culmre und Globalization: A Maya Assaciative Corporatian in Chiapai. \lexico." Human Orgoni~ufion, 56 (1997). 427- 436, quoted in L.T. Raynoldi: Povrrty Alleviation Through Participation in Fair Trade ('offee Netwarks, Fort Collini, March 2002, page 6 "Ghana cacoa rraden wanted orzanic coma and md moved Kuapa lo grow org;rnic coffee with their famien. This flew in the face of the govemment and CRIG md praroked thr ban of organic cocoa. It seems that CI hui11 on rxpectalions !ha! Govemment would allaw Kuapa lo erpart up to 30% ofthe crop directly. In principie, as far as planning was concerned, the program was "entitled" to start fiom a ven low level, because the creahon of this capacity u-as precisely one of the major objectix-es of the Washington component to be achieved by the end of the implementation period in 2003. However, in the beginning much more use could have been made. with linle cost of the broad experience of development organisations outside the conservation community or other conservation organizations such as ECN. In consequence, the program could have achieved even more of its remarkable results (explained above in detail, see section 4.2) if some additional and different questions had been asked in the beginning. The program would have then, in some important areas, proposed more realistic tools and would have been planned for a more realistic length of time and or more easily achievable objectives. Sustainability and exit strategy would not have been the problems with which CI is presently shuggling. Employing a "second generation" Logical Framework Analysis with its strong involvement of local stakeholders and intensive participatory approach would have brought more insight into the real conditions at the sites. A more systematic stakeholder analysis could have provided answers to questions such as": What is the organisation's agenda ? Ulat is the organisation's conmbution to the problem? What is the organisation's conmbution to the solution? How well does the organisation represent its stake (credibility issue. level of representation, power base)? 1s the organisation prepared to negotiate with other stakeholders in order to build consensus? What do we need from this organisation? \!'ha: can be offered to this ~rganisation?~' It would have clarified, for example, the Govemment of Ghana's stance on liberalisation and organic cocoa, or the configuration of power and decision making within the Mexican cooperatives. Crises like the quarrels about the marketing scheme in 2003 are, as experience in mral development projects shows, common, and a more systematic participaron reconshuction of the underlying social and behavioral program logic in "if-then ... and ..." propositions and the analysis of why which actors are assumed to do xvhat to make the program a success6' would have prevented the planners from believing that in two or thm years the cooperatives would thnve as successful businesses. The repon on the first socio-economic baseline survey in Mexico in 2001 notes chis absence of an explicit panicipatory approach and complains that the survey itself had to stand in "as an agent of the project to involve people more actively, to improve their understanding of the project, and to transfer and clan@ the ideas and proposal once again.'"' As for Gliana, the proposal 1999 was alledgedlyM the result of several years of dirussion. strategy development and the joint implementation of a pilot organic propm. However. planning had gone ahead without commimng the Government and its institutions (CRIG and Cocoa Board), the approval of which was essential, firmly to the project srratea. lnstead of preparing the stage suficiently during the activities of the pre\-ious organic cocoa project nying to get them on board was left to the implementation phase as one of the actikities under * ESCAP: Guidelim on Srraapc Manag-1 and Planntng o¡ Ihc En= Sccioi. 1 \ 002. pp 19 . S\\ I\nkbhl'r kic;Ormmt Organiraiiw): Smegic En\,mnmenial Anai)~ir. pgc 3 l ris: ^' CI Saaicgv Handbook. Chaptn \-l. pge 14 -A gmd undending o¡ ihr rmcnire. mandua. pollcrr capacitia d ;rmmi legirla~ion oflhe insliiuiions uhich gowm rmvrce use and cmie and mmge pmxecicd arear 6 ob%i~lrl) mdirpenubk- " F. Lecuu: Arsumpnonal Anai5is. Log Fme Analpa and oiher mzlhodr ofmonrmining u* eialusiion pmgam bgic. pzuim "' Anhur CJ. van kuuen: %lo-Economlc Sludy of Househoid Lerei Impm oi Cnrnm~onCofiec Produnion <>-. Uctica~ Jaltemgo. Chiapas, Wirico and Bluefieldr Sicaragm.Decemhr 2001. pge U) Section DI9 Lwal Pmmhip derelopmeni objective 3, although the proposal explicitly states that "Cocobod support of organic certification is important to the eventual export of certified pdu~t"~~. Reconstructing their mental maps in the form of an "objectives tree", the program designers would have been wamed of critica1 areas before, instead of frantically iterating adaptive management cycles during implementation, changing horses in full gallop. To make the hidden assumptions explicit, a simple and efficient procedure could have been the construction of a detailed cause-effect diagram asking not only "IF ... THEN ...", but expanded "IF.. . AND.. . THEN.. ."-questions, looking for additional assumptions (boundary conditions that might inhibit or hamper (or favour) the project once it was undenvay. (See 2 Figure 1) . Unfortunately, on the USAIDíPVC logical framework mairix fom the once standard fourth column on assumptions had been eliminated and the proposal outline did not provide for a corresponding chapter either, so the planners were not encouraged to concentrate on this. Also, in a systematically applied Logical Framework Approach with a high degree of participation and contributions from stakeholders, hidden assumptions, of course, come easier to light than when establishing the Framework Matrix as a desk job. The agroforestry program (and other smaller CI-projects before), overlapped considerably with general rural development projects in which the development community had aquired vast expenence and excellent project planning procedures dunng the last 40 years. For the outsider it is difficult to discem why CI, a decade after its foundation and numerous activities in the field of NTFPs, still operated without a proper planning tool for this ambitious project. One reason might be CI's priority setting dilemma at the time of planning (199812000) to either dedicate institutional capacity to the "upper layers" of their objectives tree, that is, the definition of targets in biodiversity conservation, intervention levels (species, protected areas, lands~a~eslcomdors)~~ and regionalisation efforts through Centers for Biodiversity Conservation (CBCs), or to the "lower layers" of project planning and performance monitonng, an organisational need that had begun to be felt about the time when the preparatory activities in Ghana and Mexico for the CCCP started. From 1996 work had been going on in CI to establish monitonng systems (impact and performance) which subsequently - and logically - had developed over the years into a set of planning and decision tools, largely shaped along the lines of the Logical Framework Approach, propped up with other planning tools, published in 2001 as CI's "Strategic Management Approach" (SMA). However, the system failed to be introduced as CI's standard for planning and monitonng and was shelved, apparently because it did not address the "higher" conservation outcomes sufficiently. The development of the CCCP shows how the intncacies and difficulties of project planning and implementation at the field leve1 were underestimated. The achievement of objectives that largely depend on individual andor social behavioral pattems cannot be predicted with the same degree of certainty as in deterministic models of the natural sciences. Although far from perfect, the majority of the SMA procedures, ready for application at the time, if it had been absorbed by staff and encouraged by management. would have helped the program's planners to fully understand the social, economic and political drivers behind threats and opportunities for conservation in both sites, and to launch their joumey into the "biological, ,968 . social, economic, and institutional lowlands of conservation practice in a more realistic " Loghme Matrix and sections D I7,and 23. Objective 3: Chanaian Govemment supponi implementation ofcoeoa agroforeshy practiees that benefit eonsewation. activit). 3.1: lnitiate (sic!) dialogue with key govemment institutions and individuali and identify amas of project collaboration and expansion. " Figure 1 depiets the cause-effcct linkp for the original shategic madel. not for the Ghana case where it is not the pnce but the gain in praductivit). which dnves the farmern " Conservation hternational: "Zrro Biodiversity Loss", Washington Febniary 2002. pasim UU.Salafsky, R.Margoluis, K.H. Redfard. I.G. Robinron : Tmproving the Practice af Conseivation, A ConcepNal Framework and Research Agendafor Conseivation Science, Conscwation Biology. December 2002 way. As of today, the general lines, although without the necessary detail. have indeed bepn to be taken up in CI's manuals such as the Manual on Business Planning for Environmental Enterpnses and CI's Strategy Handbook that is currently in elaborationb9. In 199912000 however, not familiar with tied and tested procedures such as modem versions of the Logical Framework Analysis with its different steps. the planners had to make their way through the compulsory USAID Logical Framework Mahx form, rel>lng on implicit assumptions or assumptions that had not been sufficiently scnitinsed and thus led to the formulation of objectives and activities unsupported by the siiuation on the ground. 5.1.4 Adaptive Planning as a substitute ? After all, was not there the consewation community's "adaptive management approach to deal with difficulties during project implementation ? "Because there is only limited knowledge conceming the role of diversified agricultural systems in bid¡\-ersity consewation," states the DIP, "CI nill employ an adaptive management approach that \vil1 identify best practices and lessons leamed for the specific cultural, social. political. and ecological conditions of the target area."" If in the course of a project intended targets or the employed methods or actixities pro\-e inappropnate or unfeasible in the real context, they have to be changed. This is for the good of the project, but the number of such "iterations" should, of course, be kept to a minimum. Adaptive management should not be a "random trial-and-error process. Instad. it involves fint thinking about the situation at your project site, developing a specific set of assumptions about what is occumng and what actions you might be able to use to affect these e\-ents."-! This can be best achieved with a series of proven, systematic tools such as LFA. As a consequence of this failure, the results of the program were not achieved on the desirable least-cost path." However, in spite of al1 these drawbacks in the beginning, the project team in headquaners and in the field, once the project had started, quickly and with dedication and common sense caught up with reality and built the necessary capacity in difficult conditions. In a \va).. the>- pulled themselves out of the swamp by their bootstraps. leaniing and intniediarefi. applying a series of lessons, especially answering to the need of a new project design and management system. The adaptive management approach was definitely not lost on theni. At the end of this program which is defined as a pilot phase, a full set of planning instruments has been developed, introduced in the re-planning workshop in June 2002 in Mexico and subsequently field tested there (see section 5.3 below). Figure 1: The "IF ... AND ..., THEN ..." Objectives Tree and some cntical "AND ..." conditions 5.1.5 Costeffectiveness of the program The DIP of Apnl2001 held out a prospect of "developing activities that will better drau upon the institution's extensive capacity in economics by collaborating more closely u-ith CI's Resource Economic Program". Several activities in this respect have been undertaken, however. more could have been done taking into account the different ways in which economics can contribute to appraisal and decision making. In this respect it is useful to clarify the concepts of effectiveness and efficiency. Effecriwr~ess measures the extent to which the project has attained its purpose and is expressed by the ratio: result achieved i result planned. Section 4.2.1 above (Major successes, challenges and constraints in achieving each objective at the three sites) argues in terms of effectiveness. which answers the question "are we doing (he righr rhrrig - the right measures - to achieve the goal ?" Or in the words of CI's Strategy Handbook: "1s our strategy making a difference where we are working ?"-' Eficieriq establishes a relation behveen the results achieved and the amounr of resources used. It can be expressed by the ratio: output achieved ' input applied. and answen the question "are we doing the thing riglir ?", or: is it cheap or expensive what w-e have achieved'? "Cost-effechveness" means, in fact, efficiency; it is a misnomer, although widely used. 90th concepts are ofien carelessly substituted for one another. The DIP is a peninent example for the lack of differentiation: the Mexican cooperatives, according to objective 1. were "to operate as effective businesses that promote conservation", whereas Kuapa in Ghana w-as '70 operate as an effective and eflcient business" (original objective 1 ), in both sites the parmen were supposed to do exactly the same. Whereas effectiveness - the degree to which goals are achieved - has dominated thinking. discussion and activities of the program staff throughout and, in many areas with remarkable success, too little work has been dedicated to the efiieriq aspects of the propm in its different parts, for example the Farmer Field Schools, and as a whole. During the elaboration of the proposal 1999 an anempt at financial viability was made, but restricted to the provision of senices. A state-of-the-an feasibility study that included, apan from the financial sustainability of service providers, a financial and economic analysis of the project as a u-hole to justify the investment, was not done. One of the reasons might have been that the Business Development model normally assumes that the cost of establishing the market for senices is subsidised and that only the costs of delivering ori-going servires are borne by the ~narket'~. Another reason could be that this program was considered a pilot program uith a predominantly organisational and technical focus. Also, the timeframe of the CCC hogram was, in spite of much experience gathered in the preceding years, so tight that most of the attention w-enr to the technical and institutional, that is, effectiveness aspects, leaving linle time for establishing and monironng its financial and economic efiiciency. More anention should have been given early in the program - and should be !$ven in the future - to financial and economic analysis, as - - CI Smregv Handbmk, OEtober I7 IhaR page 15 ' Alerandra O U~ehlbradi 2nd \.lar! Mc\a IILO) LMrloping Commercial \tarheu tor Business k\eiopnsnl Smm T￾Septernber 2001. pge 16 o an informed selection of conservation strategies and tools for sustainable conservation action of any kind requires knowledge about the amounts and the ratio of their respective benefits and costs, including investment; the financia1 self-sufficiency of CBOs determines their sustainabiliiy; 0 public investors demand financial and economic justification of projects from the point of view of the society as a whole; pnvate investors from the business community which contribute an important part of the funds think and proceed with an economic rationale and would certainly appreciate economic reasoning. CI as an institution did make efforts in the field of applied environmental economics. It has contributed to the development of a GIS based analysis tool (TAMARIN) 75 that assists planning teams to design scenarios for comdor construction and to evaluate these in terms of their economic consequences. TAMARIN shapes and selects projects (comdors) according to severa1 parameters one of which is opportunity cost of land which reflects the economic benefits of the crops grown on it, such as coffee or cocoa. Environmental benefits enter in the form of an Environmental Benefit Index, however, they are not quantified in monetary terms and not set against costs. TAMARIN is, therefore, a unif cost approach, usually called "cost￾effectiveness analysis" - again a misnomer as it deals with efíiciency - , in which the investment decision is based on the comparison to alternative scenarios or other projects. It is often not easy to find a suitable standard of comparison apart from alternatives in the same region. Although costs are referred to area (hectares). environmental benefits might be different like apples and orange~.~~ Without going to the length of a TAMARIN analysis a first step to economic reasoning could be to calculate unit costs per beneficiary farmer or per hectare -- and to compare this value to other coffee or cocoa agroforestty programs in other areas. ' A more convincing appraisal method is Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Coffee and cocoa are important economic activities which create tangible (monetary) revenues, that offset not only the cost of production of cocoa or coffee for farmers but might possibly also, from the point of view of the society as a whole, cover the cost of the conservation effort, such as the investment for the introduction and initial support of the necessary services. Additionally, certain conservation benefits such as the creatiodprotection of carbon sinks, ecotourism oppominities, avoided dam siltation etc. could he converted into tangible economic benefits. CBA renders various profitability criteria (Net Present Value, BenefitICost Ratio, Interna1 Rate of Retum) which might appeal especially to the business community fiom which a considerable part of funds for conservation is being raised and who think in economic terms. A project for the conservation of biodiversity that is economically profitable on the milestone leve1 does not need to be justified in terms of ethical, "philanthropic", or social considerations - - '' World Bank Reseaich (hup. CI/CAB el al.: Toolbor af Applied Memcs and Analysis oSRegional lncentives (TAMARN), December 2003. '' There is also a tool under the name of Rapid Assessment of Canrervation Eeonomics (RACE) \rhich might be connected to TAMARIN, it might even te the same. Despite some effmls only a very general description eould be obtaincd from CI: "a ... RACE in specifically designed to identify the test strategies for achieving iomdor milestanes in an expen-based nnd panicipatory rnanner ... Typical outputs ofa RACE are spatial analysis on cmnt and future threats business as usual analyris - bared on intc~ated socia-econornic data and spatial analysis, analysis of the incentives and constrainti driving the behavior of stakeholden ami decision-makers. recommendations an the suite of conservation interventians necessary to deliver corridor milestones and msessments of likely social, cultural and economic impactr." 77 A quick (and di*) attempt can be made: leaviog the USS 659,243 for capaciry building in DC mide, US$ 645,925 in Merico plus USS 412.195 in Ghana for a total af about 1300 famers'5 (family sire)=6500 beneliciaries unit costs in the CCCP amount to 163 US%heficiary. This ir a range &en obsewed in rural developrnent prqlects (the evalumon of 34 NGO-applications for EC funds in 2003, undenaken by one ofthe cvaluators, reiulted in unit costs averaging around 200 Fiiros'bmeficiary). niis compar¡son, ofcourse, is not valid, as the benefits of these prujects are of a very diffeient kind and cannat be compared. Ad - I Fcbnian. XWI. .Aczn Ghun. b?~ Apparenlly. a companron of [he financia1 cosa and hneiis oíreplaniing an ewrimg agmg cocoa ¡m utih opmq oia m caiu S- m previourly wrub\aled fomL and he convenion of he fami lo an altcmative cmp mil paln "1 uaí smed mi Fmm lh& Soct+xcmmii Monironng and hpan .kressmenl Worlishop in Februu) ZOOl only an unlinirheri drah could k obmncd no documnu u:b I* i:d@ calculationr could be found due io rime connmna. results is high, and it is suggested that every effort should be made to get more accurate data during the course of the project. The team did, however, never get around to do that or have it been done. In March 2001, a baseline studv was undertaken to map out the socio-economic factors affecting the cocoa farms around the Kakum National ~ark" . As above, apart from cocoa production costs, no data at fam level were gathered that could inform about farrners' ability and willingness to pay for services. In mid-2001 CI and Kuapa staff undertook a gender-focussed assessment of altemative economic activities of the Consewation Cocoa Agroforestry Program in the Kakum Consewation ~rea." This qualitative interview-based study did not produce any numeric data which could have been used to compare the relative profitability of crops and traditional production methods with Consewation Cocoa. In August 2003, a suwey of the ~roiect's im~acts on households was reportedS2. The introduction stresses the changes to be expected by the project's activities: cost of production, profitability, attitude towards the environment, adoption of the production practices, and change in productivity. Disappointingly, no data whatsoever are presented on cost of production and profitability of farm operations. Thus, in Ghana, unfortunately, the main economic issue - attractiveness of Conservation Cocoa as opposed to other crops in the framework of the whole farm - remained essentially unresolved. Also the question: Can extension services be supported without the benefit of an organic premium ? remained unanswered . 5.1.5.2 Atternpts at economic analysis in Mexico In Mexico the situation is much better. The project dealt with economic analysis in two ways: (1) an estimate, albeit unsatisfactory, of the project's economic impact on farm households was made in the Socio-Economic Suweys, and (2) the financial sustainability and financial independence of the project was analysed in the framework of a study financed by USAID's Institute of Intemational Education's Emerging Markets Development Advisors Program (EMDAP) program. An economic, as opposed to financial, Cost Benefit Analysis of the project as a whole, however, was not underiaken. The results of the Socio-Economic Suweys 2002 and 2003 are unsatisfactory in this field, as the quoted "profitability" ("rentabilidad") data refer, in fact, to gross revenues, that is, production costs are not consideredS3. The suweys do not tell to which degree consewation management practices, for example labour intensive practices and shade management, influence economic outcomes and how Conservation Cocoa fares in comparison to less biologically friendly production schemes. However, the ten-months EMDAP study by Han% Haase on the sustainability and financial independence of the CC Program in Chiapas, went to the Iieart of the sustainability problem. Triggered by the need to determine the price of sewices CI was to charge the cooperatives, it focussed on the fundamental question, whether or not the program's se~ce provider model under the proposal's assumptions and in the conditions of the Chiapas project was financially feasible - it tumed out that it was not. The EMDAP study is, in general, of excellent quality and its drawback is that it was contracted toa late. It should have been done at the very " Center far the Development af People (CEDEP): lmpacting the Cocoa lndushy in Bobi. K~uwa, Abeka, NkwantdAntokrom and Kuanua (Kakum Conservation Area) using Panicipatory Rapid Appraisal. Kumasi March 200 1 " Repn on the Assesrment of Aiternative Economic Activities of the Conservarion Cocoa Agroforestry Program in the Kakum Conservation Area, Accra August 200 1 " YY~ B. OEei-Owusu: Household Survey 2003. Household Level lmpacn of Consenation Cocoa-Agroforertty Project August 30.2003 " see Section 4.2.1.2, M-liidicatar 2.2. foomote begiming so that the assumptions of the model could have been taken over into the plan of operations. They would have constituted a much safer basis and would have barred over￾optimistic targets. 5.2 Management Approach Ghana / Quality and Status of Detailed lmplementation Plan (DIP) 5.2.1 Clarity and adequacy of the objectives. indicators, baseline studies and activities The Ghana Detailed Implementation Plan as conceived in the beginning ran aground immediately due to the errors in some main assumptions. Objective 1: "Kuapa operates as an effective and eficient business" became obsolete as the political and legal prerequisites for Kuapa's operahon as an independent exponer did not come about. With it, the enhre Business Development Services concept uith its financia1 self￾sufficiency goal for service providers failed and the project's operations had to be resmcted to capacity building in the agticultural field. Objective 3: "Conservation Cocoa Agroforestry Program (CCAP) Standards defined and adopted by Kuapa" turned out to be overly ambitious due to a misinterpretarion of the readiness of the Govenunent' and important inshtutions in the sector to adopt organic cocoa farming in general, and could not be completed in the project's timeframe. So objective 3 \vas reduced to the contents of one of its sub-objectives, by which the project would m to convince "political decision makers at local and national level (to) recognize the value of Conservation Cocoa". The inclusion of objective 4 that, in fact, refers to a managenterir rool, is, as pointed out aboveW, methodologically out of place. Moreover, aithough its formulation: "Project parnien apply adaptive management approach" was taken up as a popular term in the conservahon community, it was not logically thought through, as the indicaton refer only io one half of the management cycle, the learning part. The other half, applicahon of the learnt, is missing. This objective was not changed and meant simply that monitonng systems should be in place. The level of detail of the cause-effect logic was insufficient and did not allow to den\-e sub￾objectives and outputs and the corresponding activities to achieve them. A senes of indicators disappeared along uith the objective, other disappeared or were changed wben they turned out to be inappropnates', that is, they did not measure what they were supposed to, were not complete (not "SMART" enough). or too expensive to apply. As for baseline studies, an addition to the CEDEP report mentioned above was camed out by the project sometime in 2001 (survey penod not given) which provided useful reference information on 100 or so farms for the habitat survey including shade density and type. desirable or undesirabie species according to the farmer. soil types, weediness. pests and diseases, cocoa heigbt and stem measurements for a range of cocoa ages. Further information collected (at the same time?) as a base for the household survey covered anitudes to Kakum. biodiversity conservation, performance of the Kuapa RDC, and current agronomic practices amongst others. As the databases for the survey infonnation were not seen, it is not clear whether al1 the detailed categones of information listed in the blank forms were in fact recorded. The household survey reports on just a Fraction of the questions proposed. One S See mica 4.2 inducrion and 42.13. DIP oblcctxe4. " See derails in Annes 7.2 Onginal PVC Objenives. Lndicatorr and Ad~urrmns during thc irnploncntmon pmod oithc CCC Se alw rmion 4.2 I fundamental omission in suhsequent reports was that for cocoa yield year by year for each farm. There was indecision ahout how to record yield, and it appears this was not resolved. The activitiesltasks planned for achieving the surviving and new objectives were clear and adequate in the main, though real difficulty would have heen experienced in accomplishing to a single time schedule those comprising elements with different time scales on them, especially when some extended to 3 or more years minimum. This applies pariicularly to the validation of Conservation Cocoa hest practices, where it was assumed that complicated practices such as shade manipulation, which may take years to have an effect if it is through ring-harking, would he validated in a little over a year, concurrently with relatively simple compansons like polybag planting versus hare-root planting. The grouping together of the hest practices for validation, ohscured important agronomic realities and clouded the package. 5.2.2 The DIP's utility as a management tool for CI, their partners and PVC It is evident that the Ghana DIP, under these circumstances, was initially less useful as a management tool for CI, their partners, and PVC, than it could have been. As in Mexico, objectives that hecame ohsolete or unatíainable, had to be "adapted out", others "adapted in". However, the program team in DC had, in the time bebeen the suhmission of the proposal (Decemher 1999) and the DIP (Apnl 2001), hecome aware of the need to increase technical experiise and infrasiructure in the area of project management as a result of a Discussion￾Oriented Organisational Self-Assessment (DOSA). This insight led, eve"tually, to the decision to hring on an individual with project management expertise who developed a new "Project Design and Management System" that was introduced with success in Mexico and was the hasis for the system that is currently used for the replication of the program in other coffee growing areas. Attempts were made in mid 2002 to introduce it in Ghana too, hut adoption was only partia186. 5.3 Management Approach Mexico 1 New Project Management System 5.3.1 Developing and adopting a different management approach One year after the start of the program, in October 2001, the position of a Project Implementation Manager was filled and work started on the development of what was called a "New Project Management Approach" hut which was. from the beginning, rather a full fledged project design and management system. As a pari of the activities under objective 1 ("CI has the capacity to develop conservation enterpnses hased on coffee and cocoa") and objective 6 ("CI develops M&E system and it is applied in Mexico and Ghana programs") the program team analysed on the one hand the difficulties of managing a coffee and cocoa intervention within CI's institutional context, and, on the other, the deficiencies of the Detailed Implementation Plan that had been submitted to and approved by USAIDIPVC shortly before.'' Institutionally, there was - after the stall of the SMA - no approved project management approach within CI, a lack of a consistent planning terminology, no formalised design process, no implementation plans and monitoring system and no defined procedures of adjusting the project to a changing environment, diffuse roles without clear mandate of CI departments, regional offices and the advisors of the CCCP. too little authority of local coordinators at the field leve1 and a high insecurity of funding exacerhated by the lack of annual workplans. 86 See Ghana Framework Output LKIZmayQ2 " Mind Map presentation by the prugram team. Washington November 2002 The New Project Management Approach was supposed to substitute these haphazard non￾standardised ad hoc approaches to planning and implementation vvhich had been characterising CI's procedures up to this time in some areas and \vhich had been at the root oí the Coffee and Cocoa program's problems described above. With respect to the DIP ofApril2001 the program team perceived the follo\ving deficiencies which the New Project Management Approach was supposed to correct: The objecrives' hierarchy was not suffkiently detailed from bonom to top to articulate the different parts and causeeffect layers of the strategy, not differentiating behveen farmers and sewice providers in the logical chain; jumping directly from the objecti\-e level to the goal level (conservation of biological diversity in threatened tropical Ecosystems); objectives for DC overlapped u-ith those of the project sites Mexico and Ghana, and some of their wording was unclear; some iridicators were missing (output level), or not relevant , not specific to the objective it was supposed to measure, or not efficient (too expensive to follovv up): activifies were not updated; roles and responsibilifies were no1 suffíciently ariiculated; the boundaries of the project in time, scope and budget were unclear. Stakeholders, especially direct project parrrters, were not involved in the pmject design. So the system had to have a funchonal and consistent logical interface to Cl's evolving system of designing and managing consewation strategiesg8 on the one hand and to satis@ the need of headquarter and field staff for a tool to puf these stratepes into practice, on the other. It was also to tie project planning and monitoring of performance and impact into one system. The New Project Management Approach thus filled the gap that had been leR by the previously stranded "Strategic Management Approch", however, being strictly geared to coffee and cocoa interventions, it was, on the face of it, less ambitious than iis predecessor. Looking at these two problem sets and at the tools available outside CI. the conclusion is that the "New Project Management Approach" was not so new with respect to the tools it implemented, - afier all, there had been the SMA and the planning systems of other development and also other consewation organisations before - but new to CI. The DIP hat not been so much an "old" system as opposed to a new one, but simply the result of an inadequate implementation of an otherwise well established and proven design process available outside CI. Leaning strongly on outside sources the program caught up remarkably quickly. IVithin nine months a basic new framework was developed, presented in a workshop to the Mexican field staff, introduced toa practice test there - though only partially in Ghana - until the end of the grant period. By the end of year three, a complete set of project management tools had been designed that served the Mexican project well and set a standard for the Ghana component. What became to be the Project Design and Management System consists of the Coriceptual Model, the Project Mariagerrierif Frarnework and the Projecf Design. .I!artageniertt ortd Learning &le (PDMLC), no1 only stressing the design componen6 but also the element of "adaptive management", the leaming component. It combines detailed guidance of the process of designing new projects with practica1 management and performance and impact measurement tools. The system stands out for its comprehensiveness on the one hand and its practicability on the other. It constitutes a good basis for the cocoa and coffee program replication strategy, as long as it is kept open for further improvement (see 5.3.3). The PDMLC in its newest configuration consists of a linear set of events which only at the Start-up workshop at its end tums into a cycle of annual review and planning workshops. The main steps (see Figure 2) are 1) Conservation Strategy Articulation 2) Context assessment; 3) Stakeholder Analysis; 4) The Project Design Workshop; 5) Partner consultation; 6) Development of Best Practices 7) Feasibility appraisal 8) Baseline Study 9) Fundraising 10) Hiring of staff, and 1 1) the Startup Workshop. Certain of the steps are descnbed in great detail in guidelines. The system starts with a series of design steps and collahorative planning events with, as the 2003 report to PVC claims, "comprehensive stakeholder participation" - which had indeed been absent from the DIP planning process. It culminates in the Start-up Workshop where al1 project partners finally agree upon the project design, the objectives, indicators and targets to monitor. The Project Management Framework as part of the Project Management System uses 6 management tools: 1) The hierarchy of objectives (logical framework matrix); 2) the risk planning matrix; 3) the description of indicators ; 4) the table of indicators and targets; 5) the implementation plan, and 6) the resource allocation table. The system corresponds, in principie, to the LFAs used in other organisations. Historically, the first 4 tools, in the LFAs of the 1980s onwards (Objective Onented Project Planning), were comprised in just one sheet, the logical framework matrix, with a second sheet containing the implementation plan detailing responsibilities. time frames and resources. Some of these 6 management tools offer definite advantages over their predecessors due to the high level of detail and the rigor of the logic: the nsk planning matrix does not simply state the risk but forces the planner to think about ways how to deal with them; the description of the indicators table demands an explicit formulation of the evaluation question, that is, what the indicator is supposed to measure and its definition; the table of indicators quotes an explicit, dated baseline value, and sets not only the target at the end of the project but also intermediate targets which facilitate monitoring; 91 The Project Design, Management and Learning Cycle Figure 2: The Project Design, Managernent and Leaming Cycle (The time frame for the entire process has lately been reduced from two years as above to aboui one 9) Costing ties naturally into the management system by objectiveslsubobjectives (Key Resultiresult in CI-language) and pemits an allocation of funds to specific areas of activities, quite important in the NGO context where donor funds are often restricted to specific purposes. Mexican field staff at the time of evaluation were found to be familiar with the system and most staff seemed to use it skillfully. The reporting system, however, was felt to be cumbersome. It had died down in the last phase of the project. In the meantime, a new version has been developed to overcome the Iimitations. The PDMLC has been successfully put to use in JanuatyIFebma~ 2004 in the new coffee intervention in Pem, has been partially applied in Costa Rica and Colombia and will be applied in the other envisaged sites where the multi-stakeholder design process is about to start over the next six months (Panama and Colombia. Westem Region in Ghana). After the completion of the Project Design, Management and Leaming Cycle for coffee and cocoa interventions the new capacity will be used for the replication of the program in others of the mentioned sites. The created tool is - with some adjustments (see section 5.3.3) -by no means restricted to coffee and cocoa interventions but can support any kind of project management activity and should be made use of. In the coming decentralised institutional environment of CI (CBCs) the maintenance of standards and procedures will be an ever more demanding task. It would make much sense to transfer this planning and design capacity from the technically focussed CED to the Regional and Comdor Strategies Department to bolster Conservation Planning support in the immediate neighbourhood of Outcomes Monitoring and Project and Conservation Economics in order to build a project management culture within CI that other conservation and development institutions have had for a long time and which CI will need in the future. 5.3.3 Some critica1 questions concerning the Project Design, Management and Learning Cycle 5.3.3.1 Reality shaped afier the model ? One of the things that comes to mind when looking at the PDMLC is the absence of a formally defined "problem analysis" which is the entry step of the Logical Framework Approach in most of its current confígurations. The PDMLC starts with the conservation strategy articulation by CI Counhy Program which launches a Conservation Coffee intervention as a conservation strategy for the target region. The first major activity is a context analysis. However, what is the guide for the consultants or researchers ? What do they look for, what do they include, what do they focus on? Undoubtedly, the analysists will look at factors that are lin&ed to the "core problem" biodiversity loss, the solution of which is at the center of CI's mission. However, in order not to lose themselves in possibly unrelated detail or miss out important items, they should, in order to guide their analysis, develop a problem tree of a rather high degree of detail. This problem set would later be converted to an ohjectives set from which the strategy is chosen. mis is the inductive way of building a theory (strategy). The PDMLC - such as it is understood by the evaluators through presentations by and conversations with, the project team and the analysed documentation, proceeds the other way around in a deductive way. The strategy is determined beforehand, acce ted as valid and condensed into the "Conceptual Model Conservation Coffee Inter~ention"~. It postulates 5 See Annex 7.6 objectives, or "Key Results" which correspond to 5 main problems which a coffee coma intervention has to solve: 1) absence of conservation friendly cultivation standards, 2) farmers employing exploitative cultivation practices 3) extension senices with the wrong packages, 4) too little or too expensive credit, and 5) limited market outlets at low prices. 1s this model correct and exhaustive ? Undoubtedly, the mcdel has been induchvely derived from obsen.ed factors that affect biodiversity in a more or less direct way. Also, the model builders will argue, a model is, episternologically speaking. a hypothesis to be tested. As long as it stands up to this challenge, it is valid. However, there is the risk that the model does not capture reality fully - "in the end the only complete mdel of a cat is a catW9'. A social environment is different fiom a conuolled lab situation and based on stochastic processes and there is a real danger that the designen cover reality over with their model. In this case, scarce resources are wasted in an expenske social experiment. This u-as precisely what happened with the DIP in 2000 that was designed on the basis of a mental rnodel or set of assumphons a number of which eventually proved wong. The question here is about the weight, induction and deduction should have in project desip. The recommendation is to sirengthen the inductive element of the design pmcess begiming afresh every time. Starting from the threat to biodiversity as the predecided core problem. a problem analysis for each specific site should be built up using the coffee model as a reference system only with an open number of "key problems", which would then lead to a site specific trate^^.^' The result might tum out to be 100% the 5-key-result suate= of the Conservation CoffeelCocoa program. It might also be that the model has to be improwd upon. 5.3.3.2 How does the logic of the Conceptual Model tie in with the logic applied on Outcome level ? The Conceptual Model Conservation Coffee (CMCC) Intervention in its "lower" cause-effect layers (input-ouput) follows the Logical Framework. The Milestone-Outcome layer is based on a Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework, adopted by the Convention on Biological Diversity and employed by CI in the context of monitoring at the biodiversity outcome level?' Both blocks of logic interface through the "milestone" behavioral change. The existence of the two models within in CI stems from the different methodological traditions in environmental scientific research and environmental policy (CI's mission) on the one hand and in development project planning and implementation on the other. Both frameworks use, on the face of it, different causal models. The Pressure-State-Response (PSR) framework is a circular causal model: Human social, political and economic acti\itiy ("pressurc") causes the quality and quanhty, or "state", of the environment, to change. On he basis of a given set of norms and values, Society reacts ("responds") to these changes rhrough * R. .Anihony Hcdpe. Peiei Hardi. Dwid VJ Bell king Changr through ihr I.m$ oiSuuihihiii!: R~iipoun? R,T :F. !Viris!kv 'Beyond Delusion: Scicnce and Poltc) Dirloyue on Drslgning F!kti\e lndirxoir of Suruinablr ik\r:me> oirek\uit \mabiR ~c g. nvmkroirur px ini.JS:.a:i P RNure indiaion dcunk ihc var~ablo uhich dimtl) cavv cnrimnmcnul pohh ic g CO? mi~mi S Seie indicaton rhou the rurrent cmdiiion aithe mtimnmt te g iht glotul man trmpnmi 1 Lmpacr indic;iion d-k ihe ulrinuie erks ofchmgn oireic ie y. nmipr ulpeopie suning duc :o c:izu:ci=fs siuied cmp lorws) . R Resp~re indicatorr dmionrmre ihc elTonr of wxaty ,,.c. poltirians. kismn-milmi io wl\r ik ir g tk percenragr ofcm riih caelyTic canwtenl See Eumpean Sraiirrical Laboraron. Surainable Dc\elopment and Policy Perbrmancc Indres. lochm Jeringhas In?iaim ncal capabilit).. Apparently, the switch happened because of changes and additions to the data collected as the methodology evolved, which could not be incorporated in a timely way by project staff. This could have been rectified penodically by the original designer, but this option \vas not sought by HQ apparently, despite Jaltenango staff being satisfied with Access. Some of the information was transferred during the updates by the designer in the third year socio￾economic study. In Ghana, there were no organic certification and marketing possibilities, and as a result there were no farmers signed up to have their farms diagnosed and their implementation of best practices verified in their own fíelds. Afier the initial baseline surveys, the only data collected at the farm level, apart from the AESA records on the demonstration replanting mals. were from the habitat and household surveys described belo\\,. Given the sparcity of Geld data from shaded traditional cocoa farms, it would have been valuable to follo\v up each of those anending the FFS for farm basics (area of producti\.e and abandoned coca )+eld. shade type and density, frequency of harvests). CBO Leve1 The project hoped to establish CBO level M&E systems in both countries. the need for this having been confirmed by CI's initial surveys of each cooperative's technical capacity and services, but for various reasons linle progress was made and the indicator \vas dropped from the Washington plan. The CBOs did increase their capacity nevertheless, by seeing the utility of the detailed data in Mexico in organic certification, and by reporting on their own FFS expansion in the case of Kuapa. Special Surveys In Mexico, the annual socio-economic surveys 2001-2003 were apparently well executed. lhe evaluators had no opportunity to observe intewiewers and interviewees in the field and have. therefore, no base to estimate the amount of statisticai "noise" in the answers. The surveys gave very useful and timely repomng on the farmer's views of the Conservation Coffee project - information which CI needs for future planning in Mexico and elsewhere. and many appropriate recommendations are included too, both for improving the project and any funire surveys. The database for the surveys is part of the relational database ser up for fmer diagnosis and verification. In Ghana, there were several sunreys including the eariy CEDEP sun-ey (repori. March 2001), apparently a CI baseline (sometime in 20012?) for the Habitat Suney and the Household Survey (both reponed in August 2003), and the Fauna Suney camed out by IRNR-KNüST (report, 2003). The CEDEP report gives useful background information derived from a PRA, some of which could be used for baseline determination. In the case of the Habitat Survey, evaluation was difficult because the results (purely electronic records on just a single computer) were inaccessible, and only the final report was available. That includes some useful information especially with regard to preferred shade tree species, but there are other conclusions which must be premature given the time scale of the survey. Some of the electronic (are these backed up?) Household Survey files were seen, representing a less detailed survey in 2002 when the methodology was developing. and a more detailed final year survey. Insuff~cientime had elapsed for some of the best practices to have been validated, let alone adopted by the farmers, and both surveys appear to deal largely with notional adoption. The Fauna Survey is seen as a beginning in this complex area, which is considered further in the following section. Biological Monitoring At the beginning, it was hoped that farmers and extension staff from the cooperatives would be involved in monitoring changes in biodiversity, and this information would be incorporated into the overall database. This did not happen to any extent, except with shade diversification in Mexico where data were collected on nurtured species for each project farmer. In Ghana, the Fauna Survey was commissioned as another, exploratory approach, but effectively the task of this high leve1 biological monitoring for both countries was passed mid-project to CI staff in the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science in Washington DC, where the methodolo~y is still under development. 5.4.3 lnformation Systems 5.4.3.1 Hardware and Software The program did not directly increase in-country partners' access to information technologies either in Mexico or Ghana because no hard or software or IT training were supplied to partners, as far as the evaluators are aware. An indirect effect was possible for cooperatives in Mexico as a result of the demonstration of the utility of the farm diagnosis and venfication database, and likewise for partners such as REBITRI and ECOSUR who were exposed to the combination of that database with a GIS to provide useful project-based maps. In Ghana, there seems to have been less exposure of in￾country partners to the possibilities of GIS, presumably in part because CI-Ghana had not taken ownership of GIS information, beyond that from GPSs, in contrast to CI-Chiapas, Tuxtla. CI-Jaltenango seems to have shared program information and leaming appropnately in its own office, in Chiapas, and above. Iu Accra, the system seems to have been more compartmentalised within CI, such that certain project files and documents remained within sections, sometimes with insufficient back up or accessibility (e.g. the Habitat Survey). The program staff s web-based collaborative workplace Eroom to update documents and exchange files to which also the evaluators had access during their assignment is fully used only in Washington. The Mexico project had some diffículties of access due to umeiiabie and slow telephone connections, and infrastructure in Ghana makes the system that needs a certain minimum transfer speed to be practicable, almost unusable. Another concem was that individual professional staff did not have independent access to the Intemet, and therefore were resiricted in their interaction with CI HQ and Mexico and the rest of the world. In both Mexico and Ghana, poor infrastructure (power cuts, bad transmissions, low transmission speeds) Iimits information transfer, and HQ needs to bear this in mind, given the relentless (and some would say often needless) upg~ades in complexity forced by the US computer industry. 5.4.3.2 Reporting Much of the day-today reporting, both in-country and with HQ. was verbal with frequent meetings in-counhy to relay and discuss information, progress and plans. Wrinen narrative reports were prepared against implementation plans in some areas and for cenain periods. but the coverage was incomplete, sometimes because of pressure of work, or because the manager felt the reports were not conhibuting much relative to the time needed to do them. and discontinued them. Managers reponed in unting to the program directors in HQ. m-ho in tum prepared the PVC Annual Reports, which followed PVC's guidelines in he main. The reporü to PVC were not seen by al1 staff in Ghana, and there were feelings expressed that there could be more sharing of reports in general, including those from Kuapa on their FFS espansion around Kakum. Another comment from Accra was that sometimes feedback \vas lacking on the reports that were sent to Washington. Again, pressure of work at both ends came in to play here. One hstration for the evaluators, and others interested in understanding the e\-olution of the project, is that significant elements of the Implementation Plan remain unreponed in this year or that and, critically, in the Final Report. An example of this from Ghana u-ould be under Output 2.5 "Consenration Best Practices refinement and impacts investigated by Research Institutes", Activity "Cwrdinate Field Research with FFS Validarion Trials". The Implementation Plans could be used as an annex to repon successesproblems by the addition of a comments column, and thereby give a rapid overview of detailed accomplishments. 5.4.4 Stafing and Supe~ision 5.4.4.1 Staffing in DC According to the original plans of the 1999 Proposal, the successful implementation of &e program required that CI build its capacity in the following areas: administration: busines and financia1 planning; credit and financing; marketing and nade, product quality control: monitoring and evaluation; organic agricul~ral methodologies; organic cemfication: and community based natural resource management. This capacity was supposed to be built through the crearion of an Agroforeshy Progam Jeld srrppon teanr that nouid pmbide technical expertise and capacity to Cl's field program staff and parmer CBOs. Planned u-ere: 1) A Busirress and Trade Suppon Cwrdinator uith experience in marketing communications, and commodity trading for supporting the local parmm in üade and export logistic, market analysis, quality control and contract negotiations; 2) a M&E and Scientific Research Manager with experience in biological monitoring. who will work with CI's counhy programs, depamnents. and parmer organisations to design and implement the program's biological monitoring and e\-aluation system and manage related long-term scientific research acti\-ities: 3) o Cemjicatiorr, Smiidards and Agricultura1 Assistance Cwrdinator uith expertise in alternative agricultural eaension pmgram, organic cenification and a&ricultural economics, who will support CBOs with cenification, field staff on rhe delelopment of agicultural assistance activities and indushy on siandards de\elopment: and 4) un Instihrtional Deidopment and Fina~ce Cwrdrnator uith a background in small￾producer economics and cooperative development, responsible for pmliding organisational development, institutional strenghening and mde support cenices. Each cwrdinator would be matched with a counterpart in .Mexico and Ghana to whom they would be responsible for providing any requested technical suppori, and repon to the Director of the Cocoa Program and the Director of the Coffee Program, who, in tum. reponed to the Head of the Conservarion Enterprise Department. In the penod between the submission of the proposal and the submission of the DIP a capacity assessment with the DOSA methodology Nas camed out that came to somewhat different results from those in the proposal. The required posts were now: 1) Manager for Monitoring and Evaluation (filled January 2001), 2) Manager Business and Trade (May 2001), 3) Coordinator for Agricultural Assistance (January 2001). 4) Manager for Credit and Finance, (vacant) and S) Manager for Project Implementation (vacant). To the credit of the team that undenvent the DOSA exercise they determined a special need with respect to Project Implementation Manager for the planned development of a project design and implementation methodology . The proposal was accepted by USAIDIPVC, but for the next six months nobody could be hired to fill the two vacant post because CI Management had slapped a ban on hinng. By the time this ban was lifted and a suitable person found, October 2001 had amved. In the meantime the institutional environment had changed. C1 had started to undertake a process of restructuring that involved building regional capacity to gradually replace technical support functions located in the headquariers and also begun to invest in DC beyond the program in key growth areas. As a result, the Finance and Organisational Development post was assumed by a new enterpnse finance position in CED and the Manager for Monitoring and Evaluation moved to a new position in the Field Suppori Divison. The Manager for Business and Trade left and his work was absorbed by the enterpnse development advisor. The first Cocoa Program director (October 2001) moved to a new position in CELB and the second cocoa director left as well (July 2002). Because by then it was two thirds of the way through the project the post of cocoa director was taken over by the Head of the Conservation Enterpise Deparhnent and has been administered by him since. Thus, the Washington support team was reduced to about half its planned size. The way in which they coped with the difficulties of the Mexico branch with CI's regional framework, with the need for fundraising and managing the Mexico project directly from Washington instead of the CI-Chiapas ofíice, and with the heavy workload of the head of deparhnent cum cocoa director, was commendable, and more so taking into account the initial bouncing of plans in both projects and, in spite of this, the good results of the program at its end. In spite of the shortage of staff, capacity in DC was built in agriculture, marketing, fundraising, in project design and management, and in budgeting. Due to the situation of centralised extemal marketing in Ghana, Me effort was made after initial moves to insist on establishing similarly strong ties to the chocolate industxy as they exist with the coffee roasters. It is a different, and apparently a more difficult market, but it is definitely worth another hial. Solutions will have to be found how to transfer benefits for cocoa growers additional to the Fairtrade premiums through the Cocoa Board's marketing firewall to the farmers. At the moment there is no capacity for this activity in the team. 5.4.4.2 Staffing in the field Similar processes developed in the field: In Mexico the project lost, after an initial change of the coordinator, the successor as well. A new person was hired who developed into a very capable head of the local team, - he attended to the evaluators - , who will, however, leave in the first half of 2004. The initial restnictunng of the local management required additional support from the Washington-based team, which had to divert time and resources to tool development, fund-raising and the designing of new projects. Management style in Jaltenango is open, tasks are delegated u-ith full responsibility to staff. The ofice is shuctured in one deparhnent for technical assistance services that is. training of trainers in Best Practices (Coordinación de Servicios de Capacitación y Acreditación de MPCC), one for extension services and field evaluation of Best Practices (Coordinación de Servicios de Promoción y Evaluación de MPCC), one for marketing and finance (Coordinación Comercial y Financiera) and administration. CI in the project location uas and is, as in Washington, very dedicated, capable, but too small in number and correspondingly overworked. The partner cooperatives of the project were differently, but suficiently, staffed. al1 of them having project trained farmer field school extensionists of best practices in their areas. The staff in Ghona at full operation numbered 5 persons: the project manager (agroforestq ofñcer), one monitoring and evaluation oficer, one survey oficer and two field assistants. al1 under the Deputy Director Projects and Country Director. At the end of the pnt period staff had been reduced to essentially two persons, the agroforesiq oficer and the \!&E off~cer. Thus, as in Mexico, staff numbers in Ghana were shon and the people dedicated, but overworked. The impression was that neither the CI Couniq Director nor his deput) involved themselves in the cocoa project and, in this respect, the situation in Ghana \vas similar to Mexico. It was, however, different in that in Jaltenango the project manager and depamnent heads had full responsibility and decision power in their respective domains. whereas in Accra it seems that productivity and dedication of staff could be higher if more decision power were delegated. The attitude of staff seemed to be not a proactive. but a resen-ed one. waiting to be asked rather than taking initiatives themselves. a situation often observed in organisations with more rigidly shuctured hierarchies. As for the pariner organisation, Kuapa cooperated with the project through its Research and Development Unit in Kumasi. There were 2 headquaner staff and. at the end. 12 additional Research and Development ofñcers trained through the project. 5.4.5 PVC Program Management USAIDIPVCs oversight of the program was based on CI's regular repomng and direct contacts in Washington. PVC staff went to each project site once dunng the grant period of three years. The first visit was to the Gliana site on 25-27 July 2002~'. This monitoring visit \\-as scheduled near the end of the second year of the project's three-year gran1 period. Initial planning anticipated a 4-5 day visit that would include cocoa field sites as well as meetings with CI staff and staff from Kuapa Kokoo and~or CRIG. The actual \kit was 3 &ys: one planned day was cut from the visit due to illness of the visitor. and the CI Ghana scaff notified just prior to departure of the PVC monitor for Ghana that she would not be meeting sith Kuapa staff due to time conflicts with the Kuapa amual meeting being held in Kumasi. Thus the PVC monitor was only able to observe hvo stakeholder groups and talk to CI staff. As the report states, she was not @en the opportunity to \kit Kuapa offices or 0bsen.e their extension agents at work in the field. and adequately assess institutional partner enthusiasm (CRiG and Kaupa staft) for participation in project activities. She as also not able to directly assess the monitoring and evaluation systems of the project (the same happened to the final evaluators !). The PVC monitor had the impression - as had the final evaluators - that farmers will be in need of a continued supply of technical assistance and up-todate cocaa production information long after the end of project. The plans for providing such assistance were not made clear to her, a familiar situation for the evaluators as well. Given that certain elements of the cocoa project were at least six months to one year behind schedule, the monitor realistically recommended that CI should consider requesting a revision of onginal project objectives, or altematively, request an extension to try to meet the original objectives. This was obviously not doneprimarily because CI, according to their explication, did not feel it would solve the problem hut also because such a move would prevent CI from applying again to PVC in 2003, which at that stage it intended to do. It is not clear to the evaluators how much of a discussion between PVC and CI about these ohservations took place after the visit. The second visit was to Mexico in the penod of 22 Febmay-12 March 2003~', of which 3 days were dedicated to the Chiapas project. According to the report, the trip, although short too, rendered a clearer understanding of the challenges confronting grantees and the local participating non-govemmental organisations. It served to facilitate needed dialogue and exchange of ideas between grantees and PVC. The report highlights the weak intemal structure of coffee cooperatives and the need for intemal controls, greater accountability and transparency. Also in Mexico, the PVC monitor states that more time is needed to achieve the original objectives, especially the transfer of analytic and marketing capacity to cooperatives, and that, fortunately, CI will continue program operations after the MG ends and may, in time, be able to accomplish this transfer. 5.5 Lessons Learned and Recommendations for Program Management Project design and adaptive management - A suitable planning methodology for project design and management in the beginning is essential for a smooth nrnning and the eventual success of a program. - Leaming and immediately reacting to challenges witli common sense can rescue a program from a difficult situation and make the best of it. - The planning methodology should observe a prudent balance between inductive time consuming construction of problem trees and strategies, and deductively applying a readymade conceptual model that might not fit reality. - With the newly acquired program design and management capacity CI has filled an essential gap. The capacity should be put to use in the institution where adequate and the gap must not be allowed to open again. - Stakeholder participation at a very early stage of the planning process and their continuous involvement is essential for tbe suitability of the strategy and the ownership by participants. Economics - An informed selection of conservation strategies and tools for sustainable conservation action of any kind requires knowledge about the amounts and the ratio of their respective benefits and costs, including investment. - Scaling up cannot be left merely to the availability of funds but must be guided by a Sustainability and Financia1 Independence Study such as the one undertaken in Mexico that offers a basis for the waypoints to navigate to during the scaling up process. see Lo" Pomrnerenke, PVCMatching Granr Monitoring Trip Report Menico. 22 Februay~lZ Maxh 2003. - Imporíant decision points can pass and opportunities might irre\ersibly be lost resulting in continuous dependency of a program from a nurturing donar without an economic roadmap. Monitoring - Monitoring is everybody's daily job, not the domain of a specialist who does this work for the othen. - Monitoring systems have to be designed in a way that they, while capturing the essential proceses and events appeal to the user: monitoring must be fun ! - Socio-economic impact monitoring is a valuable tool if its results are fed back into daily program management and program replication and are not inaccessably locked away. Data Management - Anention should be paid at an early stage to data base design to accommodate future needs. Staff should be tmined in the system once staned. 6. Evaluation Methodology - - The evaluation was camed out by an economist, Dr. Winfried Zenelmeyer. team leader. and an agronomist and plant pathologist, Dr. Alan C. Maddison, with panly overlapping experience. The tasks in the evaluation were divided according to skills and working experience, the economist's anention focussing on the program's approach. institutional and economic sustainability and the new management approach. the apnomistpathologist focussing on the program's effectiveness in the field and the involved agronomic questions on cross-cutting issues and on monitoring. The evaluation was excellently prepared by CI staff in Washington. organising a week's stay at headquarten to brief the evaluation team on the program's stratea. inhsmicture. achievements, problems, future plans, and the visits to the project sites in Mexico and Ghana. The evaluators were granted access to "Eroom", area CED:Agrofores~. \\.here they could not only access a vast amount of project information that had been uploaded for them. but also, during the field visits and report unting, observe on-going u-ork and draw on information just being generated. The team coliected further hard and sofiwervation techniques) and in the Ghana section in Objective 2 (Projecr jamiers odopr conservation agroforestnpractices for cocoa). In order to reflect this thinking the program's new management framework, introduced in ,Mexico in 2002, elevates this key change in farmer behavior to the higher "Purpose" level objective (Famiers oround El Triunfo have adopted the Conservation Coffee Best Practices). The other objectives fmm the DIP have become "Key Results" defining the necessary conditions and environment for sustaining and numnng the changes of farmer's behavior. As the program moves into replication in new sites, CI is interested in establishing a consistenf comparable tool for measuring this purpose level impact across sites. \{lile CI recognizes that behavior changes at the farm level generally occur over a longer time penod than the three years covered by the DIP grant penod, CI proposes to pilot test a baseline and evaluation survey insmiment designed to measure such changes in farm management practices. So, for the Mexico project site CI proposes to implement this farmer practices survey instrument as part of the final evaluation in addition to the farmer focus pup meetings (community workshops). The survey is the very first data collection step and the results should be available prior to the amval of the extemal evaluation team. The survey will use a scored index questionnaire to explore five key factors related to farmers' adoption of the best practices. These include the following questions: - What was the relevante of the best practices given the specific context and conditions of the farm? - What is the relative pnority for the farmer with respect to each of these categones of practices? - What is the farmer currently doing in relation to each best practice category? - To what degree does what the farmer is currently doing reflect an adoption and or an active endorsement of the validity of the best practices? - What have been the principie barriers to adoption of each best practice? The survey will be implemented by the team hired for the socio-economic snidy. The methodology will involve selecting a representative sample of 50 participating farmerr having the team's promoters visit each farm to complete the surve)., and the subsequent processing of the data by the socioeconomic survey consultant. A summary repon of the resulis will be produced which highlights a set of potential key questions to be follo\\ed up on in the evaluation focus goup. This report will be available prior to the evaluation team's mp to the project site. Implementing this survey just prior to the PVC evaluation will not only improve and deepen the evaluation team's understanding of the farmer's resulting behavior, but also permits C1 to a) establish a new baseline for the next phase of the project h) have a good set of data for companng this site with new sites and 3) produce a refined baseline study insmiment ready for implementation in these new sites. However, because of the shon project histoy. the results of this survey should only be seen as a first "snap shot" or ovewiew of he early and most visible trends in farmers' adoption or modification of their land use practices. VI. Roles of Evaluators and other Stakeholders and Timeline A team of extemal evaluators, selected based on the critena laid out in the CSAID Evaluation Guidelines (page 12) and approved by the PVC program officer, will head the final evaluation of the grant. CI-DC staff and CI project staff in the field will support the evaluation team. In DC, the person coordinating and overseeing the evaluation is the Advisor of Project Design and Management, Linda Klare-Repnik. In Ghana, the key support person is CI's local project manager, Gyampah Amoako-Gyedu. In addition a local Cocoa Sector Specialist will be hired to complement the evaluation team assuring an in-depth understanding of the specifícs of the Ghanaian cocoa sector. For the Mexico project site, support will be provided by the acting coordinator of the project, and by the consultant for tlie socio-economic study, Arthur van Leuween. The evaluation is planned to take place between the months of October and December. A rough schedule is presented in form of a gantt chart in the annex D. However, the final and detailed schedule will be agreed upon between al1 parties at the team-planning meeting. The steps outlined in the following table are intended to guide the overall evaluation process. This table shows the cites, the activity and the main actors involved. Final Evaluation: Process Site DC Mexico Ghana Evaluati on DC Activity Preparation Pre-evaluation review of available baseline and other data and compilation of documents Pre-evaluation review of available baseline and other data and compilation of documents Pre-evaluation review of available baseline and other data and compilation of documents Introduction extemal evaluator to the program and Evaluation DC Content analysis of documents Development intewiew topics and a Actors Linda Klare-Repnik (Advisor Project Design and Management) Project Manager Gyampah Amoako-Gyedu (Project Manager) ~valuator'~~, Coffee& Cocoa Program DC: Edward Millard (Senior Director CED), Matthew Quinlan (Director Conse~ation Coffee), Linda Klare-Repnik (Advisor Project Design and Management), Todd Hamner (Advisor Agricultural Practices) Evaluator Evaluator, Linda Klare-Repnik standardised set of cpestions (SUPPO~~) '" (Entemal) Evaluitor $tan& for externa1 evaluation team Interactive Session / Intenliew with Evaluator, Coffee & Cocoa members of the Coffee & Cocoa Program DC Program DC Preparation field evaluation Evaluator, Linda Klare-Repnik (Suppon) Presentation detailed methodology Evaluator, .Manhew Quinlan. Linda field evaluation Klare-Repnik Mexico Survey (prior to irip of externa1 Anhur van Leuween, Todd Hamner evaluator) (suppon development sun-ey tool) Briefing Couniry Program Evaluator, Ignacio March (Regional Propm Director CI) Briefing Project Manager Evaluator, Project Manager Interviews with project staff, parmer Evaluator, Project .Manager. organisations and other key Gabriel Nava (Agncultural stakeholders in Jaltenango Coordinator), Lazam Escalante Lopez (Agricultura1 Technician), Manuel Morales (Biological Monitoring) Community Workshops with target Evaluator, Arthur van Leuween group 1 focus groups (in cooperation with the socio-economic study) Discussion findings with Project Evaluator, Project Manager Manager Ghana Briefing Counby Program Evaluator, Okyeame Ampadu￾Agyei (Counq Director CI￾Ghana). Ghana Cocoa Sector Specialist Accra: Interviews with project staff, Evaluator, Coma Sector Specialist parmer organisation and other key David Kpelle (Deputy Director). stakeholder Gyampah Amoako-Gyedu (Project Manager), Yaw Osei-\Yuso (Manager M&E) Project area: Interview with tmditional Evaluator. Cocoa Sector Specialist, mlers, opinion leaders and Kuapa Gyampah Amoako-Gyedu Society Executives Interaction with target group: Focus Evaluator, Cocoa Sector Specialist. groups in the communities Bobi, Abeka Gyampah AmoakoCiyedu Nkwanta, Antoknim, Kmwa Discussion of findings with Couniry Evaluator, Cocoa Sector Specialist. Program Okeyame Ampadu-Agyei DC Gathering additional data DC Evaluator lnterviews with selected CI staff from Evaluator, precise list to be the following units: RCS (Regional and established at beginning of mission - . - Comdor Strategies), Regional Programs, PPA (People and Protected Areas Deparhient), Finance, CELB (Center for Environmental Leadership in Business), DAR (Donor Agenc) Relations) Workshop Coffee & Cocoa Program, Evaluator, Coffee& Cocoa Program presentation preliminary findings DC Data analysis and drafting Evaluation Evaluator report Circulating draft report to PVC, CI Linda Klare-Repnik field and partners Review and discussion of draft Coffee& Cocoa Program DC Revision draft in response to Evaluator comments/suggestions Submission revised version final report Linda Klare-Repnik to PVC, CI field and partners Follow￾UP DC Evaluation debriefing meeting with CI Evaluator, Coffee& Cocoa Program HQ (time TBD) DC Mexico Evaluation debriefing meeting with CI Facilitated by CI DC staff field and partners Ghana Evaluation debnefing meeting with CI Facilitated by CI DC staff field and partners Vil. Budget The budget developed for the implementation of the Final Evaluation is presented in Appendix E. VIII. Evaluation Report The evaluation report should be written using a 12-point font for the report's narrative sections and a 10-point font for any tables or chans. Cross-referencing should be used judiciously to minimize duplication and redundancy. The evaluation report should follow the structure as outlined in the table below. PVC's approval of the evaluation report will be based on the evaluation quality standards cited in the USAID Guidelines (see "Evaluation Quality Standards," p. 5). The dates for completing the different steps for gathenng the data and for the analysis, documentation and discussion are outlined in fom of a tentative work plan (gantt chart) in Annex D. kmmary )f :onclusions nd Lecommen ations 'rogram lackground ktailed valuation luestions :valuation vlethodolog Explanation i Responsi￾1 ble - PVO name and Cooperative Apeement number; CI - Counüy program sites and names of principal pamiers; - Duration of Grant (MonththYear); - Beneficiaty Populations (by agekx); - PVC-PVO match totals (S) and PVC-PVO match funds disbursed to date (S); - Date DIP was fírst approved by PVC and changes made to DIP; - Evaluation Start Date (stan implementing SOW) and End Date (submission of final repon to PVC). E\ aluator Provide a summary description of the program to be Evaluator evaluated: Brief history of the MG propm; Rationale for the program; - Situation on the ground and status of intewentions at the beginning of the profram and relevant baseline data; - What the program seeks to achieve; Principal pamiers; Current implementation status; and - Bnefly comment on Cl's overall de\-elopment plans. Address the evaluation questions in the sequence ' Evaluaror : presented in the chapter IV ("Detailed Evaluation j Questions"). i I o Describe the evaluation team members roles and E\.aluator / responsibilities; Outline the methods of data collection and analysis to be used and indicate why these methods have been selected; Bnefly state constraints of these data collection methods as well as data limitations IX. Strategies for debriefing, sharing and using the information With Mexico and Ghana being the first pilot expenences of CI's Coffee and Cocoa Program for rolling out the Conservation Coffee and Cocoa approach. the information provided by the evaluation - in particular the identified key lessons leamed, patterns and emerging issues - is expected to serve as critica1 input not only for the further development of the two sites themselves but also for the future replication of the Conservation Coffee and Cocoa approach in other regions. Annex Evaluator As outlined in the "Final Evaluation: Process" table in chapter VI, a debriefing meeting will be held after submitting the final version of the evaluation report to PVC to review the main findings and discuss any implications on the two sites Mexico and Ghana as well as the learning which can be applied to the new Conservation Coffee sites Pem, Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia. The evaluation team will be involved in this interactive session so as to tap into their expertise and tacit knowledge and make use the leaming they have acquired during the evaluation as effectively as possible. The list of attachments for the final evaluation report include: - The final SOW - DIP Matrix and Results Status Table (see USAID Evaluation Guidelines!Annex B for template) , - Partnerships Table (see USAID Evaluation GuidelinesIAnnex C) - List of sites visited and persons!groups interviewed With respect to the interaction with the two sites Mexico and Ghana, a debriefing meeting will be held in each of these sites, which will be facilitated by DC Coffee and Cocoa Program staff. For practica1 and financia1 reasons these meetings will not count on an involvement of the evaluation team. In addition to these immediate debriefings key lessons learned will be shared and disseminated within the broader institutional make-up of CI and within the broader conservation community to advance organisational leaming and to foster critica1 analysis around the Conservation Coffee and Cocoa approach. Furthermore, the information provided by the evaluation will be used for witing reports to the various stakeholders of the three respective audiences. 123 Annex 7.1 Program's Strengths and Weaknesses (sow Anncx A) ANNEX Al PROCRAM'S STRENCTHS AND WEAKNESSES, WASHINGTON DC - in relaiion to progrcss niadc in mccting targcts and iichicving rcsults -~~ - Mexico Program Objectives .. - . . -~ - ... . ~ . 1. ('1 has the capacity to deve¡& conservation enterprises based on coíTec and cocoa 2. I'flrticipaiing Farmcrs have access tu iraining in agrofuresiry and organic i~iciliodulogies 3. ('IlOs have acccss ti) capiral at conipctitive rates 4. ('110s Iiave iiicriuscd acccss lo pruiiiiitri cdkc aad cocon nwrkcts S. ('1 dcvclops ~'onscrvatioii ('olkc iind ('ocon stan~lurcis anil ilicy iirc vcrilicd in Mcxico and ( ihana proprniiis ~ ~~.~. ~ Strengths . - -- .-~ .~ ~ ~ - ~-~. - - CI 110 I'rograni staff lookcd for and assinii￾latcd field, cuniniercial, social, and political experience of coffce and cocoa in relation to conservation 'l'eani coiitinuity in later ycars, and tenaciiy tliroughout Apprupriatc training idrntiiied and organised for commuiiity lcvel cxtensioii oficcrs in Mcxico and Gliaiia. 'l'arget cxceeded 'l'raiiiing ('cntre esiablishetl in Mcxico S (.oiiinicrciai awarcncss resri~tcd in siiccesshi crerlit arrmigensnts for coffcc ('IiOs lioni rarious soiirccs. aduptiiig ovcr tlic ycars ('1 110 Iiavc Iookcd liard lo find iriorc clictits Tor sliade cuíice and cocon, wliilc still ~iii~iniaiiiing cxisting clicnts I'lic prograni rullahoratcd well witli otlicr instiiuiions iii drvrloping ('oiiscrvalioii ('olkc I'rinciplcs ('olkc Ihi I'rucliccs ~Iciiiicd wcll. ruhiist vctilicuiio~i syztciiis rstablishcd und tised in Mcxico - Weaknesses - .- ~ ~-. - . Assuinptions (especiaily regarding stakeholdrrs) noi sufficiently scrutiiiised iii I.ogical 1:raniework Matrix leading to wrongishori-lived ohjectives and activitics C'hanges in ('1 110 stratcgy len program unly pariially supporied 'l'carn disconiinuiiy iii early years ~ , ~- -- e Organic cocoa inctliodologics not appropriate as training arcas in Ghana during I'ro)jeci hccausc of tlelayccl liberaliralion . Native tree agrohresiry with cocoa not well kriowii . . .. (W)s not inntched hy ('¡#)S conimitnicnt 10 ~ ... ... . Not atiticipatcd tlini (ihanu governrncni would nilc «u1 thc orgnic routc and direci cxpiirt hy coopcrutives I1runiiini iii~rlcts arc rcsiricicd i~i sx Ilnrcalisiic iiiitial hrlicf. pivcn cxistinp wrou iiproforrsiry knowlcdgc. ilini rwiia stuixlunls rwld he finnliscd und vciificd (Iiiriny tlic ilircc-ycar I'rojcct 6. CI develops M&E system and it h applied in Mexico and Ghans programs r- Separation of Project leve1 M&E as an objective in its own right was no1 necessary, and deflected attention from monitoring of DIP objectives lo some extent i L Housebold and habitat surveys in Ghana ended with project - sustainability, lirtle feedback from HQ e Considerable effort invested in developing a generally applicable planningf implementation model Socio-economic studies valuable in Mexico and Ghana 125 ANNEX A2 PROGRAM'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, MEXICO - in rclaiion to progrcss madc in mecting targcts and achicving rcsults - -. ~ ~- ~ Mcxieo Progrvm 6bjeetives ... . - .. . . . 1. ('noperatives have tlie capacity to operate as effcctivc hiisinesses that pr<~nnle conservation 2. ('onperatives realile higher prices tlirough increased access to coilee inwkcts 3. 1:arnicrs adopt agrofiircstry and nrganic agricultural incthodologies aiid c«iiser\~atioii tccliniques 4. I:arnicrs are heing verificd hr ('oiiscrvatinn ('ofic Standards . ~~ -- ~trin~ths - . . . Prograni moved proniptly to develop or reinforce activities wherc cooperatives lacked capdcity or transparericy - -- CI worked hard to set up ihe infrastructure nceded lo secure access to tliz Starbucks I'refcrred Supplicr I'rogram 'l'argets exceeded for nurturing native crees. hinlogical control of ('CI313. use of í'arm niaiwgeriieiit pluns hased on conservation. and ninnhers oí produccrs ccrtified organic Apprnpristc cnnservation coffec hcst practiccs and vcrilicati«ii systcnis dcvclnped. insiallctl nnd 'I'argcts excccded li~r liirnicrs iiiccting standards . .~ . . .. . - ~~ ~eaknesses . . .. . .- e The short-timeseale o(the projcct, and the (lesire frnni Starhucks for rapid changes in tlie niarketing chain and rhe cooperatives pan in it, put ilic enterprisc al risk 'l'ransparency nionitoring caused problenis in cooperatives Not el& wlietlier the shade coilee niarkz is sufiicient to accommodate the cxpansion considered necessary to make thc ('hiapas cok project and others heing dcvcloped, siisidinable . - ~~ . . m Ose of agrolorestry and conscrvation tcchniqucs acccpted wliile price incentive prcscnt. continued iise iinceriain if incentive ahsent. or scvcrely reduced .~ ... 'l'he rcltictance of the coopcratives tn acccpt ad(litional rnles in tlic tiioiiitnring and vcrification syslcin pnscs a qiicstion liir siistainahility ANNEX A3 - PROGRAM'S STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, GHANA - in rekition to progress made in meeting targets and achieving results NEW: political decision makers at local and national leve1 recoguize the value of conservation cocoa able to bring tugether institutions agroforestry practices for cocoa (CRIG particularly) and organizations that had not been collaborating previousiy t0 provide the basis for developing cocoa best these on through -- - - p~ - -- 3. OLD: Conservation becn able to establish Agroforestry Program Standards rclatioiiships witli govcmment and others that defined aiid adopted by Kiiapa havc resulted in hetter recogiiitiun for sustaiiiable cocoa Weaknesses CI failed to generate match iunding to fulfil its commitments Lo Kuapa, and the latter suspended collaboration temporarily Sustainability not yet assured Ghana Program Objectives l. Kuapa operates as an effcctive and efficient business -. Rkk of unnecessary removal of native shade not avoided yet Conservation agroforestry practices f01 cocos "ot well known in terms of shade versus yield, desirable native species and their biology, etc. Records of adoption need confirming aud continuing, but no system in place pp - Over-anibitious objective selected initially, timescale underestimated, had to be cornbiiied with Objective 2 Strengths CI ibntified certain aspects of Kuapa's stmcture that needed reinforcing for it to operate more effectively, and took steps to accomplish this Annex 7.3 partnerships Table (SOW Annex C) tho~gh starting from a lowcr lcvel in terms of experiencc compared to CESMACH. Stiii selling to Starbucks 1- WC 4.2 .E .? c-c - S; a - O zl Vi .-- m 842 o O C ~2 F e a 5 2 O -42- - ozr; 8 < .- ;: 2 " o 1.2 % O = O E5 5 o- .:t -Y E !.z ; 00 E 2vS.O 5 ú " E 5 - $5 F" .%& & ; 0 5G > SE W O 5 semOe ?S U o o iqg O :o E .k * 3 f C? :o ,a >E - - o ucLyí?z 9z - ! - O $2 4- VI E L >OZg;.: ;-. , zgg; ">o."Oz ú 2 ->as XoL.L= 2 ,rtners receiving 40 MG Funds primary partners ~SC who do not rcceivf MG funds Ltd CRIC MOFA ICPM iovemment :ommodity irop Researcl nstitute Govcmment body providin ICPM advici extension training - MoU MoU lmbrella organisation f0r ocoa farmersimarketing airtrade cocoa, providing ther serviccs including xtension and training at FFS zew of baseline situation. idvicc on cocoa agronomy or development and jalidation of Conscrvation locoa best practices, training - de - at FFS -- - ~mpiemcntation of the Training of Trainers progam in Farmer Ficld Schools, with CRIC, CI, Kuapa than cxpccted, withdrew temporarily mid-term, lattcrly collaboration improved through CEPF stimulus; RDOs active ln field with own FFS initial rescrvations overcome by CI, to give a profitable partnership regarding training partnership resulting ln succcssful training of trainers and farmcrs Matthew Quinlan, CI-DC, Senior Advisor Consenation Coffee (hogram Te4 Linda Klare-Repnik, CI-DC, Advisor Project Design and Management (Program Team) Annex 7.4 List of cites visited and persons/groups interviewed 1 1 Todd Hamner, CI-DC, Advisor Agicultural Practices (Pro-mm , Team) Date Katie Kelly, CI-DC, Associate, Consewation Enterprise (Pro-m Team) Fred Boltz, CI-DC, Senior Director, People and Protected .&reas De~artment Site Contact Lon Pommerenke, Technical Ad~isor, LSAIDIDCHAPVC John Buchanan. CI-DC. fonner Director Consenation Cncoa 1 Novem￾I ber 2003 11 ' Washington Edward Millard, CI-DC, Senior Director, Consenation Enterpnse DC Depamnent (Program Team) - .- - . . .. - - I Program, CELB Angela R. Prosek, CI-DC, Manager, Corporate Parmerships, CELB i i 14 i 16 ! Tuxtlahíexi CO 17 Jattenangoi Mexico Efrain Niembro, CI-DC, Mexico and Central America Program. Fonner Manager for Operations in .Mexico-City Abbe Reis . CI-DC. Fonner Director of Finance David Gambill, CI-DC, Director, US Agency Relations Ignacio March Mifsut, C1-Chiapas, Coordinator Program Selva Maya Santiago Arguello, CI-Jaltenango. Project Manager (Projecr Team) Gabriel Nava, CI-Jaltenango, Coordinador Sen-icios de Acreditación y Replicación (Project Team) Lazaro Escalente, CI-Jaltenango, Coordinador de Senicios de Extensión y Evaluación en campo (Project Team) Fausto Grajales, CI-Jaltenango, Sub-Coordinador Sen-icios de Extensión y Acreditación (Project Tearn) ! Jovani Ramos, CI-Jaltenango, Administration (Project Team) 1 18 i Arthur van Leeuwen, Consultant Socio-economic study i 19 Colonia Nueva Colombia, Visit ofcoffee farm 1 20 Manuel Morales, CI--Jaltenango, Coordinator Monitorin & - 1 I Evaluation (Tuxtla) (Proj ect Team) Une1 Ramirez, Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunfo, Jaltenango Gilberto Hipólito González Escalante, Presidente Comité Ejecutivo ICEAAC, SSS, Indígenas y Campesinos Ecológicos de Ángel Albino Corzo Hugo Lares Sierra, Asesor General, FTV, SC, (Fondo de Inversión y Contingencia para el Desarrollo Rural, FINCA Triunfo Verde, S.C.) Sixto Bonilla, Coordinador General, Reynaldo Lopez Garcia, Presidente Comité Ejecutivo, CESMACH , SC. Campesinos l Ecológicos de la Sierra Madre de Chiapas Carlos Velasco Lopez, CESMACH (Project Team) Montechristo, visit of coffee farm Roberto Escalante Lopez, Director de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunfo Juan Carlos Castro, Subdirector de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunfo Enrique Edelmann, Regional Manager Agroindustnas Unidas de 1 Mexico AMSA 2 1 22 24 1 TuxtlaMexi co 25 26 27 28 Villaflores José Filiberto Martinez Bocanegra,Agente FIRA Jaltenangol 1 Roberto Hemandez Liebano, Presidente Comité Ejecutivo, Mexico 1 Cooperative Comon Yaj Nop Tic, and 80 members Teresa Castillejos, Consultant Comercialisation & Finance (Project Tearn) (Fausto Grajales) Conservation Coffee Training Center (Centro de Capacitación), Escuelas de Campo y Experimentación para Agricultores Roberto Mann Estrada, Jaltenango,Chiapas, Warehouse Manager AMSA 1 (Arihur van Leeuwen, Consultant Socio-economic study) Tuxtlahfexi co (Jovani Ramos, CI-Jaltenango, Administration) Emilio Osono Ortiz, Ejecutivo Cadena Café Estado de Chiapas, Fondo AccióniBANAMEX Beatriz Campo, Fondo AcciónBANAMEX Cydle Jannet, Director Comercial AMSA, Mexic0,D.F Decem￾ber 2003 8 Accral ' Okyeame Arnpadu-Agyei, C1-Accra, Country Director Ghana 1 David Kpelle, CI-Accra, Deputy Direct~r-h~jects, Revie\\ Project 16 Tafo Reports Gyampah Arnoako-Gyedu, CI-Accra, Agro-Forestry Oficer. hoject Manager Yaw Osei-Owusu, CI-Accra, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Emmanuel Owusu, CI-Accra, Director of Finance (Edward Millard, CI-DC, Senior Director. Consen.ation Enterprise Deparhnent) Jessica Donovan, CI-DC, hoject Coordinator West Afrka p%ram Paa Kwezi Entsie, Integated Pest Management ICPM, Miniq of Agriculture - ~ , Kruwa, Meeting with Community members Nyambebu, Darntse 10 Bobi, Carnp Meeting with Community members Abeka Meeting with Community members Nkwanta, Somnyamed -kdu ' ! 11 ' Antokrom, Meeting with Community members Afíasco ' 12 Kakum Park Visit National Park 15 Kumasi Ohemeng Tenyas, Managing Director Kuapa Charles Afari Mintah, Research and Development Ofticer Kuapa Dr. Kwabena Osei-Bonsu, Principal Ayonomist, Cocoa Research Insdtitute of Ghana CRIG Dr. Laud Ollenu, Deputy Executive Director, Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana CRiG A. Afrifa, Soil Scientist, CRlG George Asante, Agroeconomist CRlG 17 Accra Prof. Afreh-Nuamah, ICPM Coordinator, .Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Emmanuel Owusu, CI-Accra. Director of Finance) January ( Washington 1 1 1 Adriana Madrigal, CI-DC, Investment Officer, Verde Ventures Fd. 2004 DC 5 6 1 N (Project Team, Efrain Niembro) (Project Team, Jessica Donovan) Jennifer Morris, CI-DC, Manager, Verde Ventures Fund Alejandro Robles, CI-DC, Vice President, Mexico and Central America Promam - Nigel Asquitli, CI-DC, Director, Conservation Policy (Project Team) Olivier Langrand, CI-DC, Vice President, Afnca and Madagascar Division, (Jessica Donovan, CI-DC, Project Coord. West Afnca) (John Buchanan, CI-DC, former Director Conservation Cocoa Program, CELB) Justin Ward, CI-DC, Senior Director, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, CELB (Alejandro Robles, CI-DC, Vice President, Mexico and Central ~rnérica Program) Elizabeth T. Kennedy, CI-DC, Director, Outcome Monitonng, Conservation Strategies Deparhnent, formerly in charge of the CC Program's M&E Claude Gascon, CI-DC, Senior Vice President Regional Programs (Matthew Quinlan, CI-DC, Senior Advisor Conservation Coffee) Keith Alger, CI-DC, Vice President, Conservation Strategy Dptmt Amy Skozclas, CI-DC, Former Senior Director, Corporate Parínerships, CELB, Jill Gorsky, Former agroforestry program coordinator finances (telephone conversation San Francisco) (Linda Klare-Repnik, CI, Advisor Project Design and ~anagement) - (Edward Millard, CI-DC, Senior Director, Conservation Enterprise Deparhnent) David Knox, CI-DC Manager Afnca-Eurasia, Conservation Outcomes, Conservation Synthesis Department, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science Thomas Brooks, CI-DC Senior Director, Conservation Synthesis Department, Center for Applied Biodiversity Science Armando Laborde, former coordinator Chiapas Coffee Project (Program Team) Debnefing Annex 7.5 List of documentslo6 1. Ahenkora, Y., Akrofi, G.S. and Adn, A.K. (1974) The end of the first cocoa shade and manurial experiment at the Cocoa Research Institute of Ghana. Joumal of Horticultura1 Science 49:43-5 1 2. Asian Development Bank: Logical Framework 3. Australian Agency for Intemational Development: Ausguidelines, 1. The Logical Framework Approach, 2003 4. 900th William, Radya Ebrahim, Robert Morin: Participatory Monitonng, Evaluation and Reporting, An Organisational Development Perspective for South Ahcan SGOs. Braamfontein, 2001, South Afnca 5. Center for the Development of People (CEDEP): Impacting the Cocoa Industry in Bobi. Kruwa. Abeka, NkwantdAntokrom and Nuanua (Kakum Consenation Area) using Participatory Rapid Appraisal, Kumasi March 2001 6. Chavez, E. ICA: ECOSOC Ministerial Roundtable,"Increasing producti~ity of rural work", 30 Apnl2003 7. Chavez, Maria Elena: Cooperatives, Rural Development and Decent Work Presentation by Deputy Director-General, International Co-operative Alliance (ICA) and Coordinator, Committee for the Promotion & Advancement of Cooperatives (COPAC) to the ECOSOC Ministerial Roundtable,"Increasing producti\-ity of mal work", 30 Apnl2003 8. CI Strategy Handbook, Draft October 2003 (unpublished) 9. Comission of the European Communities. Draft Guidelines for the Definition of Development Indicators, Brussels, November 2001 10. Comission of the European Communities, Fighting Rural Poverty, Brussels. 25.7.2002, 11. Conservation International and Starbucks Coffee Company: Consemation Coffee Alliance. A proposal to The United States Agency for International Development. Submitted to The Global Development Alliance Secretariat On Febniary 27, 2003 for the APS NO. GDA-03-001 12. Conservation Intemational: "Zero Biodiversity Loss", Washington February 2002 13. Conservation International: Annual Report Third Year (October 1, 2002- Decernber 31, 2003) 14. Conservation Intemational: Biodiversity conservation and cocoa farming. Socio￾Economic Workshop, 30 January - 1 February, 2001, Accra, Ghana, Draft. 15. Conservation Intemational: Repon on the Assessment of Alternative Economic Actkities of the Conservation Cocoa Agroforestry Program in the Kakum Consenation Area. Accra, August 2001 16. Conservation 1nternationai:Agroforestry-based Enterpnse Development as a Biodiversity Conservation Inten~ention in Mexico and Ghana. Detailed Implementation Plan. April 10. 2001 Mari) af the tirl~ are inromplete. vhen ihey are rakm hrn rhr Interne1 17. Danida Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Guidelines for Project Management, November 2003 18. Des Gasper "Logical Frameworks": Problems and Potentials 19. DFID: Office Instruction Volume 11: Logical Frameworks, July 2002 20. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP): Guidelines on the Strategic Planning and Management of the Energy Sector. New York, 1999 21. Emerton, L.: Community Conservation Research in Africa: Pnnciples and Comparative Practice,: Mount Kenya, The Economics of Community Conservation, University of Manchester, ISBN 1 90072894X 22. Fairtrade Labelling Organisations:: Intemational Fairtrade Standards for Coffee 23. Ferraro and Kiss: Direct Payments to Conserve Biodiversity, Science, Vol 298, November 2002 24. Finlayson, P.: Strategic Planning: The Logical Framework Approach. Are conventional planning processes fully effective ? Ballarat, Australia 1999 25. Gasper, D. Institute of Social Studies - The Hague, Working Paper Series i Institute of Social Stndies - The Hague, Working Paper Series 1999 26. GEF Pakistan Wetlands Project: Logical Framework 27. GEF Proyecto de Mediano Tamaño Conservación de la Biodiversidad Mediante el Mejoramiento del Hábitat en Paisajes Productivos de la Reserva de la Biosfera El Triunfo, Ayuda Memoria Chiapas, México, 14-01-1999 28. GEF Proyecto de Mediano Tamaño Mejoramiento del habitat en paisajes productivos de la Reserva de la Biosfera "El Triunfo", Ayuda Memoria Evaluacion de Medio Plazo. Chiapas, México. 2 a 10 de Mayo del 2001 29. Gloekler, M.A.: Project Process Monitoring. Biodiversity Conservation Project Sites: Bunji Community Conservation Area, Pakistan, Junc 1998 30. Haase, H. Sustainability and Financia1 Independence Analysis for the CC Programm in Chiapas, August 27,2003 31. Hambly Odame Helen: Engendenng the Logical Framework ,ISNAR August 2001 32. Hodge, R.; Anthony Peter Hardi, David V.J. Bell: Seeing Change through the Lens of Sustainability. The Intemational Institute For Sustainable Development Costa Rica, 1999 33. Hodge, R.; Anthony Peter Hardi, David V.J. Bell: Seeing Change through the Lens of Sustainability. Background Paper for the Workshop "Beyond Delusion: Science and Policy Dialogue on Designing Effective Indicators of Sustainable Development" The Intemational Institute For Sustainable Development Costa Rica, 6-9 May 1999 34. Holcomb, R.B. et al.: Success Factors for Value-added New Generatioon Cooperatives, Oklahoma State University, September 2003 35.1FAD: Managing for Impact in Rural Development. A Guide for Project M&E, Rome 2002 36. ILO: Promotion of Cooerpatives Recommendation, ILO Conference 20-6-2002, 37. Intemational Fund for Agricultura1 Development (IFAD): A Guide for Project M&E, Rome 2002 38. IUCN: Programme and Project Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation 39. Kyriakopoulos, K.: The Market Onentation of Cooperative Organisations, Assen 2000 40. Leeuw F.: Assumptional Analysis, Log Frame Analysis and other methods of reconstructing and evaluation propram logic 41. Leeuw Frans L.: Assumptional Analysis, Log Frame Analysis and other Methods of Reconstructing and Evaluating Program Logic. Hombill 2 (1998) pp 106-1 14 42. Leeuwen, A.van, Socioeconomic Surveys 2001,2002,2003 43. McCaul, O.: Logical Framework Analysis as a Tool for Project Planning - a necessq Evil ? February 2000 44. Memoria 3" Reunión Sobre Nomas para la Certificación del Café Sustentable en México San Cristóbal de las casas, 19 de febrero de 2001 45. Memorias del Taller "Indicadores para una Cafeticultura Sustentable: Conse~acion y Desarrollo." Llevado a cabo los dias 29 y 30 de junio del 2000 y organizado por Pronatura Chiapas A. C. e IDESMAC 46. Meredith Michael E: In-service training and adaptive management methods Sew Zealand Agency for Intemational Development 47. Miehlbradt Alexandra 0. and Mary McVay (ILO): Developing Commercial Markets for Business Development Sewices, Turin September 2003 48. Millard, Edward: Business Planning for Environmental Enterprises, Washington 2003 49. Moore Geoff: The Fair Trade movement: parameters. issues and future research Newcastle upon Tyne 50. NORAD: The Logical Framework Approach: Handbook for objectives-onented planning. 51. Prakash D.: Development of Agricultural Cooperatives-Relevante of Japanese Experiences to Developing Counmes New Delhi 2002 52. Prakash, Darnan: Development of Agricultural Cooperatives - Relevante of Japanese Expenences to Developing Counmes. IDACA-Japan on April 18 2000 53. Raynolds Laura T. : Poverty Alleviation Through Panicipation in Fair Trade Coffee Networks: Existing Research and Cntical Issues, Colorado State Cniversity Fon Collins. March 2002 54. Research Fellow Parinership programme for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources. Submission of a project proposal: Logical Framework Approach for RFPP projects 55. Resultados Clave 1&2; Resultados Clave 3.4 y 5, Powerpoint presentation. 17.1 1.2003 56. Rice (CVCABS): Conservation Concessions Concept Descnption. Sovember 2002 57. Salafsky, N., R.Margoluis, K.H. Redford, J.G. Robinson : Impro\ing the Practice of Conservation, A Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda for Conse~ation Science, Conservation Biology, December 2002 58. Salafsky, Nick, Richard Margoluis, and Kent H. Redford; Lee, K: Adaptive Management: A Tool for Conservation Practitioners ,1993 59. Sanford, Jonathan, E. Anjula Sandhu: Developing Countnes: Defínitions. Concepts and Comparisons, Washington December 6,2002 60. Schroth, G.; Gustavo A.B. da Fonseca,; Celia A. Harvey, Claude Gascon. Heraldo L. Vasconcelos, Ame-Mane N. Izac, Arild Angelsen, Bryan Finegan, David Kaimo\vitz. Ulrike Krauss, Susan G. Laurance, William F. Laurance, Roben Nasi, Lisa Saughton￾Treves, Eduard Niesten, David M. Richardson, Eduardo Somanib, Sigel I.J. Tucker, Grégoire Vincent and David S. Wilkie: Agroforestry and Biodiversity Conservation in Tropical Landscapes - a Synthesis, Island Press 2004 (forthcoming) 61. SNV Netherlands development Organisation: A presentation of Strategic Environmental Analysis. A methodology for sustainable development, Den Haag, November 1999 62. Starbucks and Conservation Intemational: Achieving New Scale in Coffee and Conservation. A proposal to Starbucks Coffee Company, November 2002. 63. Sumaila, U.R. et al.: Evaluating the Benefits from Restored Ecosystems: A Back to the Future Approach 64. Tacconi, L.: Participatory research and ecological economics for biodiversity conservation in Vanuatu, 2001 65. Toner, A, Howlett, D.: Goodbye to Projects ? The institutional impacts of a livelihood approach on development interventions, University of Bradford, October 2001 66. World Bank Research Group, CIICAB et al.: Toolbox of Applied Metrics and Analysis of Regional Incentives (TAMARIN), December 2003 67. Yaw B. Osei-Owusu: Household Survey 2003. Household Leve1 Impacts of Conservation Cocoa-Agroforestry Project, August 30, 2003 Files from the Coffee and Cocoa Amoforestry Pro~ram Eroom and from Proiect sites: 68. 1 Proceso de Evaluacion de Capacidad Organizacional: multiple files 69. 2 Proceso Modular de Cap en Planes Negocios: multiple files 70. 2003 Herramientas de Campo y Datos: multiple files 71. 3 Planes de Negocios: multiple files 72. Aceptacion al Programa de Cafe de Conservacion: multiple files 73. Agro Ecological Practices 23 JULY 2003 + Todd Comments.doc 74. Annual Report on M&E activities June 2001-June 2002.doc 75. Annual Report on M&E activities June 2001-June2002a .doc 76. Annual Report Sept 2001-Aug 2002.doc 77. Aportacion ECOSUR.doc 78. Assessment of Altemative Economic Activities Kakum.doc 79. Biodiversity Conservation and Cocoa Workshop 13-9-2000.doc 80. CABI Our Thoughts on Cocoa.doc 81. CCAP Evaluation Workshop Presen Aug 03.ppt 82. CCAP Evaluation workshop Report Aug 03 sep03.doc 83. CCAP Manual on Agronomic Practices.doc 84. CCAP Partner Meeting Notes 27August02.doc 85. CCAP Report 1st Partner Field Visit Sept 2001 .doc 86. CEDEP Baseline Research mapping soc-ec factors March 2001.doc 87. CEDEP Baseline Research TOR SURVEY Kakum.doc 88. Chiapas Coastai Watersheds TNC Proposal CSAID 16.7.2OO3.doc 89. CI Proposal to Starbucks for new MOU Nov 2002.pdf 90. Cocoa Best Practices VI THlOaug03.doc 91. Cocoa Milestone 3 Workplan Midterm Evaluation Product May 2002.11s 92. CONANP El Triunfo1999-2003.ppt 93. Conservation Cocoa Workshop May 2002 Minutes .doc 94. Conservation Cocoa Workshop May 2002 Summary Report.doc 95. contratoAmsa-COMONtc.doc 96. contratoArnsa-1CEAACtc.doc 97. Convenio CI-coops 03-04 Draft 20 sep SA.doc 98. Convenios de Colaboracion aliados: multiple files 99. Cuadro Comparativo de normas.XLS 100.DIP vs Plan presentacion PVC eval 19 nov 2003.ppt 101. Documentos comerciales 102. Documentos Control de calidad 103.ECEA Modulo 2 vf GN Mar 03.doc 104. ECEA Modulo 3 vf GN Abril O3.doc 105.El Triunfo y Cafe de Conservación 17 nov 03 Bi1der.ppt 106. Estrategia Regional para la RBT 20 mayo 2003?Todd SA.doc 107. Evaluación - Beneficios-2003.~1~ 108. Evaluación-ParcelasZ003.xls 109.FEB MARCH APRIL 2002 OBJECTIVE REPORT.xls 1 10.FFS Report 22.-25.20.2001 .doc 11 1.FFS Report 27.-30.11. 2001.DOC 112.FFS Report 29.1.-2.2.2002.doc 1 I3.FFS Report 5.-9.3.2002.doc I14.FFS Report 7.-14.4. 2002.doc 1 15. FFS ToT Modules Course Material 1 16. FFS Training Reports 1 17. FiNAL PVC Evaluation Guidelines-May 2003.doc 11 8.FIRA APORTACION A LA RED de CAFE.PPT 1 19. Forest Measurement ManuaLdoc 120. GEF Concept paper.doc 12 1. GEF Log Frame LS'DP JTB 12dec03.doc 122.GEF POSITION PAPER.doc 123. Gyampah Ago Ecological Practices IST Draft 26 L3E 2003.doc 124.Hams Haase Sustainability Report 2003 125. Harvard Case Study Starbucks and Conservation 1ntemational.doc 126.Household Survey 2003 Yaw 30.8.2003.doc 127.IDESMAC Cafe Amigable: multiple files 128.lnformacion diagnosticos de campo 129. Informe Monitoreo de agua 2003 mmr190803.doc 130.Initial Field Evaluation With CRIG Apnl2001.doc 13 l. Initial Partner Consultation Workshop Annex.xls 132. John Buchanan Ghana Tnp Report Jan-Feb 2001 .doc 133.Kakum Cocoa Fam Habitat Survey.doc 134. Kuapa Capacity Building Manual R&D Deptmt April2003.doc 135.Kuapa Initial Partnership Meeting Notes November 2000.doc 136.Matriz de red de cafe de conservación.XLS 137.ME Workplan Ghana Yaw 27jun 3 Outcome-Milestoiie format.doc 138,Mejores Practicas de Cafe de Conservacion MAYO 2003 FINAL.doc 139. Memoria abonos organices 2002,doc 140. Memoria de Cursos manejo integrado broca.doc 141 .MGNT Chiapas Coffee Project FY04-05.~1s 142,Monitoring of Farrning Practices CCAP outline.doc 143.Monthly M&E reports Ghana, various 144.MOU FFS CI-CRIG.doc 145. MOU FFS CI-CRIG-1CPM.doc 146.MOU FFS C1-1CPM.doc 147. Overview Project (Milestone level) Organigramm Projekt.ppt 148. PLEC parínership proposal.doc 149.PLEC TOR TH 31May02.doc 150. PreferredSupplier.pdf 151 .Presentación - Avance Results Misión de Evaluación Socioeconomic Study.ppt 152. Presentacion Aguas Beneficios humedos.ppt 153.Presentacion PWP M&E 19 11 03.ppt 154.Proceso de incorporacion de nuevas Coops: multiple files 155.Process for agreeing work plan LK 04aug02.doc 156. Progress Report to Starbucks Apnl2002.doc 157.Progress Report to Starbucks August 2001 .doc 158.Project Management Framework Ghana Cocoa LK 01aug02.xls 159.Propuesta de Capacitacion en Sem de Asist para Cafe deC.doc 160.Propuesta de una Red de Café de Consemación.doc 161.Proyecto Cafe Chiapas originalmente y restmcturacion.ppt 162.PVC 1 Grant Cover Agreement Kuapa 4 BLC 8Feb02.doc 163.PVC 2 Grant Agreement Proj Outline Kuapa Atchm 2 9 Feb 2002.doc 164.PVC 3 Grant Agreement Body Kuapa Atchm 3 9Feb2002.d~ 165. PVC 4 Grant Agreement Workplan Kuapa Atchm 4.xis 166.PVC Strategy 2003-2007.doc 167.PVC Third Year Annual Report FinaLdoc 168. Questiomaire Gender Analysis.doc 169.Questionnaire Ghana Farming Practices.doc 170. Questio~aire Individual Household Survey .doc 171. Red de Cafe de Cons Segundo Encuentro 8-9-2003 .doc 172.Report to Starbucks Colombia & Guatemala project 9-2000.d~ 173.Res Clave 4 Prov Serv Financ proveen acceso a credito a prod con MPCC: multiple files 174. Research Cocoa Research Agenda VI TH 14 Feb O2.d~ 175. Research Ghana Cocoa LIST OF RESEARCH.doc 176. Resultados Clave 1&2.ppt 177. Resultados Clave 3,4 &5.ppt 178.Socio-Economic Monit & Impact Ass Workshop 30Jan-1Feb 2001 .doc 179. Starbucks' Annual RepcFYO2-AR.pdf 180. Taller Encuentro 6- 12.10.2002.doc 181 .Taller Evaluacion y Planificacion Jaltenango 20-25.6.2002 182.The Conservation Coffee Alliance CI Starbucks 27-2-2003.doc 183. Third MOU CI-STARBUCKS 8-22-03.doc 184.USAID Ghana Tnp report Lone P July 2002.doc 185.USAID Mexico Trip Report CI Lorie P 02apr03.doc 186.USAID PVC Proposal 1997.d~ 187. USAID PVC Proposal l998.doc 188. USAID PVC Proposal 1999.d~ 189. Validation Cocoa Trial Fractices-2TH 190ct01. 190. Workshop Conservation Cocoa Summary Report Cpdated JG 7JLX2002 FISAL.doc Annex 7.6 Successes, Challenges and Constraints Table . Principal Successes, Challenges and Constraints in the Washington DC Conservation Coffee and Cocoa Project WASHINGTON DC DIP Objective 1: CI has the capacity to develop conservation enterprises based on coffee aiid cocoa -- vcrarcliing se1 of ('oiiscrvation I'rinciples for ('ofiec in 2001. tliai would he iviilcly applicahle. I.ocal lcvcl ('oiiservaiiori Coffec Ikst I'ractices werc worked out bctwrcii ('1 110. Starhucks antl ihe Chispas I'rojcct. and iiidepcndently verified iii a pilot scliciir with 250 fartticrs iii 2003. ('ocoa Iksl I'racticcs Iiave hceii drnned for Kiikiiiti. hut are not ycc fíiialisid. ~ ~ ~ .~ ('liallenges & ('oiistraints -- . ~ .... "~taiidards" foiind th be ioo rigid. so thoughi ofniore as "guideliiies". The iniroduciioii into he Cirecn Coffee Purchasing (iuidelincs of aspects ell'cctively criticisiiig tlic structure aiicl traiisparcncy oC somc Mexican ('130s has worseiied tlieir collahor;itioii with ('1. 'I'he drfiiiition of guidcliiies (or cocoa uiider li~rest sh& del>ciids oii Curiher data collection aiid I«iig-terni rescarcli. aiid likcwisc Cocoa Iksi Practiccs rieccl liitlicr cvaluatioii. .. I)II' Ohjcctivc 6: ('1 (Icvclops M&I< systcm aiid it is applied iii Mcxico aiid (ihaiia I'rograiiis Table . Successes, Challenges and Constraints in the Mexico Conservation Coffee Project, DIP Objective 1 ( MEXICO - DIP Ot ctive 1: Cooperatives have the capacity to operate as effective businesses that promote conservation I Cooperatives were trained in business plauning and credit management, with training consolidated through the prodiiction of business plans and credit applications, and a business training manual; coffee marketing courses Cooperatives generated interna1 capital from their coffee export revenues, thereby building track records of savings and credit history Turnover in membership, annual rate successfully reduced Successes Challenges & Constraints supply and rcpayment -- Coooeratives varied considerablv in their or~anizational and business Cooperatives were provided access to low interest loans over the three years of the project, and loans were repaid in full. ~ ~. - capacity, and often lacked experience in critica1 "staff'; transparency not easily introduced where key players receive no salary: relatively short time￾scale for changes to occur - - -. Sparse history of saving as a culture among cooperativcs Challenge was to replace credit supply through "coyotes" at high cost, with credit at reasonable rates but with formal ohligations to he met for coffee N Low levels of loyalty to cooperatives because of unclear henefits; scandals , and mmours causing changes in perception of a certain cooperative's value 1 within a community. Recent difficulties with the revised Starbucks buying 1 system Table ~~~~-~ . ~ Successes. Challengcs and Constraints in the Mexico Conservation Coffee Proicct. DIP Obiective 2 , ~~ ~ ~ d. -_ - - __ -- -_ - _ ___-- - _ - -- - - . - -- -- - - - - MEXICO -~ - - -- - -- -- - DIP Objective 2: ~oo~erkives realize higher prices through increased access to coffee markets 2 1 Farmers received considerably more for their coffee than the local Successes coffee coffee Challenges & Constraints Large importers, even those already sponsoring conservation, are sensitive to hlips in supply and variable coffee quality, and buying depamnts want rapid and guaranteed improvements froni year to year - which resulted in abmpt changes to the selling chain which some cooperatives threatened not - cooperatives who apparently had relatively little understanding of the exigencies of milling and shipping schedules - 200013 ~ ~ price each year, and could sell a reasonahle amount of their harvest at these prices cause had quality 200013 3 increased by project's efforts in training Recognition of need for CotTee quality, and the quality itself Majority of farmers don't drink coffee and were barely aware of what could Tahlc . Succcsscs, Cliallcngcs and Constrüints ¡ti thc Mexico Conscrvation Coffce Projcct, DIP Ohjcctivc 3 .........-.... ......... - _ ..... _ :m 7 Successes .... .. .. .-...--.e-.-. .. eetive 3: Fnrniers adopt aaroforeslry and oreanic methodoloeies and conservatioo techniques .. .. ....... . ....... .. <.hallenges & <:onstrnints Slionage of expericnced and motivated techiiicians willing lo work in isolated comniiinities iii Sonth Wert Mexico Agricultural tcclinical assistance team with 4 agroiioniists estahlished. and tasks allocaied . ............... .... ........ I:arni diagnosis process developed based on f'oiiservation I'rinciples for Coffce I'roduction, tcsted and implciiienied in cach collec lield of panicipating iarniers ........ . ......... ...... .. . -~ I:stahlislinieiit oFhiological control laboratory and associated lIIM progam. Production and distribotion of doses of R~~ririvrriu bl~ssiutiu f»r broca control: training of farrners arid extension workers in its use; liaison with fX'OSIIK - ~~ - ~ - Rclocalion of Agricultural Training Centre. Jaltenango ~ - . . Agricultural 'I'raining ('entre. Jalirnaiigo bilt andkide operati«&l deni»nstrating various con~~.rvation praciices and prodiicirig tiative trcc scedlings; classrooni availahle for training .............. Ncw Iarnis received Iiiitial 1)iagiiosis. acid r 'lrchtiirul Assistuncc I:iiriii Muiiagc~~wat I'laiis eluh~iruicd und ugrecd li~r IOXX colkc liclils. proveranihitious inethod for hroca iiifestation survev and for that already surpassed in sliade .. . . . . diversiiication. l>ificuli access to reinote villagcs aiid Iiillside farms - - - - Lack of adeauatc infrastructurc for and expericnce of culturing fungi and - -. finencing a year-round opcration iiiaoaairie parasitoids. Necd for quality control on production, dificulty of -~ - ~ .~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ -~ ~~ I.ack of an adcquatc water supply led to thc nccd io scarch for ánd negotiate another site for the ('entre ... -- .. . -- ; rccalcitrant geriiiiiiatioii bi many species. ............ 1. storage atid aiia~~sis'«l:d&Ua~d intcgratioii witii the (ilS infiirnuitiiin. Sccoiitl ycar inhrnutiw was not integrdtcd dircctly wiih that iti ihc daiahase hccausc of cliaagcri aiid additions lo variables rccordcd Instcad sprcudsliccts wcre iiscd hr storage. wliich rcdiicrd ensc of analysis. 1;arnicrs iii gcncral inilially liad vcry liitlc utidcrstaridiiip of hiodivcrsity conscruutioti in rclalion lo cofkc griiwing. iwr oí uppropriatc iiiuiiugc~iicrit (iir cofic pulp solid wnstcs. liqiiid wustcs or ofrcrliiciiig wutcr usagc. 'l'licy did liowcvcr Iiavc siiggcstioiis iu he clicitcd oti prcfcrrcoprraiives iiiii tiscd 111 hciiil: cviilii~tcd as to thcw cap~citics. iiicliidiiig tccl~nicul cxpcrtisc und clnrily 01' olijcctivcs rcparding Ihc scrviccs thcy 1111Pr; cicw coopciiilivrs luck cxpcriciicc unrl lcclinicul cnpucity. I1r~diiccrs lid lo ugrcc lo scvcrul kcy pructiccs when sigttirip iip lipr tlic Maiiugciiicnt I'lens iiicliidiiig: !a> limst clearing. ~~~nititoiaiicc ol' hiifler rotics iiround strcunis. 110 cdke pulp iii slrcatiis. wclls libr i~ililtration of .... .... - .. 150 I MEXICO DIP ~hj~~ti~~ 3: ad0.t aynfnrestry and organic rnethodologies and conwvatian techniq'JeS Challenges & Constraints liquid wastes, traditional good coffee management. Other elements needing ~omplian~e. such as difficult OneS transparency in cooperative finances, members' control of the cooperative o[ficials, and antonomy in the marketing chain can upset relations between cooperatives and the Project and indirectly jeopardise progress in the arras lo 2003 Snccesses sysrm for comp~isnce rith starbuCks Grm Pnrchasing Guidelines used to evaluate Management Plans, and more than 600 farmers met plans for second year j ! -- oforganic certitication, agroforestry and consemation i A__-__ 1 . Tablc . Succcsscs, Challcngcs an .. .......... .. . ~- 'on Coffcc Projecl, DIP Objcciivc 4 - 'O - ......... - - .............. -......... -. .. ictlve 4: liariners are hcing veriíied for Conseruation Coffee Sta1 . - . ............ ... . Successes ... ..-...--..---e.- ............. 'l'lie establishment of the IWd IXagiiosis Survey nientioned in Objective 3 formed a platform for the development of local staiidards based on tlie <'onscrvatioii I'rinciplcs ior ColTee I'roduc￾t ion ~ ~ .~ . ~ ~ internal Control Systcms of cooperatives assessed Ior Orgaiiic Certilication. and steps takeii tu iniprove or csiahlish systems as appropriatc: CI Iield data niadr availahle: comes giveii oii ICS ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ -. - .......... . ... ... . _ _ ards -- - .- ...... .... <:halleiiges & Constraints ...... ....... ..- ('oiisuliative proccss to develop glohal principies. iiicreased eiiiphasis oo farmer participatioo aiid greater involvenient of partner orgaiiii.ations took longcr than anticipaicd caiising a scason's delay iii implemcniatioii . - - _ -- - . -. - ~- . -_ _-- - . _ .~ _ _ - . - New cooperatives have no experience oí 1CS reqiiirenierits Tablc . Succcsscs, Cliallcngcs and Cotistr . ~ ... ~ ~. on I MI;XICO .- -- I>IP Ohjrctive S: Monitoring and Evaluation Systeni lu~pleinented, inforiii ~uccesics ...... ............ l>atah& crcatcd fbr ccc 1 socioeconornic data: iiiíurniation critcrcd froiii tlic I)iagnostic b'ield Siirvcy iiicliidirig (il'S coordinatcs. Iícld charactcristics. yirld Map witli rrliiicd sci oí priority arcas for project cxpuiisioii dc\dopcd huscd oii vcgctati«ii irwps arid Kcscrvr iiuiriupmcnt data Socio-ccoiif hiiiia iii tlic hiilTcr zoiic Mohility 01 fariiicrs h;itli gcogrupliicaily aiid hctwccii ciiopcrativcs: pr~~hlciiis iri rclationsliip hriwccri ('1 and ciqiciiiiivcs uvcr niurkctiiip Table . Successes, Challenges and Constraints in the Ghana Conservation Cocoa Project, DIP Objective 1 GHANA DIP Objective 1: Kuapa's organizatiooal capacity at the Society level strengthened (revised objective dec 02) - - an evaluation of Kuapa's organization and including at society level, to identify weak areas Challenges & Constraints -- 2 200011 3 200013 4 200113 5 2001/3 - - Knapa is a large organization with widespread components C1 and partner staff including Kuapa nained in Participatory Rural Appraisal methods, for obtaining baseline data ~ender issues studied within Kuapa and recommendations made CI commissioned a consultant to produce and test a capacity building curriculum for a Kuapa manual to train RDOs; 14 RDOs trained, almost complete manual available. CI invested in the Day Chocolate Co as an altemative marketing strategy, aiming at additional sales of fair trade cocoa to support sniall premiums for Kuapa farmers ~nderstandin~ of and concem about gender issues generally not great. -1 Temporary intenuption to cooperatioii from Kuapa led to manual. Manual still needs to be taken up and used by Kuapa itself. Stalling of market liberalization appreciablc premiums likely from organic cocoa cti\w 2: I'rojrrt Varmrrs udopl roiisrrvntieii uprolorrstr) liructirrs for rorne Wnrkshnp hclrl in Acera ti1 hrinp topctlicr iiiaiii pluycrs (('l. <'Klro&ii laonclicd elid of Ycar 1. with niodulcs prcpared'and rainitig staricd iii June 2002 and coniplctcd May 2003. Validatiiin :rials werc deploycd in identilicd dciiionstrati«ti farnis. and niontlily :raining of traincrs carricd out, in cight communitics. Trained rarmcrs passcd on ihcir learning to othcrs in thcir villages. - 9grcenicnt r&c¡~edori a range of &sic bcst practices for existing i~id newly plaiited shadc grown cocoa including harvestiiig iequency. rnaintcnancc priiiiing including niistlctoc rcninval. black ~od control. capsid avoidancc. shade moderation. polyhag plaiiting if iniprovcd CRlG hyhrids ~~ .. -~ ~- .-... ..-......-u ~.. 'atiicipating farmcrs report higlicr yields through applying )ractices. thosc replanting entliuscd by ncw tcchniques and general eeling engendered that it is possiblc to rehahilitate old cocoa irms, instcad of clearing fnrest fnr new farrns 13riiiging togcllicr govcrii1li~'iit and otlicr hadies tliai huvc 1101 ititcractcOs not participatiiig initially bccausc of U's failurc to mcet proiiiisc to supply a vehiclc. Some farrncrs expcct additional hcncfits fnr participatiiig iii traininp - Insiiflícient is kn& about certaiii Gpects of forest shaded cocoa production for certain practices to be dcfincd closcly furihcr data collection aiid rcsearch needcd o11 yield in relatioli to differing typcs aiid densitics ofshadc; on preferred shade tree spccies froni cocoa compatihility and biodiversity viewpointr;. Funding no1 yet ohtaiaed for CKI