Great Ape Conservation Fund Evaluation of the USAID CARPE Funding Transfer USFWS Contract 982108C107 Frederick Sowers Consulting Frederick Sowers, PhD, Team Leader Gary M. Tabor, VMD, MS, Evaluation Specialist June 2010 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Division of International Conservation Contract 982C108C107 United States Agency for International Development Bureau for Africa, Office of Sustainable Development   Economic Growth Trade and Agriculture Division Photos: Gary Tabor TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 1 2. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 7 2.1 The Congo Basin and Great Apes – species, distribution, importance, and relevance to US interests.................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.1 Great Apes Species....................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Evaluation Purpose........................................................................................................... 14 2.2.1 Evaluation Structure..................................................................................................... 15 3. METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES...................................... 18 3.1 Evaluation Methodology .................................................................................................. 18 3.1.1 Pre-implementation and planning phase ...................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Data Collection and Fieldwork Phase .......................................................................... 18 3.1.3 Data Analysis and Report Preparation ......................................................................... 19 3.1.4 Presentation and Dissemination of Results .................................................................. 19 3.1.5 Supplementary Evaluation Products ............................................................................ 19 3.1.6 The Evaluation Team ................................................................................................... 20 4. EVALUATION FINDINGS.................................................................................... 21 4.1 General Overview of Grants Program............................................................................ 21 4.2 The Fund Transfer -- GACF as a CBFP Small Grant Delivery Mechanism .............. 27 4.2.1 General Findings .......................................................................................................... 28 4.2.2 The Great Ape Conservation Act and Great Ape Conservation Fund ......................... 29 4.2.3 Transfer Mechanism Operation.................................................................................... 33 4.3 Performance of USFWS in the Grants Management Process ...................................... 39 4.3.1 USFWS as a Grant Making Entity ............................................................................... 39 4.3.2 USFWS GACF Grants Process.................................................................................... 40 4.3.3 Recipients Experience with the Grants Process ........................................................... 47 4.4 Grantee Performance in Achieving of Conservation Objectives.................................. 50 4.4.1 Monitoring and Applied Research ............................................................................... 51 4.4.2 Critical Habitat Protection............................................................................................ 52 4.4.3 Species Recovery and Health....................................................................................... 53 4.4.4 Governance and Enforcement ...................................................................................... 56 4.4.5 Conservation Outreach and Education......................................................................... 56 4.4.6 Training/Capacity Building/Technical Assistance....................................................... 56 4.4.7 Strategic Planning/Best Practices Development and Dissemination ........................... 57 Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund i 4.4.8 Fostering Innovative Opportunities.............................................................................. 59 5. KEY CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 61 5.1 General Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 61 5.2 Conclusions on Transfer Mechanism.............................................................................. 61 5.3 Conclusions on grant management process.................................................................... 61 5.4 Conclusions on Achieving Conservation Objectives...................................................... 62 6. RECOMMENDATIONS/LESSONS LEARNED.................................................... 63 6.1 General recommendations ............................................................................................... 63 6.2 Recommendations on Transfer Mechanism................................................................... 64 6.3 Recommendations on grant management process......................................................... 64 6.4 Recommendations on Achieving Conservation Objectives........................................... 65 7. ANNEX................................................................................................................. 65 Annex 1 List of Contacts Annex 2 List of Key Documents and Publications Consulted (beyond grant materials) Annex 3 Statement of Work Annex 4 Summary Table of GACF/CARPE Grants and Other Great Ape Grants in CARPE/GACF Countries Annex 5 Grantee Guidelines and Review Documents Annex 6 Methodology and Team Composition/Evaluation Schedule and Implementation Plan Annex 7 Grantee-Stakeholder Questionnaire (for later administration by USFWS) Annex 8 Text of Great Ape Conservation Act Annex 9 Scope and Transfer Mechanism (HR 1105, FAA 632 (a) and (b) Provisions) Annex 10 Evaluation Field Site Profiles and Strategic Support Description Annex 11 List of Sources for Potential Matching and Leveraged Funds Annex 12 Supplementary Evaluation Products − Contributions toward a USFWS Strategy for Great Ape Conservation in Central Africa − Guidelines for an Improved Communication Strategy for the Great Ape Conservation Fund − USAID Biodiversity Seminar Series PowerPoint Presentation Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund ii LIST OF MAPS, TABLES AND FIGURES Map 1: Range Map of Africa's Great Apes from UNEP GRASP Map 2: The geographic range of GACF funding Map 3: Ebola outbreaks and mortality Table 1 Africa Great Ape Populations and Red List Status Table 2 Funding by Landscape, by funding source and matching funds Table 3 GACF CARPE Grant Statistics Table 4 GACF CARPE Multiyear Grants Figure 1 Funding by Landscape Figure 2 Number of grants by award amount Figure 3 Grants issued by country Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund iii ACRONYMS ABC Friends of the Bonobos of the Congo (Les Amis des Bonobos due Congo) AfGAP African Great Apes Programme AFR Bureau for Africa (USAID) AWF African Wildlife Foundation BCI Bonobo Conservation Initiative CAR Central African Republic CARPE Central African Regional Program for the Environment CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBFP Congo Basin Forest Partnership CBNRM Community-Based Natural Resources Management CBO Community Based Organization CEFDHAC Conférence sur les Ecosystèmes de Forets Denses et Humides d’Afrique Centrale CEFRECOF Centre de Formation et de Recherche en Conservation Forestière CI Conservation International CIB Congolais Industrielle du Bois CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIRMF Centre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville CITES Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species COMIFAC Commission on the Forests of Central Africa CTO Cognizant Technical Officer DFID Department for International Development DFGFI Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International DGEF Direction Générale de l’Economie Forestière DRC Democratic Republic of Congo ECOFAC Conservation and Rational Use of Forest Ecosystems in Central Africa Program (Conservation et Utilisation Rationnelle des Ecosystèmes Forestiers d’Afrique Centrale) EU European Union FAA Foreign Assistance Act FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FFI Flora and Fauna International FSC Forest Stewardship Council FWS US Fish and Wildlife Service -- see also USFWS FY Fiscal year GACF USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund GEF Global Environment Facility GFTN Global Forestry Trade Network GFW Global Forest Watch GIS Geographic Information Systems GPS Global Positioning System GRASP Great Ape Survival Partnership GTZ German Technical Agency / Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund iv Zusammenarbeit HR US House of Representatives ICCF International Conservation Caucus Foundation ICCN Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature IGCP International Gorilla Conservation Programme IMAP Information Management and Analysis Project INCEF International Conservation and Education Fund ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization IUCN The World Conservation Union JGI Jane Goodall Institute LAGA The Last Great Ape Organization LEM Law Enforcement Monitoring MIKE Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants MINFOF Ministry of Forestry (Cameroon) MGVP Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project MOV Means of Verification NASA/UMD National Aeronautics and Space Administration/University of Maryland NGO Nongovernmental Organization NRM Natural Resources Management OCAT Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool OES International Environment, and Scientific Affairs ORTPN Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux PA Protected Areas PASA Participating Agency Service Agreement PASA Pan African Sanctuary Alliance PN Parc National PNAE Plan National d’Action Environnemental PNCD Parc National de Conkouati-Douli PNNN Parc National de Nouabalé-Ndoki PNOK Parc National d’Odzala-Koukoua PROGEPP Projet de Gestion des Ecosystèmes Périphériques du Parc RAPAC Réseau des Aires Protégées d’Afrique Centrale RCTL Réserve Communautaire du Lac Télé REBAC Central African Botanist Network REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation RNL Réserve Naturelle de Lossi (Sanctuaire de gorilles de Lossi) ROC Republic of Congo RSSA Resources Support Service Agreement SAP WWF Species Action Plan SEGC Station D’Etudes des Gorilles et Chimpanzees SOF State of the Forest Report SOW Statement of Work TCCB Tayna Center for Conservation of Biology TL2 Tshuapa-Lomami-Lualaba region of DRC TNS Tri-Nationale de la Sangha Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund v Evaluation of the USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund vi TRIDOM The Dja-Minkebe-Odzala Tri-National UGADEC Union of Associations for the Conservation of Gorillas and Community Development of the Eastern DRC UNDP United Nations Development Program UNEP United Nations Environment Program UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNF United Nations Foundation USAID United States Agency for International Development USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS US Forest Service USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USG United States Government UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WRI World Resources Institute WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund (US) WWF CARPO WWF Central Africa Regional Programme Office - Yaoundé ZSL Zoological Society of London 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY With global biodiversity under threat and in recognition of an unprecedented international decline of certain charismatic species, the U.S. Congress established the Multinational Species Conservation Funds, which are dedicated to saving some of the world’s fastest disappearing and most treasured animals in their natural habitats. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers these funds through the Wildlife Without Borders Species Programs (WWB), awarding grants to efforts aimed at conserving globally-valued endangered species found outside U.S. borders. Through its Division of International Conservation, the USFWS implements one such small grant program to support organizations involved in the conservation of great ape species worldwide. These grants comprise the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) grant program as authorized by law through the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. Much of the world’s great ape habitat is found in the environmentally critical forests of Central Africa where U.S. government (USG) presence is minimal. To address the importance of conservation in the region, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell in 2002 spearheaded a multinational multi-agency support effort that resulted in the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). Most of the United States government (USG) support to the CBFP is channeled through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Under specific appropriation language, a portion of USAID funds in support of the CBFP are transferred under autonomous management to the USFWS GACF where they support great ape survival and habitat conservation in the region. Most grants are directed to the dozen critical landscapes identified as biodiversity hotspots that also receive most of USAID’s CARPE funds. This document provides an external evaluation of the portion of the GACF that was funded by USAID and implemented by the USFWS in support of the CBFP and CARPE. The USAID funded GACP grants began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and expanded an existing portfolio of Great Ape projects. In FY 2007 Congressional appropriation to the Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service of $1.4 million to the Great Apes Conservation Fund for the Africa regions was augmented by $2.5 Million transferred from USAID's Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment. This additional transfer of funds has continued annually as stipulated by appropriation language under annual interagency memoranda of understanding. These additional funds complement other CBFP and CARPE activities and support ape conservation in seven Central African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Rwanda. USFWS awards GACF grants to a broad range of partners for activities including applied research, surveys, monitoring, wildlife health, strengthening law enforcement, conservation education, and habitat protection to strengthen conservation efforts of the great ape species of the region. Since USAID does not directly manage these funds and because the transferred funds are intended to complement CARPE core funding and program goals, USAID requested, and the FWS agreed to, in the interagency FY08 memorandum of agreement, an external evaluation to assess and better understand this complementary effort. From inception of the first FY06 funds of the transfer through FY 09, grant funding of over $9.6 million allowed USFWS to leverage $10.3 million in additional matching and in-kind funds to support 106 CARPE-linked projects. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 1 The evaluation results presented in this document thus cover four years and, with recipient matches, approximately $20.0 million of funding. Future funds transfers may be used more broadly to support conservation in the region, but the lessons learned here should be generally applicable. This report contains findings, conclusions and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the GACF. Key Findings The GACF/CARPE grant portfolio represents an investment approach that emphasizes collaboration over “ownership.” Grants are strongly oriented toward direct action at the field level and are driven by demand from partners and potential partners. The species focus builds upon and enhances the capacities of a community of conservation professionals and staffs whose programs provide longer term continuity to USFWS targeted short duration grant support. The staff managing the GACF is actively engaged in professional relationships and networks involving other government and foundation donors, affiliations of practitioners such as the IUCN specialist groups, and with grant implementers and stakeholders in the field. This hands-on approach gives the program a distinctive character and trajectory. Personal and professional interaction with recipients fosters an awareness and sense of community between USFWS staffs, grantees, and other institutions and funders. Frequently, recipients reapply to the GACF to obtain either intermittent or continuous funding over a series of grant cycles. Newer and smaller organizations come to the attention of the Service and are urged to apply. The result after four years of funding under the transfer mechanism is a diverse portfolio of 106 ongoing or completed grants spanning six countries in the Central African region: Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Gabon. As with USAID CARPE funds, the USFWS grants are targeted to the specific CARPE landscapes1 . The grants span a range of themes broken down by the evaluation into the following categories: • Monitoring and Applied Research, • Critical Habitat Protection 1 Throughout this report, the region’s landscapes are referred to as CARPE landscapes. This follows common usage among CARPE landscape partners, many USAID staff, USFWS program managers and reflects the evaluation SOW. Strictly speaking, these are CBFP landscapes, and USAID CARPE simply adopted them as the principal on￾the-ground conservation focus areas in the CARPE Strategic Plan as instructed by State Department. The individual 11 CBFP landscapes were determined, according to the NGO led Congo Basin Initiative (CBI) concept paper submitted to the State Department in June 2002, through a technical regional process facilitated by Central African experts and COMIFAC. The CBI reflected the best available science in identifying critical habitat within the basin. In part, it stems from the learning phase of CARPE and earlier FWS grants to the NGOs. The CBFP "adopted" these landscapes as the core of the USG program, and with limited exception both USAID and USFWS transfer funding follow the CBFP guidance. Recently, the Central African governments have begun to accept the landscape model of conservation. A mid-term evaluation of CARPE (Pielemeier et al, 2006) found the original 11 landscapes useful but unnecessarily limiting. Some landscape boundaries have been modified, and COMIFAC states and conservation partners having been working an similar issues outside these landscapes. The evaluation team used a comparative methodology to examine transfer and non-transfer funded grants both inside and outside core landscapes in the Central African and Albertine Rift regions of great ape habitat. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 2 • Species Recovery and Health • Governance and Enforcement • Conservation Outreach and Education • Training/Capacity Building/Technical Assistance • Strategic Planning/Best Practices Development and Dissemination • Fostering Innovative Opportunities Through GACF, USFWS has provided significant funding to CARPE’s landscape model of conservation and done so in a manner that largely complements, not duplicates, the USAID/CARPE funding. USFWS grant partners appreciated direct funding and argue that the amounts reaching the field between the two agencies are often of similar importance and order of magnitude. USFWS funding enhances the total pool of leveraged funding to CARPE by providing additional matching resources for conservation in the Congo Basin. The GACF program is more than just a limited collection of unrelated small grants. Taken together, these grants have leveraged not just direct matching funds from partner funds and other foundations. There is field-based evidence that USFWS investments have indirectly leveraged other large donor conservation “infrastructure” projects (such as ECOFAC and CARPE who support core office, staff and facility funding) throughout Central Africa. Based on the grantees’ ability to adapt funding to these varied contexts, USFWS appropriately funds single (one-off), clustered and sequential grant-making strategies to affect conservation outcomes. To illustrate this approach, consider just the single sector of “training and capacity building,” which relies on sharing expert knowledge, and technical assistance is often the method is use to deploy such information. The GACF provides technical assistance in two main ways. First, it does so through grants to support technical expertise within NGOs, and governments or through individuals/consultants. Second, the USFWS does so through deploying its own highly qualified technical staff. The professional personnel of USFWS and its WWB Species and Regional Programs are an asset that is highly valued by the great ape conservation community and GACF grantees. By using its own capacity, the USFWS is contributing to the mission of great ape conservation through substantial non-monetary assistance to its grantees. This non-monetary assistance includes both management-oriented and field-related assistance. Some examples of USFWS staff inputs includes strategic planning advice; the development of performance measures; the facilitation of collaboration; providing expertise on addressing specific field conservation challenges; and sharing research and best practices. Key Conclusions The GACF program in Central Africa has evolved steadily to a point where a stronger institutional presence in the region and across grants is merited. In view of the GACF’s limited resources, even with the USAID/CARPE transfer, an expanded institutional role has greater likelihood of success if it is part of an overall coordinated effort of the broader Wildlife Without Borders program. Among USG agencies, USFWS appears best-placed to administer conservation species-focused grants for great ape species and species’ habitat in Central Africa. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 3 Traditionally, the USFWS has relied upon targeted small grants to respond to emerging wildlife conservation needs. While recognizing that these grants serve a strategic purpose, there is awareness within USFWS that the agency should play a greater role in leading wildlife conservation initiatives. USFWS through its Wildlife Without Borders program is currently moving toward a model emphasizing the development of proactive, multi-stakeholder initiatives that address key wildlife management challenges. This new programmatic direction is consistent with our observations that the USFWS is well placed to play a more significant role in working directly with key institutions, including African government wildlife agencies and civil society groups to shape conservation programs. Independent of CARPE, USFWS is established in Central Africa. If CARPE funding changes priorities or stops, USFWS, as a permanent government agency with a long-term mandate, can be expected to sustain at least some support, thus a long-term strategy should anticipate the maturing and phase-out of the 20-year CARPE effort. The USFWS GACF presence in the Congo Basin is strategic, but lacks a formal strategy. The absence of an explicit strategy guiding the fund created unnecessary concern and confusion among grantees, USAID and other stakeholders. The USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund could foster the development of a coherent and coordinated Great Ape Conservation Strategy across all scales of implementation for local site-based efforts to national and regional levels of activity throughout the Congo Basin. Additionally, USFWS GACF lacks explicitly structured processes that would ensure adequate levels of communication between the fund and USAID CARPE management in the field. As new personnel within both agencies continue their support to CBFP, the communication has weakened to a level that undercuts potential efficiency and effectiveness at the operational level in landscapes. Based on the operational successes of the grants and the perceived complementarity of USAID and USFWS field activities in support of CBFP, efforts to improve communication and collaboration between them are warranted. Programs funded by each enhance the results of the other. Administrative burdens need to be lightened. Having grants database and technical management separate from administrative and financial functions leads to inefficiencies in fund management such as in working with USAID to ensure more timely transfer of funds. With grantees, communicating ideas clearly and succinctly is a critical function of a proposal or a report and this should be fostered through more precision in the proposal and reporting process. Greater precision in proposal and report writing will assist USFWS in the review of proposed efforts and outcomes delivered. Greater precision in proposal and report design can also assist the USFWS in archiving and retrieving data with a timeliness that allows the GACF to serve as an important conservation database for Great Apes. In the field, the grant program is having a positive impact. Despite their relatively small scale and low profile to date, the USFWS CARPE grants are critical to enabling conservation partners to meet important conservation objectives. Because of their heterogeneity, there is no easy set of metrics with which to quantify impact. Even grant size is not an indication of grant success as Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 4 many small grants given by the GACF have yielded highly leveraged outcomes; successful conservation outcomes often result from a partner’s larger, ongoing conservation efforts to which the grants make significant, sometimes critical contributions. By focusing grants, USFWS is capable of taking a strategic lead and core donor role for limited periods in selected landscapes. Where USFWS funds a substantial number of grants within a landscape, USFWS, along with partners, has the potential to proactively develop its own thematic or landscape level great ape program strategy. These “priority” programs could be distinguished from GACF (CARPE) general grants that could also continue as part of the program. Priority programs could evolve over time and help grants lead to measurable longer term conservation outcomes. While not specifically spelled out as a strategy, many grants already follow this pattern Key Recommendations Great ape conservation is a long term endeavor that will require continuing advocacy of US government support for great ape species conservation programs. The USFWS is the most important bilateral government funding effort that specifically targets the conservation of great ape species. The GACF, if nothing else, serves as an example of how one nation can choose a more proactive approach to change the trajectory of conservation events. Increase involvement of national governments in GACF program. Expand existing initiatives to develop a proactive approach to capacity building, particularly of national staffs, that leads toward direct government to government grants. USFWS needs to develop an updated and comprehensive Great Ape conservation strategy to guide its grant making activities. Strategic planning should include stakeholder engagement and employ the best available science. The USFWS Great Ape strategy should be periodically revised to reflect the dynamic challenges facing Great Ape conservation on the ground. USFWS should establish an information and communication strategy that 1) builds networks within the Great Ape conservation and donor community; 2) shares results across these stakeholder groups; 3) profiles grant activities and field programs; 4) communicates strategic priorities and information about the GACF; and 5) makes outreach material available to the general public though the internet and other media. USAID and USFWS should agree on formal information sharing procedures and expand informal ad hoc communications. Systematic sharing of programming prioritization and synopsis of grant awards should be communicated regularly to CARPE/Kinshasa (and other concerned USAID operating units). USAID and USFWS should clarify the geographic and species requirements for future funding under a biodiversity funds transfer. If the scope of the transfer is expanded many of the CARPE specific recommendations and findings in this report could be applied to improving collaboration and coordination in other parts of Africa where both agencies play a role. This coordination could also be instructive to other federal agencies involved in African biodiversity conservation. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 5 USAID/CARPE should endeavor to use an improved understanding of the GACF grant operations and results to improve its own management of the land use planning efforts in each of the affected landscapes. By benefiting from USFWS coordination and management of the grants and the range of activities they are able to support could offset what are perceived as lost resources allocated to the USFWS program administration. USAID generally could support this improvement by accelerating annual memoranda guiding the transfer and, to the degree practical, actual transfer of the funds. USFWS should play an explicit and proactive role in convening stakeholders around Great Ape Conservation Act (GACA) (and related) conservation objectives. USFWS needs to expand its interactional donor role, which would be helped by adding staff and improving internal coordination between GACF program and administrative functions. As a hub of Great Ape Conservation in the Congo Basin, USFWS, beyond making grants, can enable cross-fertilization of ideas; devise initiatives that synthesize findings and best practices; and develop efforts that advance policy, resourcing, science and capacity building across the entire range of Great Ape conservation. Establish substantive and geographic priorities for grants. For example, in the short term, pull back from broad support to ecotourism to focus on higher potential sites where investment in habituation programs is a precondition to a viable higher value tourism market. USFWS should produce a revised format for grantee submissions and reporting that link grants to other strategic GA conservation priorities including CARPE, where appropriate. This would improve funding decisions where applicants can show how grant funding would link to larger conservation results. An explicit strategic framework for USFWS grant objectives would help. Streamline and standardize reporting formats. All proposal submissions and reports should focus on brevity and have fixed page lengths in set page margins, font and type size. The USFWS should facilitate a process of making online submissions. The team recommends that USFWS consider recruiting an evaluation/knowledge management specialist (one FTE). A specialized staff person could assist Species Fund Program Officers in reviewing reports as a collective across several species funds. Such a position can be augmented with contractual assignments to analyze grants data and develop synthesis review assessments. The evaluation team strongly recommends a strategic planning exercise for the GACF that includes partners such as USAID, other governmental agencies, international donors and external great ape conservation expertise. The USFWS has begun to put into place an advisory group for Great Apes as with the other multinational species funds that will provide strategic guidance to the program. Building on this effort, the USFWS may also seek to consult with the National Academy of Science in developing a strategy using the best science and elevating the profile of great ape conservation in the process. In the end, the USFWS needs a strategy and related sharing of information that should posted on its web page and be accessible to the public. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 6 2. INTRODUCTION Through its Division of International Conservation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) implements a grant program to support organizations involved in the conservation of great ape species worldwide. These grants comprise the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF) grant program as authorized by the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. The GACF was created in response to US citizen and government concern for the many threats jeopardizing the survival of great apes. USAID is directed under its appropriation to transfer additional funds to, the Fish and Wildlife Service for work that has been dedicated specifically to the Congo Basin. The funding constitutes a part of the US government’s commitment to the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). Most of the United States government (USG) support to the CBFP is channeled through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). A portion of the CARPE funds are transferred from USAID to the USFWS for direct administration of an expanded GACF program. This document provides an external evaluation of the portion of the GACF that was funded by USAID and implemented by the USFWS in support of the CBFP and CARPE. Under the umbrella of its Wildlife Without Borders program, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Division of International Affairs (DIC) administers a range of related conservation grant facilities, including the Great Ape Conservation Fund. FWS awards GACF grants to a broad range of partners for activities including applied research, surveys, monitoring, infectious diseases, strengthening law enforcement, conservation education, and habitat protection to strengthen conservation efforts of all great ape species. CARPE represents USAID’s major conservation program in Central Africa and is USAID’s largest field-based conservation program. USAID launched CARPE as a 20 year program in 1995. The current phase of the initiative, CARPE II, which provides funds to the GACF, started in January, 2003 and continues until September, 2011. A third phase is anticipated. The USFWS Division of International Conservation has been involved in all phases of CARPE. CARPE activities encompass nine countries with the strategic objective of reducing the rate of forest degradation and loss of biodiversity through increased local, national and regional natural resource management2 . Programs are focused around 12 core landscapes where critical biodiversity is concentrated. These landscapes, centered on biodiversity “hotspots” frequently coincide with important and often threatened great ape habitat. 2 CARPE is currently working within the following African countries: Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Sao Tome & Principe. Following from their original “Yaoundé Declaration” (1999), the governments in the region have established their willingness to create a meaningful regional forest dialogue by becoming members of the Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC). Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 7 The USAID-funded FWS Congo Basin grants began in Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and expanded earlier grant efforts. In FY 2007 Congressional appropriation to DOI FWS of $1.4 million to the Great Apes Conservation Fund was augmented by $2.5 million transferred from USAID's Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment. This additional transfer of funds has continued annually as stipulated by USAID appropriation language and managed under an interagency memorandum of understanding. These additional funds complement other CARPE activities and support ape conservation in seven Central African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Rwanda. The funds are available for CBFP countries to support great ape-related conservation projects in CARPE landscapes. The transfer of $2.5 million from USAID CARPE has occurred annually from FY06-FY09 and may continue in future years. For FY 2010, there is no specific appropriation but the Conference report provides a directive that “$5,000,000 is for international programs of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, particularly in central Africa”. Because the USAID does not directly manage these funds and the funds are intended to complement CARPE program goals, in the FY08 memorandum of agreement with USAID, USAID requested and provided for an external evaluation as part of this complementary effort. Through FY09, CARPE GACF grant funding of over $9.6 million allowed FWS to leverage $10.3 million in additional matching and in-kind funds to support 106 projects under the CARPE transfer mechanism. The results of that evaluation presented in this document thus cover four years and approximately $20.0 million of funding. As this document goes to press, the nature and scope of this funds transfer has expanded beyond a unique focus on CARPE and great apes. While this revised mandate is beyond the purview of this evaluation, it is anticipated that the evaluation findings and lessons will be of Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 8 value to the continued collaboration between USAID and the USFWS as well as to the Great Ape program beyond the geographic limits of CARPE. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 9 2.1 The Congo Basin and Great Apes – species, distribution, importance, and relevance to US interests The forest ecosystems of the Congo basin span across much of Central Africa, from the Atlantic Ocean's Gulf of Guinea to the mountains of the Albertine Rift in the east. Encompassing over 180 million hectares, they constitute the world’s second largest remaining area of contiguous moist tropical forest. The Congo basin forests do not only play a critical role for global biodiversity conservation and, in so doing, provide a home to three of the world's four species of great apes; they also supply vital local, regional and global ecological and social services. The region’s forest contribute to controlling and buffering climate at a regional scale and absorbing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide, and thereby help to mitigate global climate change. More than 60 million people live in the region and the forests afford food, shelter and livelihoods for many of the region’s people. About half of the region targeted by CARPE is under forestry concessions, making productive forest use central to the region’s economy. While much of the forest area remains intact, the regional forest ecosystems are at risk from a complex set of important threats - such as unsustainable timber and mineral extraction, transport infrastructure and settlement, bush meat trade and weak governance - that call for concerted global action. Deforestation trends and other threats to the forest are increasing in the region and, if unchecked, will ultimately negatively impact the development potential of the region. Most countries in the region remain fragile, many having suffered from war and large displacements of their populations since the CARPE and GACF programs began. However, the governments of the Congo Basin have recognized the threat to their forests and through the 1999 Yaoundé Declaration and the ensuing Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC), are taking action to sustainably benefit from and mitigate threats to the region’s forests and biologically diverse resources. Great Apes are a valued part of our human heritage and their conservation is a global responsibility. Human development at a global scale has far-reaching impacts and the pressures of expanding populations, resources consumption, pollution, climate change and economic growth compel the global community toward concerted international efforts to save these species. The USFWS is mandated through a series of laws and international treaties (e.g. the Endangered Species Act, CITES) to play a key role in protecting global biodiversity and particular species of international concern. The Great Ape Conservation Act is one of a series of acts to support this role. As one of several Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the GACF supports conservation of critical flagship species such as Great Apes and Africa Elephants in their natural habitats. Through its Wildlife Without Borders Program, the USFWS uses these GACF funds to work with partners in the field to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants in their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. According to program managers, “the Multinational Species Funds are helping to make a real difference.” Citing successes such as with the status of rhinos in Nepal, elephants and rhinos in southern Africa, and tigers in Russia, the USFWS, asserts that, “these successes show that endangered animal populations can recover if sufficient and reliable resources are provided for Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 10 anti-poaching patrols, habitat conservation, public education and other interventions.” 3 In recent testimony to Congress, the Service asserts that these successes are being achieved and merit continued support under GACA as well: “The Great Ape Conservation Act provide excellent example of how to produce focused and efficient means to support the conservation of species that are ecologically important and aesthetically invaluable to the American public and people around the world,” said Jane Lyder, the Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Department of the Interior in her testimony before the Congressional panel. “The Administration strongly supports H.R. 4416.” Our evaluation seeks to test the validity of this assertion with respect to the conservation impact of the Congo Basin grants. s an 2.1.1 Great Apes Species There are four species of great apes in Africa: bonobo, chimpanzee, eastern gorilla, and western gorilla -- all of them key landscape species within the Congo Basin. All four of these great ape species are classified as endangered or critically endangered. The conservation status of all species is precarious. Their survival in the wild hinges on guaranteeing that widespread human impacts in the region such as habitat loss and degradation, civil conflict, bushmeat and live animal trade and epizoonotic disease are diminished. For instance, African great apes are especially threatened by Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever outbreaks. In areas where great ape ecotourism exists and where ape and people have high rates of contact, there is also concern for higher levels of respiratory and gastrointestinal pathogen transmission between apes and people. Great apes are keystone species and play a critical ecological role as seed dispersers. In some regions, they are vital to human economic livelihoods and national pride and contribute external revenues through high profile ecotourism. Across all of Africa, great ape populations are under enormous pressure from human-generated threats and, as a result, are in decline. Great apes have slow reproductive rates which are further reduced in the face of disturbance. Ape populations take a long time for to recovery from any impact. Because most populations are now small and dispersed, destruction of their forest habitats and hunting are rapidly driving great apes towards extinction in the wild (Caldecott and Miles 2005, Ellis, Christina 2008 WWF Netherlands). 3 See USFWS brochure, Multinational Species Conservation Funds Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 11 Figure 1: Range Map of Africa's Great Apes from UNEP GRASP The great ape populations in Africa are estimated below. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 12 Table 1: Africa Great Ape Populations and Red List Status (From Caldecott and Miles 2005; Ellis, Christina 2008) Species Descriptions: Bonobo (Pan paniscus) The bonobo is restricted south of the Congo River, a biogeographic barrier and do not live within the range of any other great ape. Bonobos are endemic to the Democratic Republic of Congo, and are found at elevations between 300 – 750 meters. Bonobos are very patchily distributed throughout a 350,000 km2 range and mainly exist outside of protected areas. Total population estimates, based on speculation, vary widely between 10 000 – 50 000. (Caldecott and Miles 2005; Ellis, Christina 2008) Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) Chimpanzees have the largest range in Africa covering 21 countries from East to West Africa. Four subspecies are recognized: the West African chimpanzee Pan troglodytes verus; the Cameroon-Nigeria chimpanzee Pan troglodytes vellerosus; the central chimpanzee Pan troglodytes troglodytes; and the eastern chimpanzee Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Chimpanzees are found in savannah woodlands, grassland forest mosaic and tropical moist forests, from sea level to about 3000m elevation. The minimum population estimate is just under 200,000 individuals. In Ivory Coast, chimpanzees’ numbers have declined by 90% from estimated 100,000 individuals in the 1960s to 8,000 to 12,000 today (Campbell et al. 2008). Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) The western gorilla is found in seven countries in western Central Africa, and inhabits lowland forest, swamp forest and montane forest from sea level to 1600 meters. The Congo and Oubangui Rivers limit the eastern edge of their distribution and the northern boundary is defined by the Sanaga River and northern extent of tropical forest habitat. The western gorilla is found in Cameroon, Central African Republic, mainland Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Nigeria, Republic of Congo, and Cabinda (Angola). Western gorillas are thought to be extinct in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Caldecott and Miles 2005; Ellis, Christina 2008). Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 13 There are two subspecies of western gorilla -- the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) and the Western lowland gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). The Cross River gorilla is considered the most critically endangered gorilla in Africa with a population estimated at less than 300 individuals spread across 12-13 small patches of habitat in the Western Highland region along the Nigeria-Cameroon border along the Cross River. The Western lowland gorilla is the most numerous and widespread gorilla, and is distributed across approximately 700,000km2 of Congo Basin habitat up to 1600 meters. Western lowland gorillas live sympatrically with the central subspecies of chimpanzee. Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei) Separated from western gorillas by about 900km of Congo Basin forest, eastern gorillas inhabit submontane and montane forests in eastern Central Africa. There are two subspecies of Eastern Gorilla -- the Eastern lowland gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) and Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei). The Eastern lowland gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) has a patchy distribution within eastern Democratic Republic of Congo from Lake Edward south to Lake Tanganyika and exists in less than 13% of its original range. Population surveys have proved difficult given decades of civil unrest and the region's remoteness. Census data estimates range from 3,000 to 17,000 individuals. Population baseline estimates often rely on Hall et al. survey published in 1998. The Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) occurs in two known populations within three countries that converge at the Nile River-Congo River divide: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. These two populations exist almost entirely within National Parks. One population of 380 individuals is found within a tri-national park area (425 km2 ) formed by the extinct volcanoes of the Virunga Massif and protected within Virunga National Park in Democratic Republic of Congo, in Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park in Uganda. The second population of Mountain gorillas is found mainly in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park (215 km2 ), Uganda and has roughly 340 individuals in size. The Virungas and Bwindi are separated by 25 kilometers of intensely cultivated farmland. (Caldecott and Miles 2005; Ellis, Christina 2008) 2.2 Evaluation Purpose The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of the Great Ape Conservation Fund as a delivery mechanism for great ape conservation as well as the effectiveness of GACF at achieving USG CBFP conservation objectives in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Rwanda. The evaluation is jointly supported by USAID and the USFWS and involved participation of both agencies. The mid-term evaluation of CARPE II recommended that federal agencies retained under CARPE funding should “earn” their place at the table by offering comparative advantages in the delivery of services. Since the fund transfer to USFWS reduced USAID funds without Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 14 clear oversight mechanisms, USAID entered this mandated transfer arrangement with some uncertainty about the role and functioning of the USAID-supported GACF/CARPE grants. This external evaluation is intended to address USAID’s concerns. Specifically the evaluation will assess the process by which these grants are administered via a transfer of funds from USAID to USFWS, examine transaction costs of this process, and determine any vulnerabilities or duplication of efforts which may exist as a result of this process. The evaluation will also assess the impact of USAID funding via the GACF on ape conservation and provide recommendations for improving program delivery, appropriate metrics for evaluating ongoing program performance, and assist in the development of appropriate short and long term program objectives. Although the evaluation included site visits, the purpose was not to capture the full impact and results at selected sites but to document illustrative impacts achieved through the small grants program. Furthermore, the evaluation will provide recommendations to improve the Fund's performance 2.2.1 Evaluation Structure The team evaluated three primary dimensions of the grant program—two related to process and the third related to outcomes—of the transfer of funds from USAID to the USFWS. The process sections include functioning of the interagency transfer mechanism and the operational capacity and experience of the USFWS as a grant-making organization. I. Effectiveness and Efficiency of GACF as a CBFP Small Grant Delivery Mechanism The Statement of Work (SOW) calls for the examination of the transfer mechanism and specifically to an assessment of the coordination between USFWS and USAID. Congress established the parameters for this transfer; the evaluation examines the programmatic context and implications of the transfer. Questions guiding this section of the evaluation include: • What was Congress’ original motivation in creating this transfer mechanism, and how well is its intent being served by implementation of the fund to date? • How enabling and/or restricting is the GACA legislation? What is the implication of transferring regional program funding to a species-based program? • Was there an NGO role in structuring the Act and the fund? • What is the current capacity of USAID CARPE’s own grants facility now generally implemented via the IUCN? Is there overlap between USAID and GACF/CARPE grants? Comparative advantages of each? • What are GACF reporting requirements to CARPE (if any)? • What distinction is there between GACF support to CBFP vs. support to CARPE in terms of fund-transfer structuring? Why was USAID not given direct administration of the grant funds or more direct management of the USAID funds involved in the interagency transfer? Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 15 II. Grants Management Process The SOW guidance asks the team to assess the validity of underlying assumptions of the Fund's strategic process and to evaluate the grant-award process in terms of partner selection, size and number of grants, and the management of coordination between FWS and USAID. Representative evaluation questions included: • What specific criteria have been developed for GACF/CARPE grants proposal review (beyond the general guidance contained in the Act)? • Who participates in the review of grants? • What is the timing and length of the grant cycle? Are grants for a single year or multiple years? • What avenues exist for the grantor to negotiate with potential grantees (and vice versa) to improve clarity, success, relevance etc? • Are multiple grant proposals from a single organization “bundled”? • Is there a systematic process for grant monitoring and assessment? If so, what is the effect on renewals? • On what basis (strategic, tactical, opportunistic) does FWS determine the scale and funding levels of individual grants? Does the current practice seem to be optimal? • On what basis can success/failure be judged? Can objective metrics such as population levels of species be used to assess grantee submissions and reporting? What are current practices for judging success? . III. Grantee Performance in Achieving of Conservation Objectives The SOW guidance asks the team to evaluate effectiveness of GACF/USAID funding to achieve great ape conservation and to evaluate effectiveness of GACF in contributing to CBFP objectives. The evaluation documents great ape conservation results from grants in impacts at least 10 sites in four countries through the Fund and spillover effects (at sites, in country, and within organizations). Representative evaluation questions which may arise include: • How do grantees define and report leveraged funds? To what extent would these funds exist in the absence of the GACF grant? • Attitudes and knowledge – how do we assess “soft” (e.g. raising awareness) versus “hard” grants (e.g. scientific inventories? • What requirements for measuring performance and impact exist and who defines and uses these measures? • How can conservation change which is inherently long-term be measured for short, one or possibly two-year grants? • What can be concluded about the validity of measurement? What approaches are appropriate for tracking and assessing differing types and scales of grant? Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 16 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 17 • What is the value from tracking and reporting information relative to the costs in acquiring this information? What are the best roles for formal measurement versus informal checking on progress, dialog and “participatory” partnering? • Where are grants located? What is the rationale in terms of achieving GACA, CBFP, and CARPE objectives? IV. Strategic Support In a recent modification to the contract USFWS expanded the SOW and extended the evaluation period to include additional responsibilities in supporting the GACF/CARPE initiative to produce 1) strategy recommendations based upon congressional intent, existing strategy documents, other great ape funding mechanisms, and findings from the evaluation, for consideration by the USFWS in developing a strategic plan for Great Apes in the Congo Basin and to produce 2) a draft US Fish and Wildlife Great Ape Conservation outreach and communications plan for the Congo Basin. In addition to addressing the core evaluation questions above, the team will interview key personnel and gather data that will enhance the quality of these additional outputs. 3. METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES 3.1 Evaluation Methodology The four evaluation phases include: • Pre-implementation and planning phase • Data collection and fieldwork • Data analysis and report preparation • Presentation and dissemination of results Each of these phases is briefly described below. In addition to these evaluation phases, the contract was modified to enable more detailed fieldwork and wider geographic coverage. This expanded scope also included provision for a role in assisting the GACF to develop an explicit strategy to guide management and stakeholders toward improved functioning and stronger conservation impacts. This strategy input is submitted separately from the body of the report, but is included in the accompanying timeline. The overall approach to the evaluation was participatory and the timeline reflects inputs from USFWS and USAID. (See Annex 6) 3.1.1 Pre-implementation and planning phase Evaluations often begin without adequate preparation and suffer a subsequent decline in quality. To establish a basis for shared understanding of the nature of the task and subsequent consensus building around the results and specific recommendations, we began this phase with a systematic team planning meeting (TPM). The TPM is primarily an internal exercise in which the evaluation team reviews the tasks and deliverables called for in the statement of work. The result of the TPM is an initial evaluation design that is responsive to the evaluation purpose and includes a blueprint for answering each of the evaluation questions. In this evaluation, we were concerned with potential administrative time requirements for implementing a grantee/stakeholder survey, and thus initiated design of this data collection instrument and associated paperwork for approval with expectation that this would facilitate timeliness of subsequent phases. The administrative burden for the survey eventually required that its implementation shift to the GACF to be acted on subsequent to the evaluation and thus is not reported on herein. The team prepared an agenda and brought USFWS and USAID stakeholders together for a one day meeting to clarify objective and expectations, review detailed questions from the SOW, establish document and interview lists, and establish a timeline. For example, the SOW called for an assessment of grant effectiveness but asked for recommendations on efficiency. The workshop clarified and stressed the relative importance to FWS in examining results or effectiveness versus efficiency or cost expended to obtain the results. A work plan or implementation plan is the culmination of this phase. 3.1.2 Data Collection and Fieldwork Phase The SOW called for field case studies to document selective impacts. As a team we felt the field case studies would offer one of the richest but most costly sources of data for the evaluation. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 18 Since our participatory approach included the USFWS GACF Program Officer as a team member, the evaluation team combined administrative visits with more classic field data collection tools. In each instance we were careful to differentiate, administrative from data collection meetings and separated when appropriate. This also provided the evaluation team with instances where direct observation of the grant management process would otherwise not have been possible. The use of direct observation was equally important in assessing the grant review process in Washington. Both in Washington and in the Congo Basin, we used a range of different collection approaches including small group interviews, key informant meeting, document review, and direct participation with field partners in their sites. 3.1.3 Data Analysis and Report Preparation Since the period of the evaluation was extended to include two additional field visits, the team prepared a partial, mid-course summary of findings and made an internal presentation to USFWS and USAID stakeholders. These findings are incorporated into the final report. Subsequent to the second field visit, the team consolidated field data with information gathered in Washington and through phone interviews to prepare a complete draft report for review. When possible, the team triangulated data from multiple sources to reinforce key findings, conclusions and recommendations. Where the team offered more speculative observations and suggestions, they are qualified as such. Upon review of the report by USFWS and USAID, the team incorporated comments and produced a final document. The field data were organized to establish findings and align those with conclusions and recommendations that logically follow. 3.1.4 Presentation and Dissemination of Results The SOW called for a presentation to FWS and USAID as well as a presentation to Washington stakeholders. An initial presentation was made as part of the USAID forestry and biodiversity seminar series. A second presentation follows the approval of the final document. The presentation materials consist of these two PowerPoint presentations as well as the evaluation report itself. 3.1.5 Supplementary Evaluation Products As noted the work extended beyond the initial scope to include additional complements to the core evaluation. These include a document providing suggested guidance to the GACF to prepare an explicit strategy, guidelines for an improved strategy, an assemblage of existing grant-related strategy documents from other donors and sources including some receiving GACF funding, an expanded listing of existing and potential grant sources to complement GACF funds, and de facto the online survey instrument and associated package of support materials for OMB approval. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 19 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 20 3.1.6 The Evaluation Team The external team was complemented by USFWS and USAID staff participation, review and comments. The external consultant profiles are summarized below: Dr. Frederick Sowers is a natural resources geographer with over 25 years of experience and is an expert in bringing together stakeholders from public and private sector institutions around common development goals focused on wildlife natural resource management, land use, and crop production. In the 1990’s, Dr. Sowers served as Technical Director for a USAID global program assessment of agency efforts to protect biological diversity. Dr. Sowers continues to lead sensitive internal and external assessments and evaluations of complex development programs with multiple stakeholders in conservation programs, especially those in Africa. Recently, he was key staff in the 2005-2006 CARPE mid-term evaluation. He also led or worked on wildlife related evaluations in Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Madagascar, Niger, and elsewhere outside of Africa, often involving multiple countries and donors. Dr. Gary Tabor has nearly 20 years of grant evaluation experience with a unique background working with private philanthropy and multi-lateral and bi-lateral donor governmental agencies. His experience includes organizational, programmatic and scientific technical reviews of over 500 non-governmental organizations both large NGOs and universities through 16 years of work with Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge Foundation, Henry P. Kendall Foundation, Wilburforce Foundation, Turner Foundation, Rockefeller Philanthropic Associates, and Consultative Group on Biological Diversity. In addition, Dr. Tabor has experience in design and evaluation with GEF, UNDP, USAID, DANCED, and SIDA. Dr. Tabor is co-founder of one the largest transboundary conservation efforts in the world, the Yellowstone to Yukon effort. He also has extensive African wildlife experience having worked in Africa for seven years primarily with the Wildlife Conservation Society (Uganda Director), African Wildlife Foundation (Regional Senior Program Officer), and Cornell University. He designed the Bwindi/Impenetrable and Mgahinga Mountain Gorilla Conservation Trust for the World Bank and GEF – the first GEF conservation trust in Africa. 4. EVALUATION FINDINGS 4.1 General Overview of Grants Program The GACF/CARPE grant portfolio represents an investment approach that emphasizes collaboration over “ownership.” Grants are strongly oriented toward direct action at the field level and are driven by demand from partners and potential partners. The species focus builds upon and enhances the capacities of a community of conservation professionals and staffs whose programs provide longer term continuity to what are usually short duration targeted field support funds. The staff of the GACF is actively engaged in professional relationships and networks involving other government and foundation donors, professional groups and networks such as the IUCN specialist groups, and with grant implementers and stakeholders in the field. This hands-on approach gives the program a distinctive character and trajectory. Personal and professional interaction with recipients fosters an awareness and sense of community between USFWS staffs, grantees, and other institutions and funders. Frequently, recipients reapply to the GACF to obtain either intermittent or continuous funding over a series of grant cycles. Newer and smaller organizations come to the attention of the Service and are urged to apply. The result after four years of funding under the transfer mechanism is a diverse portfolio of 106 ongoing or completed grants spanning six countries in the Central Africa region: Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Central African Republic, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Gabon. The geographic range of GACF funding is depicted in Map 2, which also shows non-USAID supported grants outside the CAPRE landscapes. There is some clustering of grants along the Albertine Rift and at the confluence of the Republic of Congo, CAR, and Cameroon, but it is clear from the map that grants are distributed across the range of all African Great Ape species. As a funding organization, USFWS works with other philanthropists and donors to ensure that funding is provided in a coordinated and well-structured manner, with transparency amongst funders, thus enabling a more holistic and integrated approach to funding of programs. By sharing information about funding, other grant-making organizations report that the GACF helps ensure funding not just for a specific grant but increasingly for all the critical pieces of a broader program. This proactive funding style offers a constructive step forward toward greater efficiency and impact. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 21 Map 2: The geographic range of GACF funding Grants in the CARPE landscapes are reviewed in part based on the importance of the threats to the ape population or its habitat, in part on the density of ape populations and in part on the urgency of need and the potential impact of meeting the need. The grants span a range of themes broken down by the evaluation into the following categories: • Monitoring and Applied Research, • Critical Habitat Protection • Species Recovery and Health • Governance and Enforcement • Conservation Outreach and Education • Training/Capacity Building/Technical Assistance • Strategic Planning/Best Practices Development and Dissemination • Fostering Innovative Opportunities Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 22 In some cases grants could fit more than one category or provide funding to a range of activities that span two or more of these categories. For this reason, the team did not attempt to disaggregate the funds by strategic category. Figure 1 and Table 2 show the funding by landscape. From the chart, it is clear that some landscapes received considerably more than others. The detailed breakdown is given in the accompanying table, which also provides data on the corresponding matching funds made available by the partners and other non-USG funding sources. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 23 Figure 1: Funding by Landscape FY06 - FY09 GACF CARPE Funding by Landscape $0.00 $500,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $1,500,000.00 $2,000,000.00 $2,500,000.00 Landscape 1 - Monte Allen-Monts de Cristal Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu- Louesse Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala-Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) Landscape 5- Sangha Tri-national Landscape 6 - Leconi-Bateke-Lefini Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tumba Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie- Sankuru Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna- Kahuzi Biega (DRC) Landscape 11 – Ituri – Epulu- Aru Landscape 12 – Virunga Multiple Landscapes Outside of Landscapes CARPE Landscapes Total Funding Current guidance for GACF applicants suggests modest ($50,000) one-year grant applications would be favored in the review, thus reflecting an intention to maximize the breadth of coverage over depth. GACF grant managers reported a range of understanding about grant size and duration, but generally felt one-year $50,000 grants represented what they perceived as the USFWS ideal. In fact, the grants for the program are often larger and increasingly are given for more than a single year. Multi-year grants are funded, however, from a single fiscal year’s obligation. Tables 3 and 4 show that multi-year grant now comprise more than a quarter of the Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 24 total funding; many of these are recent grants and reflect adaptation. Conservation objectives benefit from longer and more predictable funding; administrative burden is reduced in larger single grants over a series of smaller ones. Figure 2 illustrates the grant size distribution by small, medium, and larger grants with an almost exactly 25% of grants in the small and larger categories. Table 2: Funding by Landscape, by funding source and matching funds Table 3. GACF CARPE Grant Statistics ( n=106 grants) Total Awarded $9,639,192.90 Average award $90,935.78 Median award $76,015.50 Landscape USFWS GACF (USAID transfer) FY06 - FY09 Matching Funds (FWS and Partner) Landscape 1 - Monte Allen-Monts de Cristal $130,000.00 $35,582.00 Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati $775,390.00 $677,907.00 Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu- Louesse $557,072.00 $558,426.00 Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala-Minkebe Tri￾national (Tridom) $940,163.90 $953,584.70 Landscape 5- Sangha Tri-national $2,298,882.30 $1,714,248.00 Landscape 6 - Leconi-Bateke-Lefini Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tumba $259,774.00 $92,251.00 Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie￾Sankuru $393,054.70 $471,684.20 Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba $904,225.00 $1,195,460.00 Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna- Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $943,735.00 $1,543,607.00 Landscape 11 – Ituri – Epulu- Aru $47,257.00 $32,659.00 Landscape 12 – Virunga $1,152,520.00 $2,102,830.00 Multiple Landscapes $1,079,635.00 $788,841.00 Outside of Landscapes $157,484.00 $115,823.00 Total (n=106 grants) $9,639,192.90 $10,282,902.90 Table 4. GACF CARPE Multiyear Grants (n=18 grants) Total awarded $2,501,141.00 Average award $138,952.28 Median Award $125,992.00 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 25 Figure 2: Number of grants by award amount Number of grants by award amount 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 <$50,000 $50,000‐$100,000 >$100,000 Award amount Number of grants Grants are not evenly distributed across the Congo Basin. Figure 3 shows an emphasis for the USAID transfer on three countries – Republic of Congo, DRC, and Gabon. These are also important recipients of CARPE funding and as such provide an established base to the organizations that partner both with USAID and with the USFWS. Cameroon has fewer grants despite important but threatened forest resources in the CARPE areas of the southeast; however, Cameroon receives additional non-USAID CARPE support for activities in the western part of the country that lies outside the CARPE region. This includes important support to organizations involved in protecting the threatened Cross River gorillas of the Western highlands landscape bordering Nigeria. The evaluation attempted to correlate grant coverage with Great Ape population densities, but data is inadequate. Some focus areas of funding such as the TNS landscape clearly have high great ape populations, but others such as Lope in Gabon have lower numbers. Rwanda has received relatively high funding given the size of the country and the concentration is even more pronounced when considering that funding was essentially for a mountain gorilla population that numbers less than 400; however the strategic focus on a tri￾national management framework, economically viable ecotourism, and capacity of applicant organizations appears results-focused and cost effective. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 26 Figure 3: Grants issued by country Number of grants per country 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Cameroon Central African Republic Congo DRC Equatorial Guinea Gabon Range states Rwanda Country Number of grants 4.2 The Fund Transfer -- GACF as a CBFP Small Grant Delivery Mechanism The evaluation team examined the CARPE-GACF transfer mechanism from a programmatic perspective. The team understood that the shift of funds was not an Administration decision requested by USAID but a Congressional mandate. CARPE program management, which program had relocated after Phase I from Washington to Kinshasa-based field office asserted that the transfer was not consistent with the geographic relocation. GACF-CARPE grants both contribute to the overall USG CBFP support and both operate primarily through NGO partners implementing activities within defined CARPE landscapes. In addition to programmatic and related budgetary issues, the evaluation sought to examine the implementation effectiveness and efficiency at the field level. In this section, we address questions regarding the Congressional rationale for the transfer and the experience of USAID, USFWS, and implementing partners since the grants have been operative. These programmatic issues sit at the confluence of the GACA, CARPE and CBFP and are of importance to future USG conservation efforts in Central Africa. In examining the transfer mechanism, the team reviewed and interpreted the record of congressional action and legislative processes affecting CARPE/GACF. In this regard the team assembled documents, attended the Congressional International Conservation Caucus (ICC) events, observed House sub-committee proceedings, held key informant interviews with senior congressional staff, executive staff of Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 27 International Conservation Caucus Foundation (ICCF) and member NGOs, and interviewed conservation organizations’ legislative affairs staffs. We met jointly with USAID and USFWS staff to review language guiding FAA authorizations for the GACF CARPE transfer.4 We met separately with USFWS and USAID biodiversity staff to review the transfer and its operation. 4.2.1 General Findings Through GACF, USFWS has provided significant funding to CARPE’s landscape model of conservation and done so in a manner that largely complements, not duplicates, the USAID/CARPE core funding. Both contribute to implementation of integrated approaches to conservation within a landscape approach and within the boundaries of CBFP landscapes. Thus far CARPE has made its greatest impact in creating an overarching structure and associated macro-zoning frameworks, while USFWS species based grants have concentrated on more specific conservation challenges that arise within a landscape. Both CARPE and GACF operate from threats-based analysis. CARPE landscape consortia landscape grants are for multiple years with detailed annual planning and reporting. USFWS grants are given for a single year and cover generally a 1-2 year period with no certainty of continued support. Many USFWS GACF grants, support and expand what would be a single program area in a CARPE consortia work plans. CARPE also manages a small grant fund that distributes some $300,000 to $400,000 annually to National NGOs of Central Africa to build their capacity to advocate conservation policy and to work with national governments. The evaluation team was asked to assess whether this small grant mechanism could potentially assume the grant making functions carried out by USFWS with USAID funds. The team found that there were some USFWS grants that overlapped with the USAID small grants program. Briefly, USAID grants, through a program administered by IUCN, are intended as conservation capacity building grants to local rural development NGOs who submit proposals through CARPE’s country focal points. At around $25,000, USAID grants are smaller on average than GACF grants and focused on community conservation issues outside the formal protected areas. Like USAID CARPE’s small grants, USFWS grants are landscape-targeted; however, they are different in terms of objective and philosophy. Like the USAID funded CARPE consortia, USFWS relies primarily on achieving indirectly impact by providing through international NGOs and international conservation experts. Given the operational differences between two approaches, it makes sense to maintain each distinctly on its own merits. The USAID transfer to GACF expands overall support to the landscapes. USFWS funding enhances the total pool of leveraged funding to CBFP by attracting additional matching resources for conservation in the Congo Basin. NGO partners are able to access different matching funds for USAID and for USFWS funded activities. A growing USFWS partnership with ARCUS Foundation in support of field grantees for research and enforcement as well as for strategy development (i.e. through IUCN Specialist Groups) illustrates this point. This additional funding supports activities that fit under the CARPE’s model of land use planning, but would not generally be the types of activities that CARPE could or would be willing to fund. 4 Each year the guidance varies, and future guidance may be different than what was reviewed to date. Each annual transfer is guided by a memorandum between the two agencies. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 28 Strategic collaboration with the USAID/CARPE field office, and by extension nationally-based CARPE focal points, has been absent to the extent that the USFWS program is neither well￾understood, nor fully accepted by USAID whose program it purports to strengthen. USFWS has not engaged adequately in regular communication with CARPE field staff and bilateral USAID missions (DRC and Rwanda) in the Congo Basin. That said on an occasional ad hoc basis, USFWS have requested input a specific grant issue or point directly from the CARPE field office. A foundation exists for expanded communication; the team believes following upon the evaluation activities that communication has improved and become more frequent. Linkages between CARPE and Washington CARPE partners were reported by the field to have been more limited in recent years than in the past. This may be related to limited trips by CARPE staff to the US, reductions in US-based CARPE “crosscutting” partners, and to an overall lower profile for the CBFP. After CARPE’s mid-term evaluation in 2006, CARPE field management became more focused in the relationships it pursued in Washington with an obvious emphasis on those providing cross-cutting service to CARPE’s field partners in the landscapes. USFWS which had been active (though the great ape and African elephant grants and other funds) prior to CARPE’s midterm evaluation continued its field activities. At about this time, Congress determined to expand support to the Great Ape Conservation Fund in the region by directing the transfer of funds from USAID. The evaluation took place following a period of contention in which USAID sought to retain these funds and more directly manage the increased appropriation from CBFP funds for GACA activities. USFWS has, from the outset of USG support to the Congo Basin, been an active member in the set of Washington-based CARPE and CBFP partners who meet periodically in the US. For GACF grants, USAID has designated USFWS contact persons in the biodiversity team of the EGAT Bureau for grant review and in the Bureau for Africa for MOU and fund transfer management. The use of a USAID Washington-based staff person has added to program effectiveness and coordination with CARPE field programs, but this role is insufficient especially as USAID/Washington staff and priorities change over time. At the same time, the USAID/CARPE field office has expanded and become more autonomous. The expansion of the USFWS GACF funding in the Congo Basin is perceived as a cost to the USAID CARPE program, but absent retaining management authority, it is not one that USAID has readily accepted. It has never been proposed in the Administration’s Congressional Budget Justification and persists by Congressional intervention. 4.2.2 The Great Ape Conservation Act and Great Ape Conservation Fund Congress: The U.S. Congress enacted the Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000 in response to the decline of ape populations in Africa and Asia, whose long-term survival in the wild is in serious jeopardy despite GACF and other investments. The Act has two purposes: (1) to sustain viable populations of apes in the wild, and (2) to assist in the conservation and protection of apes by supporting the conservation programs of countries in which ape populations are located. To accomplish these purposes, GACA creates the Great Ape Conservation Fund to support and provide financial resources to conservation programs of countries within the range of apes and to Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 29 projects of persons and organizations with expertise applicable to the conservation of apes. The GACF assists the conservation of apes by supporting: • implementation of conservation programs to protect at-risk ape populations and their habitats; • in-situ research on ape populations and habitat including surveys and monitoring; • community outreach and conservation education; • compliance with CITES and other applicable laws that prohibit or regulate the taking or trade of apes or regulate the use and management of ape habitat; • protected area/reserve management in important ape range; • development and execution of ape conservation management plans; • efforts to decrease human-ape conflict, and; • strengthening of local capacity to implement conservation programs. The team found that GACA continues to receive strong bipartisan congressional support through both House and Senate International Conservation Caucuses. The caucuses represent a sizable level of support. For example, numbering over 220, the Congressional Conservation Caucus constitutes a majority of House members and it is one of the largest. Recently, the Administration officials and several wildlife conservation groups urged Congress to reauthorize federal aid to help conserve great ape populations around the world. The House authored the original legislation in 2000 to provide federal funding through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for international great ape habitat conservation efforts in Africa and Asia. The House Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife oversees the GACA and other USG international species conservation funds.5 The recently adopted Great Ape Conservation Reauthorization Amendments Act of 2010, H.R. 4416 reauthorizes federal funding for international conservation efforts of gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans, bonobos, and other great apes. The bill’s author, Representative George Miller (D-CA), was quoted in a lead up to the vote on this legislation, “Great apes are our closest non-human relatives on the planet, but the threats they face from people are all too real. We have seen the devastation of wild primate populations throughout Africa and Asia. Since the authorization of this great ape bill ten years ago, our relatively small federal investment has been matched by significant local and private funding, boosting efforts to save gorillas and other great apes. We must reauthorize the program to enable these successful programs to flourish.” Reauthorization coincided with the ten-year anniversary of the USG commitment to the Central Africa Forest Commission as defined by the landmark Yaoundé Declaration (1999), thereby underscoring the importance of great apes as flagship species in many of the CARPE landscapes. These milestones were recognized during the course of high profile meetings of the Congo Basin Heads of State and ministers in Washington, which underscored continuing support by Congress and related advocacy groups for the transfer mechanism of USAID biodiversity funds to support 5 These funds are modeled on the original African Elephant Fund. They adopt similar language and represent an effort to provide US direct support for conservation of species of global significance and because of a charismatic or iconic nature of interest to the American people. In each case the USFWS is given the lead authority to implement the US commitment. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 30 the GACF. Although not reviewed as part of the evaluation, forward guidance from this year’s deliberations suggest a broadening interpretation of the distinct role played by the USFWS in support of conservation in the Central Africa region. (See text of GACA in Annex 8) The evaluation team found that the appropriations process deemed USFWS to be the best and most appropriate institution to support great ape conservation in the Congo Basin but that direct budgetary tools for funding GACF and other international species funds for that matter were limited. The FAA, through a Congressional biodiversity earmark which until recently was entirely directed at USAID ($200 million in FY09), provided a means to supplement the funding amount relative to the conservation challenges and to support the wider goals of the CBFP at the same time. Under successive appropriations $2,500,000 was transferred from USAID’s biodiversity appropriation to the USFWS. According to appropriations sources, the decision of whether to draw such funds from the CARPE provision otherwise from this line item was a decision that was left to USAID to make; however, the guidance formally issued specifies that the $2.5 m be drawn from the CBFP line item . It is the evaluation team’s understanding that in the future USAID may not make the transfer specific to CARPE accounting. In the intra-Agency debate leading up to the FY 2005 appropriation USAID challenged this transfer arguing they could more effectively achieve great ape conservation using existing CARPE instruments and partners. That argument did not prevail in Congress and through the legal review process, the transfer was substantiated. Congress and its conservation constituency reiterated the intent to see USFWS administer these CBFP funds. Evidence suggests that the practice will continue and thus should be planned for. Both agencies do continue to collaborate and to some degree coordinate program implementation with NGO partners in the CARPE landscapes. As noted the nature of the transfer appears to be changing and is moving toward a more general USAID support to USFWS international programs to support conservation activities without being limited only to great apes in pre-defined landscapes. In the biodiversity support for FY09 under FAA, H.R. 1105, section 7083(c) states, “That of the funds made available under this paragraph, not less than $17,500,000 shall be made available for the Congo Basin Forest Partnership of which not less than $2,500,000 shall be made available to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for conservation programs in Africa.” Further guidance was provided by explanatory notes regarding the appropriations. The explanatory statement accompanying H.R. 1105 clarifies that the $2,500,000 transfer is “to protect the habitat of great apes in Central Africa.” No reference is made to specific CARPE landscapes, but the intent at that time appears to be at least for continued support to the GACA provisions. For FY 2010, for example, language of the Omnibus Appropriations Act separates the CBFP earmark of $20.5 million from a directive for $5 million for USFWS under the Conference Committee report. Efforts to support great apes as well as other endangered species are further bolstered through the International Conservation Caucus Foundation (ICCF). The foundation is a member-based organization comprised of private sector corporations, conservation NGOs and others whose Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 31 intent is to catalyze bipartisan support for international conservation policies and programs. Through its constituent members, the comparative institutional strengths of the USFWS (e.g. technical experience in wildlife conservation, ability to support research, monitoring and enforcement within protected areas) receive reinforcement and thus contribute to congressional commitment to explicit involvement of the Service in the GACF and other international actions. ICCF’s Executive Director emphasized that both USAID and USFWS through its Wildlife Without Borders program were considered strong allies to the conservation community, but the larger NGOs which have an advisory role to the ICCF stressed that USFWS played the role of a more direct partner thus providing “the biggest bang for the buck.” It is of note that the ICCF grew out of efforts to craft legislation enabling U.S. participation in the CBFP. These same organizations pushed for the emphasis on field programs and strong NGO roles in CARPE II and were in a position, in effect, to advocate for the continued involvement of the FWS. ICCF felt that of the small foreign assistance set-aside for conservation, when channeled through USAID, funds were inevitably split between conservation and development activities whereas FWS funds were more specifically targeted to core conservation functions. Recognizing that the USFWS can do little to promote its own successes within government, ICCF has made an effort with its limited resources to draw Congress’s attention to USFWS’s accomplishments, which they state were achieved with “almost embarrassingly little funding.” A recent USFWS Wildlife Without Borders presentation sponsored by ICCF was attended by over 125 people many of whom were congressional staffers. The ICCF position, reflective of its conservation NGO constituents, would like to see a larger budget and larger role for USFWS and more open competition for conservation funds between agencies. While not the only force behind Congressional commitment to the CBFP transfer, ICCF has been a factor. On the Senate appropriations side, few people are even aware of the issue according to Tim Rieser, a foreign policy staff member for Senator Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee which funds U.S. foreign aid programs. Rieser has served as one of the point people in the appropriations process that supports the Wildlife Without Borders funding (like GACF) in general and specifically the USAID transfer mandate. One reason for the limited funding available for USFWS international conservation programs is that under the FAA there is no easy source for such funds. They must be cleaved off from other areas of the budget. Funding is thus both limited, and not easily expanded. Rieser has sustained the effort each year to keep species funds such as GACF stable or growing slightly. USFWS/DOI/OMB has not requested higher levels within the DOI budget. However, the Interior Appropriations Committee has over time increased funding to the FWS International Affairs programs. A third source of advocacy for international conservation efforts arises from the Multinational Species Coalition of affiliated NGOs seeking to expand Congressional and other governmental support for international programs. This effort has mostly been underwritten by WWF who benefit less than some other conservation NGOs from the Wildlife Without Borders conservation funds. The coalition is able to prepare testimony and briefings and catalyze government relations staff activities of coalition member organization including numerous GACF-CARPE grant recipients (WCS, JGI, AWF, WCS, FFI, and WWF, and possibly others). In the words of one associated staffer, USFWS has remained “remarkably unbureaucratic compared to USAID.” Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 32 Presumably, this provides some rationale to favor independent funding to each agency and support for USFWS direct management of transferred funds. Other factors undoubtedly drive the sustained interest in maintaining or even potentially increasing the 632 (a) transfer of biodiversity funds.6 These are the principal drivers as identified by the evaluation. In sum, Congress regards USFWS as a conservation organization. It sees USAID more as a development organization that at times supports conservation when conservation is aligned with development goals. These perceptions and the underlying foundation for them have and continue to favor maintaining a funding transfer that reinforces USFWS autonomy in managing the additional GACF funds. 4.2.3 Transfer Mechanism Operation USAID Perspective: USAID expressed three general and interrelated concerns with the fund transfer mechanism. The first involved the legal use of USAID essentially as a pass through. The second involves management coordination of program implementation at the field level. The third involved USAID accountability for the reporting funds under the FAA biodiversity set-aside. The CARPE field office felt that the appropriation system was odd in the sense that the funds came from one appropriation account agency, but that the implementing agency, USAID, had no management authority of over the use of the funds. For that reason, the field team had strongly supported USAID’s legal effort to retain the transfer funds within its CARPE program to be administered directly in support of GACA. In questioning whether this was the best arrangement, CARPE pushed for annual appropriation language, which until recently that directed USFWS￾CARPE funds mandated to support CBFP be applied geographically to within landscapes. USFWS carefully followed this geographic guidance in separating GACF/CARPE from general GACF grants. Technical requirements for all GACF grants are the identical, but when an application qualifies for CARPE funds, they are always drawn from the transfer rather than the direct USFWS appropriated funds. In CARPE, USAID has worked extensively with other US government agencies since in its second phase (2003-2006). It maintained service agreements with among others, the Forest Service, National Parks Service, Smithsonian Institute, NASA, and the USFWS. These agencies were tasked to provide cross-cutting services to the overall program and to the conservation NGO consortia implementing field programs in individual landscapes. Following its mid-term evaluation, CARPE reduced the number of Federal agencies and more precisely defined their roles, which are funded through FAA 632 (b) (PASA) interagency transfers. USAID retains much greater management control under the 632 (b) transfers. By the time these changes were made, USFWS was already receiving its direct 632 (a) transfer, so CARPE did not additionally 6 Two types of fund transfers are possible from one Federal Agency to another. Under FAA 632 (a) transfers USAID does not retain direct management functions over the funds, whereas under 632 (b) transfers USAID does retain financial and some management authority. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 33 include USFWS as a cross-cutting service provider during the 2006-2009 period. From USAID’s standpoint this established an uncomfortable duopoly of government relations with the NGO landscape consortia. CARPE management did feel optimistic about this arrangement since USFWS management of the grant program was deeply grounded in the region and had strong relationships with the NGOs. The CBFP/GACF effort thus builds on USFWS earlier presence which implemented both elephant and great ape conservation grants as well as providing leadership to the CARPE cross￾cutting theme of illegal bushmeat trade. During the 2006-2009 period, the evaluation team learned that there was minimal involvement of the CARPE field office in the review of grant submissions, oversight of grant implementation, and sharing of results. CARPE management felt impacted but not informed. In Washington, USFWS continued to work closely with USAID staff in filtering the grant requests to keep them in line with larger CARPE programmatic objectives. This arrangement proved generally satisfactory at the operational level in part because of the commitment and continuity of the USAID/Washington staff that support and communicate with the CARPE program in the field office. One and sometimes two EGAT Biodiversity Team members, who support CARPE in Washington as part of program design and evaluation, earmark compliance accounting and reporting responsibilities provided by the Team to most USAID operating units with biodiversity programs, also serve as external reviewer(s) for the USAID-funded GACF grants. However, the staff position in Washington funds only 10% of a full time equivalent, and based only on assessment of time required for supporting the transfer and GACF reviews, this seems insufficient to the overall range of CARPE challenges and needs on the Washington side. Despite limitations, USAID has been able to ensure that grants remain consistent with overall CARPE programming and guarded against unnecessary overlap in the activities selected for grant funding. The USAID/CARPE Washington contact brought up issues with the CARPE field office when they rose to a certain level of importance. Over time however, staff shifted and the links between the CARPE Washington staff/stakeholders and the field CARPE team became less immediate and integrated with day-to-day field program management. During this time, the political profile of CARPE and CBFP diminished. The novel initiative persists with support from the CARPE office, the NGO partners and from some mostly technical associates in Washington. Higher level interest was focused on other international priorities. The evaluation found the situation to be deteriorating with no clear roadmap for improvement. The CARPE field office felt increasingly detached from the USFWS-funded grant activities. CARPE management reported, given that the landscape partners and USFWS grantees largely overlapped, that their own results-focused discipline and accountability suffered. From a CARPE standpoint, landscape implementing partners were spending substantial time being distracted into writing “onerous” FWS grants and reports, and that landscape partners were reporting to CARPE thus that they were overworked. This led to mounting frustration over what USAID CARPE perceived as a lack of communication and clarity about the grant program. USAID questioned if there was a strategic plan guiding the grants, and if not, why not. For them, it was not clear how a species strategy(s) for grants could be coordinated with USAID’s overall landscape and land use planning approaches. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 34 A final concern of USAID involves meeting FAA criteria for classifying and accounting for funds meeting biodiversity requirements. Essentially, to be scored as biodiversity funding, activities must include the following: 1) The program must have an explicit biodiversity objective, it isn’t enough to have biodiversity conservation result as a positive externality from another program; 2) Activities must be identified based on an analysis of threats to biodiversity; 3) The program must monitor associated indicators for biodiversity conservation; 4) Site-based programs must have the intent to positively impact biodiversity in biologically significant areas. In practice, GACA funding criteria and the requisites for meeting biodiversity coding are consistent with one another. USFWS species programs are, if anything, more narrowly focused on core biodiversity activities than many USAID-managed activities that increasingly integrate biodiversity conservation into multi-sectoral programs. Grants are intended to address threats to great ape survival and grantees report on progress, consistent with their short-term and wide ranging nature and within USFWS requirements. From a USAID standpoint, this grant monitoring is different than joint USAID/State Department indicator reporting. There is some concern by USAID that grantees may be reporting results to CARPE that are in part funded by USAID-supported USFWS grants or vice versa. Additionally, at the central level, USAID/Washington must score the total funding against the biodiversity budget line. In rare instances primarily associated with sanctuaries, USAID needs a better clarification that they do or do not meet the fourth criteria. USFWS perspective: The GACF (including CBFP/CARPE funded) program management is housed in a small unit within the USFWS Office of International Affairs, Division of International Conservation. Both the GACF and other funds, notably the African Elephant Fund, have an impact on the CARPE landscapes and by extension, the CARPE management. Program managers report that because these grant programs are small relative to core funded international development projects and programs, they are generally “off the radar” as far as other agencies are concerned. Nonetheless, USFWS participates consistently and actively as a member of the small committed group of CARPE stakeholders and service providers who continue to meet in Washington. CBPF/GACF devotes its limited time and budget to providing both funds and technical partnering with the network of conservation organizations aligned with the grant program goals. Having USAID Washington involved in the grant review process and working with the Washington CARPE stakeholders, USFWS operated under an assumption that the CARPE field program’s understanding of the program would be sufficient. As noted, the USFWS has been given statutory responsibility to operate a species program world-wide and had an established and recognized role in the Congo Basin prior to initiation of Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 35 the USAID transfer to USFWS/GACF. Under CBFP, where international wildlife and development intersect and the USG has an active presence, USFWS, as a leading wildlife agency, should from their perspective be turned to with greater frequency. Whereas CARPE felt the transfer took funds from their potential budget and control, USFWS felt that CARPE missed an opportunity to better integrate USFWS expertise during the design and development of its CARPE Phase IIb program. From USFWS perspective, “USAID-CARPE chose not to bring USFWS into the program, when the USFWS is the obvious choice for helping to develop and implement a wildlife conservation programs in Africa.” Moreover, in some cases, the USFWS through the GACF and AECF have been overseeing conservation initiatives around which CARPE has been built. This suggests that USFWS could be designated a co-equal role to play with USFS, NASA, USDA, and others to deliver conservation programs. Part of the problem is that these larger issues of role definition between US agencies transcend the specific context of USAID CARPE and USFWS GACF program managers. The burden of sharing information, from the USFWS perspective, thus should not rest solely upon the USFWS. Rather Communication becomes an equal and shared responsibility among implementing agencies. With these larger issues left ambiguous and USFWS GACF receiving a portion of its funds through USAID, direct communication or information sharing procedures were not instituted and communication from both instances was intermittent and of an ad hoc nature. In certain cases, USFWS did raise issues with the CARPE field office directly, communicate through Washington staff or through landscape partners. The evaluation found that USFWS brought conservation expertise and flexible funding options to the program in unique ways that strengthened the overall CBFP effort. The CARPE field team acknowledged the general functionality of these arrangements, but as noted above, they called for greater clarity and better and more frequent communication. GACF managers at USFWS were not required to report or coordinate directly with CARPE’s field management structure nor vice versa. GACF managers did not negotiate directly with their CARPE counterparts about how the transfer funds were to be directed nor did CARPE reach out to integrate GACF management and programs into its planning. The two programs, each effective in its own right, operated in parallel yet with many of the same field partners. The evaluation found that USFWS autonomy was a contributing factor to tension with CARPE management over the nature of the funds transfer. Additional tension is created by delays in the transfer of funds. The timing and release of funds from USAID to USFWS affected internal management of the grant program. The delay in the transfer of funding on an annual basis hampered USFWS ability to award funds transferred to the GACF grants in a timely manner. USAID funding cycles are problematic in the sense that FAA appropriations to USAID are generally made well into the fiscal year by Congress, and Congress subsequently requires additional clearance on the earmarks they have imposed. These become amplified as the procedures of further 632(a) transfer from USAID to USFWS add time and bring fiscal year funding limitations into play. GACF managers would sometimes have only a few months to allocate funds that had a two-year period in which to be expended. Grantees sometimes received grants after the annual cycle in which they had intended to work. This is discussed in Section 3.3 on USFWS role as a grantor. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 36 As a USG program, USFWS in its CBFP GACF grants has thus far chosen not to develop systematic direct relationship with national governments in the Central Africa region. Should this approach change, coordination between agencies remains important, but seems likely to be a role for the Embassies and possibly to different bureaus of the State Department. Grantee perspective: The grant recipients are very clear in their ability to distinguish USAID and USFWS support and accountability. Overall, grant recipients were either unaware or less concerned by the ambiguities introduced to the CBFP from the fact of funds being transferred from one branch of government to another. As a source of funding and conservation partner, USFWS, through its regional and species funds, already possesses a defined identity, the details of which are discussed in Section 3.3 of this evaluation. For the conservation NGO community having both USAID and USFWS active and providing financial support in the context of the Congo Basin and CBFP was reported as a positive. For a number of smaller NGOs not included in the CARPE consortia, the USFWS played a different and frequently more high profile role, and importantly, it provided funding to non-consortia organizations where CARPE, other than via the IUCN-managed country grants and sub-grants from CARPE Landscape leads, could not. For grantees, the GACF expands both the scope of field support and the universe of actors involved. These qualities are aptly summarized by one of the Service’s key partners on the funding side: “USFWS grants from the Great Ape Conservation Fund have targeted critical species and priorities in a thoughtful and thorough manner. They have been able to influence other funders and have leveraged additional funds for these priorities, thus strengthening conservation impact on the ground. The fact that this funding is from the US Government, and managed by a team of very experienced and technically strong staff, the grants have provided additional legitimacy to the work being done in the field, thus garnering both financial and political support for the work.” (Annette Lanjouw, Arcus Foundation and former AWF) Grantees appreciated GACF flexibility with respect to geography. USFWS was also able to use either CBFP or non-CBFP GACF funds depending on the nature of the request. This gave them greater facility in supporting activities outside but programmatically related to the CARPE activities, a point underscored by one recipient, “As a region, TL2, a biologically rich area equal to the size of Illinois in western DRC, is not considered a CARPE landscape, and thus barred access to CARPE funds. The USFWS can fund outside CARPE landscapes." Additional funding provided to the GACF through the transfer allowed the USFWS to allocate its existing appropriation to address high priority areas and issues outside of CARPE landscapes, such as the TL2. USAID does not have uncommitted funds, and USFWS can respond quickly. For instance, "USFWS funding quickly responded when Karisoke gorilla groups split and our capacity was stretched thin to manage situation." (Program Director, Rwanda) This complementarity and operational difference was echoed by others, "CARPE is big and slow and USFWS is fast and fits in all the holes of CARPE" (US Director for Field Operations in Rwanda). This is not to say there is no flexibility within the CARPE structure. For many grantees CARPE also provided Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 37 some degree of flexibility within the landscape construct of its programming. "USAID CARPE has flexibility within an approved workplan" (Landscape Leader, DRC) "Landscape approach allows for programmatic flexibility as it allows you to move resources in response to challenges such as a corrupt official at a specific national park. CARPE allows us to shift resources to another part of a landscape. (Furthermore) CARPE allows relatively easy funding flexibly within a landscape; NGOs tend to create structures that decrease flexibility through implementation design." (Country Director, Gabon) Some grantees wanted the evaluation team to understand that in the field, removed from Washington, they view USAID and USFWS funding as separate, but complementary funding elements of the USG. They envision the funds as contributing in different ways to common landscape and conservation objectives. Both sources are important, but enable field staffs to work at differing rhythms within their programs. "CARPE funds core costs and USFWS funds operational costs/field work" (Country Director, Gabon) Many grantees expressed a relatively clear understanding of the differentiated roles of USFWS and CARPE support. They also seemed more conversant in the complementarities of the two USG efforts than the agencies themselves. "CARPE is novel and innovative through project structure and this helps collaboration; the hard part is implementation of management plans. USFWS supports the day-to-day implementation in community areas, wildlife management, local group support, surveillance, and monitoring. USFWS and CARPE are complementary." (Landscape Leader, Gabon) "USFWS and CARPE funds support different and complementary conservation approaches. In our case, USFWS funds monitoring and USAID supports landscape planning." (Country Director, DRC) “CARPE landscapes are so large, they are unmanageable. There is no need to reconfigure landscapes. CARPE dollars are spent in capitols convening a person versus USFWS that supports on-the-ground conservation. USFWS funding is focused on real life, day-to-day work." (Landscape Leader, Gabon) "CARPE is focused on landscapes and does not stress national parks; CARPE funds focused outside parks and focused on planning process. This is not necessarily WCS approach which is committed to conservation inside and outside national parks. We apply to USFWS to fund national park work as a complement to CARPE." (Country Director, Gabon). "USAID does not fund monitoring in protected areas and parks, while USFWS does. Core protected areas are the critical biological resource of a landscape" (WCS Regional Monitoring Scientist) According to Lee White, former WCS Gabon Country Director and current Gabon National Park Service Director, "In Gabon where there has been huge investment in national park creation, having CARPE funds going to USFWS, helped WCS Gabon with this opportunity. This action breathed a bit of fresh air into CARPE." Many grantees were aware of the limitations of each agency and could see how their programmatic complementarity advanced each other's mission. "We have little contact with CARPE in Rwanda. USFWS is adding to a lack of CARPE support in Rwanda Virungas." (Program Director, Rwanda) "USFWS is complementary to big USAID effort. With USAID Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 38 funding in Rwanda, can't cross borders and most conservation here is transboundary work. USFWS funding allows us to do this. “ (Chief of Party, Rwanda). Finally, several respondents felt that while CARPE was a much larger and well-funded effort that the amount of monies reaching the field level roughly equal. "In Moukalaba Doudou area of the Gamba Complex (of Gabon), CARPE funds are roughly equal to USFWS funding reaching the ground at $100,000." (Landscape Leader, Gabon) "In the end, CARPE dollars that reach the ground are same as USFWS funding to the same areas." (Country Director, Congo). This sentiment was repeated by many of the CARPE landscape partners, but Evaluation Team was not able to carry out a financial analysis of field level programs for all sites. 4.3 Performance of USFWS in the Grants Management Process 4.3.1 USFWS as a Grant Making Entity USFWS through its international grants programs performs much as a private foundation. Accountability and performance measurements for private foundations are notoriously difficult. A majority of funders’ lack a clear set of outcome measures against which to report their performance. Accountability within the private philanthropic community is often measured in general terms. In comparison, the USFWS grants program, while performing a parallel role to philanthropic and other grant making organizations, start from the premise that they are accountable. In the final instance, the organization is accountable to the US taxpayers whose monies are being used to further a specific legislative mandate.7 In the case of the CBFP funds, USFWS is accountable to the oversight organizations of the USG – GAO and OMB. More immediately, the USAID/CARPE transfer mechanism places the GACF funds squarely in the constellation of CBFP actors and implementers. Initially a US State Department initiative, CBFP provides the broadest level of program guidance but in practical terms, USG program implementation is predominantly USAID. The GACF funds evaluated here represent a direct transfer from USAID to USFWS of CBFP funds, but as detailed in the previous section, the management relationships are left unclear. The evaluation team examined USFWS's grant making process through the activities of the GACF. A set of recommendations to improve grant making efficiency and effectiveness within the USFWS and at the intersection with other international USG partners and initiatives are provided. 7 Assistance award guidelines are objective, consistent with federal standards, and standardized across all WWB programs. Administrative details and requirements are spelled out in referenced documents available online to grant applicants. Assistance Award Guidelines (www.fws.gov/international/dicprograms/AAG%209-6-07.pdf), and Financial Assistance - Standard Award Terms and Conditions, www.fws.gov/international/dicprograms/AAG%209- 6-07.pdf. These procedures were in effect for the CBFP/GACF funds; a portion of the transfer supports these administrative procedures at a marginal (9%) cost. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 39 4.3.2 USFWS GACF Grants Process In the course of this evaluation, our team reviewed proposals and reports and the GACF grant review process. In addition, we observed grant review committee meetings and interviewed stakeholders at all levels. The team found most proposals were developed and submitted by organizations that were already familiar with the USFWS grant program either through the GACF or through other funds. Many of these USFWS partners had developed procedures, systems, and staff to manage and respond to the grant facility. Proposals for support from the GACF are submitted by mail, and email to the USFWS or via grants.gov. The submission process for GACF and CBFP/GACF grants is identical. The decision of whether to fund with general USFWS GACF funds or USAID (or a combination) transfer funds is made during the review process and has generally been based on whether a grantee was located within the bounds of a CARPE landscape. USFWS provides proposal guidance with explicit review criteria for grant seekers (see Annex 5), an application checklist of necessary narrative, financial and organizational information is provided to assist grantseekers. There are two application deadlines during the year in November and April. In rare cases, exceptions can be made to the funding cycle (e.g., for an urgent disease outbreak). Once submitted, proposals are logged in for review. Initial screening for submission compliance with guidelines is performed by the USFWS Program Officer. Proposal and supporting materials are reviewed. If specific information is absent in a submission, the Program Officer can request missing or incomplete information from a prospective applicant. Completed submissions are then sent to a Grants Review Committee that consists of three to five people from USFWS, Department of State/OES and USAID/EGAT/NRM/B. External reviews may be solicited on an ad hoc basis from specialized technical expertise for specific submissions upon request of the Program Officer. The Grants Review Committee assesses proposals based on selection criteria and technical expertise of committee members and ad hoc external expert inputs. Proposals receive scores and are separated into three broadly defined categories – Approval, Conditional and Rejection. There is some gradation between categories. For example, some grants that would have “approved” determinations may gain conditional approvals due to the lack of specific information such as the status of project leadership transition or be held pending questions relating to a final report from a previous grant cycle submission. In some cases. acceptable components may be funded while other components are rejected. After determinations are made, the Program Officer communicates with grantseekers about decisions. The Program Officer works with conditional determinations to fill in information gaps and clarify any concerns or questions and provide guidance to applicants for addressing deficits in submission. Conditional grant submissions are often resubmitted, but resubmission is no guarantee that the proposal will succeed in subsequent reviews. Program Officers often provide detailed responses to applicants highlighting the reasons why a proposal was rejected. This communication is intended to guide the applicant to developing better proposals in the Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 40 future. Notwithstanding, applicants report that some rejection letters do not always provide sufficient guidance, for example, on whether to resubmit an amended application in future years. Successful applicants are required to submit a relative brief mid-term report half way through a grant period and a final report at the completion of the granting period. Final reports are required for any resubmission by applicants. There are sometimes exceptions when initial grant implementation is delayed creating follow on problems for project and funding continuity with any subsequent proposal submissions. Financial information from reports is reviewed by administrative personnel at USFWS. Midterm reports generally consist of succinct project and financial information. These reports provide grantees an opportunity to communicate with USFWS about any significant changes in proposal implementation. Final reports are more detailed in terms of assessing expenditures and project outcomes. In reviewing the grant making process, the evaluation team seeks to assist the USFWS in increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of its granting process. Our findings regarding the grant process are as follows: 1. Proposals and reports are not uniform in style and length – although usually they do adhere to USFWS broad format requirements. The present submission structure provides applicants with more than enough latitude to convey their requests and to report on progress. This heterogeneity of submissions may be a reflection of the precision of grantee understanding of the submission process. This heterogeneity of submissions makes the review process more cumbersome than necessary and makes it more difficult to assess proposals and reports in a comparative basis. Some proposals and reports reviewed by the evaluation team appeared to employ a tactic of overwhelming the USFWS with general contextual information and/or non￾essential background information and/or material extracted from other reports. Longer proposals can represent grant seekers hedging their uncertainties of the process by assuming all information is useful. Such “padding” adds to the burden of proposal review and report assessment. With USAID CARPE as a comparison, "reporting word limit on narrative for CARPE mid-term report is 1500 words and 5000 words for annual CARPE reports and this includes lessons learned." (Country Director, Congo). Some grantees questioned the value of government support letter and the need for greater scrutiny of this grant requirement. "Government support letter is a rubber stamp process” (Landscape Lead, Gabon) 2. USFWS Grants are primarily one-year grants which constrain grantee programming horizons, limits longer term strategic planning, limits grantee ability to demonstrate success over the short term and adds grant processing burden for both the donor and grantee through greater proposal and reporting submissions. One grantee noted the challenges with one-year grants as follows -- "If you hire someone in Gabon you can't lay someone off - very difficult to let go - problematic when USFWS only funds efforts for one year. In addition we are competing with the private sector for talent, especially good managers, administrators, IT, and logistics." You can't hire these folks with one year support. (Landscape Lead, Gabon) Given the perceived one-year grant limitation, some grantees submitted repeat annual submissions to gain support for longer term efforts. Some renewal proposals utilized nearly Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 41 exact language for follow-on submissions; thus begging the question whether the USFWS needs to develop a more streamlined, rigorous renewal process. This also gets to the issue of multi-year grants. The GACF operates with one year funding commitments but can provide multi-year grants based on successful annual reviews and budget availability. Most grantees interviewed by the evaluation team were unaware that the USFWS now offers the opportunity to apply for multi-year grants. 3. Grant reports represent an untapped opportunity for assessing best practices and collecting long term conservation data. While required and monitored for compliance, the mid-term and final reports are not fully exploited. A common issue in grant making is the uneven attention paid to assessing grant reports. These reports contain a wealth of information but often grantees and grant-makers pay more attention to proposals than to reports. Reports are often filled with self-praise and accounts of successful outcomes that are often hard to verify independently. Our evaluation team found that the USFWS GACF reporting process is no exception. Mid-term reports are administratively useful as they signal issues, particularly those related to budget or implementation timetables. Several grantees reported the need for more help with mid-term report submissions. One field program manager noted, "We need clearer guidance on reporting -- midpoint reporting should be short and concise" (Country Director, DRC). This perception among grantees is not universally shared, and guidance for mid-term reports is explicit8 and if anything, too broad-ranging. In at least two instances, grantees delayed mid-term reporting because they want to resolve issues before having to report, which is regrettable since USFWS program managers have been responsive and helpful when grantees encounter 8 Guidance, for example, calls for a description of the current project status that includes: a. For each objective stated in the project proposal, describe the activities undertaken to achieve that objective. Describe any activities that differ from the original work plan and explain reasons for change. Recipients are required to report in writing to the FWS Project Officer any deviations from the approved project scope of work. b. If objective(s) were not accomplished, explain the problems encountered, such as how they were addressed and the impact on the project results. c. Describe the results achieved and the products generated. Explain any deviation(s) between the expected products and the actual products. d. Provide a brief assessment of the project’s impact on the conservation and management of plants, fish, habitats, or ecosystems. If possible, provide a list of the numbers and names of migratory, endangered or threatened species benefiting from the project, as well as major ecosystems and any reserves or protected areas benefiting from the project. e. Briefly describe any cooperation or collaboration among local organizations that was directly associated with this project. f. If equipment was purchased under this Award, provide the cost and the acquisition date of the equipment and a brief description of how the equipment was used during the period of performance of the Award and how it will be used in the future. Equipment purchase under this Award will become Recipient’s property if it was used only for the purposes of the Award and can continue to be used for a similar purpose throughout its useful life. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 42 legitimate obstacles to their planned implementation. Additionally, the reporting and submission guidelines have not been translated into French and communicated to field partners. With reports that were submitted on a timely basis, the evaluation team observed the Program Officer to be responsive in facilitating, if necessary, modifications and extensions for grantees. Program management demonstrated a high degree of flexibility in this regard. The team also observed several instances of grant extension and reasonable adjustment to changes or reduction of certain activities. In some cases, grantees are not forthcoming and timely in their reporting. Substantial time is expended by the grant Program Officer in following up on grantees who have not submitted required reports. In some cases, grantees request follow-on funding prior to submitting periodic reports for previous grants. As a process USFWS grants management procedures create unnecessary burden on the GACF technical manager. Because the GACF technical management staff do not have direct supervisory authority over USFWS grant administrative staff, most of the burden of communication follow-up with grantees falls to the technical division. In examining reports, the evaluation team observed a wealth of information provided to the USFWS. Many grantees put in an enormous amount of effort in reporting. Yet, grantees report that they receive little feedback from USFWS on the content of the results reported. Reports are viewed by many grantees as the necessary administrative step for any subsequent application renewals. In some circumstances, the reporting process has become perfunctory and thus diminishing the value of the process. "Reporting on proposals includes cut and pasting from original proposal" (Country Director, Congo). Given USFWS central role in funding great ape conservation; the data buried within reports is invaluable, especially when assessed over time and pooled across projects and species. In reviewing reports, the evaluation team found no formal data index mechanism that allows for abstracting, synthesizing or metadata analysis of report information. Beyond satisfying requirements for grant renewals, report data mining offers grantees an incentive to participate in a collective great ape data clearinghouse. "There is an opportunity for USFWS to perform a meta-analysis of GACF efforts: most useful lessons learned, great ape absence and presence data, gap analysis information, understanding the scope and capacity of training effort and finally get a sense of potential conservation successes and failures. " (Non-CARPE GACA Congo Basin grantees) In contrast to the CARPE website’s Information Management Tool where Reports and Products are posted by the partners, the USFWS Wildlife without Border grants (including the GACF grants) are not internet available but must be specifically requested from the USFWS. That much said, retrospective report evaluation capacity within the USFWS appears limited at the staffing level, especially given the grant funding levels of USFWS international species programs and the number of grants active at any given period. Consulting expertise could be engaged to service this function and assist USFWS on a periodic basis but evaluation continuity and uniformity may be sacrificed with temporary hires. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 43 Increased evaluation capacity could allow GACF program staff to engage in more strategic prospective grant making and bring USFWS technical expertise to bear on critical issues facing great ape conservation in the field. Grant recipients appreciate the distinctive partnership that USFWS provides through communication and funding of specific categories of conservation activity and seek more technical interactions. An expanded staff could further enhance the successful direct relationships USFWS has with its grantees by reducing administration and interaction focused on paperwork and funding transactions. While in the field, the evaluation team observed many cases where partners were able to meet with GACF staff to review concepts, grant results, potential funding needs, interaction with other stakeholders in the landscape and other substantive concerns. While some recipients work closely in this way with GACF staff at a technical level, others operate without close contact: So while this professional partner role is appreciated and strongly sought after, a few comments indicate even more need for this type of interaction. "USFWS behaves as a donor and not as a partner; we would like to work with USFWS as partner." (Landscape Leader, DRC). Many grantees seek more interaction and greater technical involvement by USFWS personnel. In Gabon, "there is no coordination nationally among USFWS grantees. USFWS is a victim of the competition among conservation groups. Would get better value for dollars if coordination [were] provided (Landscape Leader, Gabon). 4. USFWS and USAID lack the frequency and depth of communication required for mutual success of their respective objectives in Central Africa. The evaluation team observed a good level of communication between USFWS and USAID in Washington but strained interactions with USAID/CARPE field staff in Kinshasa and little communication with USAID's field mission in Rwanda. The evaluation team recognizes the separate objectives and cultures of the two branches of government and, to say the least, there is much room for improvement in terms of communication and interagency understanding. One critical observation is that USFWS appears to assume that communication with USAID Washington personnel suffices to ensure communication with USAID field staff. This does not appear to be the case. As noted elsewhere, USAID assigns an EGAT staff person part-time oversight of the relationship between CARPE and USFWS, but this support level is inadequate and has declined along with the role of Washington CARPE partners generally. It is incumbent on USAID/Washington to assist USFWS in coordinating communication between Washington and its field staff and, when appropriate, to enlist USAID field staff in dedicating time and effort for grant reviews. Reviews of the proposals generally do not involve active consultation with the CARPE field staff, and this is logistically challenging and sometimes operationally impractical. On one hand, CARPE field managers already carry a heavy burden were not looking to play an active role in the review process. On the other hand, the evaluation found that just greater effort in information sharing and occasional input into grant decisions was highly desired by CARPE managers. One easy approach to ensure key personnel are informed is to develop a personnel checklist for specified reviewer participation. This should be included in a proposal scoring sheet so that the presence or absence of any critical agency partner is recorded and on file. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 44 Conversely, USFWS could make better informed decisions if the CARPE program communicated conservation results more clearly to USFWS. GACF program officers articulated this point, “We, USFWS, would also appreciate the sharing of information with us on issues related to wildlife conservation in the CBFP. The web-based reporting structure is helpful, but perhaps USAID-Kinshasa could reach out from time to time to let us know about major developments and program issues related to wildlife conservation. In some ways, they are missing an opportunity to better communicate with us to improve their program and wildlife conservation in general.” USG investments in great ape conservation depend on interagency coordination and communication regardless of the USAID transfer. The USFWS mission includes international engagement on endangered species conservation. CITES and ESA provide the mandates and precedent for USFWS’ international role. USFWS and USAID are in an interagency partnership that has enormous potential for global biodiversity conservation, yet based on the team’s observations for the CBFP/GACF grants, the agencies seem to have barely scratched the surface for meaningful collaboration. Since only DRC and Rwanda have any USAID presence, the team was unable to assess whether USAID-USFWS collaboration in other areas of Africa would provide useful lessons for Central Africa. 5. The GACF grant review process has no transparent and explicit great ape conservation strategy to guide funding investments. The USFWS does employ an implicit programmatic strategy which is broadly guided by the GACF enabling legislation from Congress. The evaluation team as well as some of USFWS grantees is perplexed by the omission of a “programmatic compass.” "There needs to be an overarching "Great Ape Conservation Strategy" which gives priorities for Great Ape investments and which sites to work in and the USFWS should work with a strategy (WWF Landscape Lead, Gabon).With limited resources; it is incumbent on USFWS to develop a transparent strategy to prioritize funding approaches and areas. The benefits of an explicit strategy include the ability to measure results of investment at a composite scale, and make necessary course corrections; giving grantees a sense of fairness and trust in the grant making process; and increasing the agenda setting leadership role of USFWS amongst stakeholders and other funders. USFWS need not develop a program strategy in isolation of its stakeholders and can engage in a participatory process with key actors in the great ape conservation community. An essential aspect of developing a great ape strategy is assessing the donor landscape of actors and priorities and determining where external donors can support USFWS programmatic goals. (see donor strategy in Annex 10). "USFWS needs to do a donor assessment in regions where it works." (WWF Program Office, Gabon) In fact, the USFWS has actively encouraged, participated in, and funded conservation action plans for most of the Great Ape subspecies in Africa. These action plans are used by proposal reviewers in guiding grant making decisions. Additionally, the USFWS has supported the development of a series of Best Practices Guidelines for Great Ape Conservation. Most of the Best Practices documents are written by grant recipients who base these guidelines on the experience of field projects supported by the GACF. GACF through its review process ensures incorporation of these Best Practices Guidelines where applicable in all of the projects it funds. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 45 6. Beyond a great ape strategy, the USFWS may want to consider a cross-program species strategy to enhance the success of its funding efforts in the field. The evaluation team observed some duplication of investment where more than one USFWS species fund operated in the same geographic area. For instance, in Central Africa, the evaluation team visited field projects that were funded by both the great ape and elephant conservation funds to protect the same habitat; to support the same local conservation capacity; and to fund similar monitoring efforts. "When I arrived in Gabon, there were 20 USFWS grants at one time (gorilla, elephants, sea turtles); some not coordinated well; isolated approach; and without a programmatic strategy" (Country Director, Gabon) The grants are flexible and demand driven, but at times, the grantees themselves lack adequate strategic coherence in the field. To be fair, the evaluation team did not have the time or ability to investigate the level and degree of overlap between funds. Nevertheless, a stove pipe approach to species funding in the Congo Basin where elephants and great apes broadly overlap offers cross-programming opportunities. "USFWS grants (both gorillas and elephants) have to be part of some bigger strategy" (Former Country Director, WCS, Gabon). The evaluation team recommends that the USFWS develop a cross-species program element of its great ape conservation strategy. USFWS may want to consider creating a multi-species fund field coordinator position to be stationed in a strategic regional location in Central Africa. This position would not only assist in field coordination of great ape, elephant and sea turtle efforts but also play a key role in coordinating USFWS efforts with other USG field personnel, international donors, local governments and other stakeholders. 7. Bundling connected grants can streamline administrative burden for both grant-seekers and grant-maker. In the absence of bundling grants, some grant-seekers are overwhelmed by paperwork and process and others see it as an opportunity to try to game the system for more funding. "Functionally, grantees would split up activities to maximize grants received for field work" (Anon, Congo). The evaluation team reviewed a couple grants where multiple connected projects of the same grantee or multiple partnered grantees were funded. The evaluation team wondered why such submissions are not explicitly bundled together. There is some risk that separate grants may be given to two organizations for nearly the identical project in the same geography at the same time. USAID CARPE also expressed concern that grantees inadequately distinguished CARPE and GACF funds. In such instances, the team was given an impression that the grantees were gaming the USFWS grant making process hoping to receive awards higher than the average amount per project. In another circumstance, five separate grants were given to one organization in the same geography for five complementary activities. In this instance, the grantee was complying with USFWS guidance but at an administrative cost to the grantee and grant maker. "WCS has 7-8 grants in the region for monitoring; can they be consolidated; we didn't know larger USFWS grant are available" (Science advisor, WCS program). In another example, “NNNP is special area and there are too many WCS submissions; need to streamline process." (Country Team Leader, Congo). Bundling grant applications is a strategic and legitimate grant making tool to fund efforts that require additional support. The evaluation team recommends that USFWS considered bundling Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 46 complementary grants and include grant guidance language saying, for example, “if prospective grantees seek multiple partner funding or support for multiple aspects of the same project, please contact USFWS directly for approval prior to submission.” If, on the other hand, prospective grantees are using this approach without informing USFWS of this additive process and thus gaming the process, then USFWS needs to include an additional criterion in its grant review process that assesses the justification of such submissions. With a great ape conservation strategy as a compass, USFWS can transparently direct resources to specific areas through a grant bundling approach. 4.3.3 Recipients Experience with the Grants Process The evaluation team listened carefully to GACF grantees. While there were diverse opinions on their experience with the grants process, there was nearly uniform agreement that the GACF is making a difference and is a valuable conservation program. For instance, reiterated in recent testimony by USFWS conservation partners to Congress: In regard to the Great Ape Conservation Act, Sally Jewell Coxe, the President of the Bonobo Conservation Initiative said in her testimony: “I can’t imagine what we would have done without it or what the prospects would be today for bonobos and the other great apes had it not been for the critical, catalytic, and timely support GACA has provided … Without intensified efforts to protect them, great apes including bonobos may be extinct in the wild in a generation. The Great Ape Conservation Act is critical to prevent this tragedy. ” For many grantees, USFWS Grants provide responsive and flexible support for on the ground conservation activities. The GACF provides an adaptable funding mechanism that is relatively accessible on a frequent basis and thus allows field programs to shift activities quickly as new priorities are identified. Flexibility was the key word that described most grantee interactions with the USFWS grants process. "USFWS provides flexible funding so it can support existing efforts. The grant application process is relatively easy to apply for compared to other grants." - (Station Director, Gabon). In addition, grant recipients appreciate the distinctive partnership that USFWS provides through communication and funding of specific categories of conservation activity such as ecological monitoring, enforcement, capacity building and wildlife health. Beyond the transactional element of grants, many grantees articulated broad appreciation for the technical support and insights provided by USFWS program staff. Some grantees commented on specific project design innovations by USFWS program staff in addressing critical conservation needs in the field. "What we do, there is no competition in the conservation community. Richard Ruggiero (of USFWS) sought us out" (NGO Director, Cameroon). As the USFWS international program is staffed by personnel with advanced technical training and actual hands-on field conservation experience, many grantees see the service element of the USFWS as a major asset. “We have more frequent communication with USFWS than USAID, especially for technical input with proposal submission. The interaction with USFWS program officers is rich and improves the quality of the proposal. Personal contact is important." (General Director IGCP, Rwanda) Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 47 Several grantees also expressed that the USFWS has still much room for improvement. Some grantees believe that the USFWS has a favorable bias toward a few specific grantees; so much so that some grant seekers have chosen not to apply as they perceive their submissions as having less chance of success. "Conversations with USFWS mainly focused on what we do bad and not good" (Regional Program Director, WWF, Cameroon). There is a perception among grantees, for example, that WCS receives an exceptional proportion of the overall funds. "My experience with USFWS is minimal [but] there is a heavy bias to WCS; WCS getting most grants; WWF doesn't feel it has a shot and thus did not apply." (International Staff WWF). The evaluation team probed deeper into these concerns and found that grant success rate based on the number of submissions per organization was relatively the same across all applicants who applied for multiple grants. It is true that WCS receives a disproportionately high percentage of the overall funding; however, WCS submits a large number of proposals and registers rejection rates on a par with other organizations. In other words, it appears that the more one applies the more chances of relative grant success. Those organizations with more grants actually applied more often. Furthermore, in the case of WCS, its mission is closely aligned with the general orientation of the CBFP GACF foci (as with other USFWS multinational species grants). That much said, there are historic and institutional factors that can create conditions for a single grantee to dominate the program in a given landscape or country which creates a potentially unreflective tendency to approve follow-on grants less critically to protect or solidify previous investment. Over time, these grantees may no longer retain the effective advantage that they may have originally offered and periodic program-wide assessments are recommended to monitor changes in organizational and project effectiveness. Better-funded organizations such as CI may decide the grant submission effort is not worth the effort. WWF staff in both CARPO and US offices, were divided on participation in the GACF but felt at times like USFWS viewed them more as another potential donor than as potential funds recipient. One WWF staff was willing to point the mirror at their own organization, "WWF efficiency decreased with project administration with USFWS transfer from WWF US to Gland WWF HQ to WWF CARPO offices in Yaoundé." (Anon,WWF). Better communication and clearer strategic guidance will help USFWS address this issue. Beyond this, the lack of multi-year grants or the perceived lack of multi-year grants was a common issue among some grantees. "Funding cycles are too short; for many projects, just getting the equipment into the country can take over six months." (Country Director, Congo). "USFWS one year grants are frustrating. I recommend multiple year grants to help build capacity. Short term grants should be given as seed funds to develop efforts." (Station Director, Gabon). "Our experience with USFWS is challenged by the one year grant versus the long term conservation timeframe; it is a problem when you start an effort and the funding ends" (Chief of Party, Rwanda). While most grantees expressed a desire for the option of multi-year support, they did understand the constraints on USFWS funding. "The upside of one year funding is that it allows you to work on specific targets" (Landscape Lead, Gabon). In addition, USFWS grant application process is unevenly understood among grant seekers. Many grantees see USFWS grant making as a black box process with little transparency of its goals, its decision making procedure and any constraints that might affect the program. Knowledge about who can apply, levels of grants, priority themes and geographic regions is Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 48 poorly understood. In probing further, the evaluation team learned that many grantees feel that the USFWS does a less than adequate job of communicating its grant making process, and its strategic objectives. "There is some ambiguity of amounts they (USFWS) are willing to fund; for instance $50,000 for one year as a limit is too low." (Country Director, Congo) Equally, many grant applicants felt the feedback they received was invaluable in helping them to better conceptualize their own programs and objectives. Smaller organizations such as ABC and LAGA gained experience and refined proposals based on communication back and forth, and this was reported to be independent of whether a specific proposal received funding. Further GACF program officers, when in the field make it a point to meet with both successful and pending or unsuccessful applicants to improve communication and understanding. Individual letters to applicants are a consistent input into USFWS efforts to develop substantive professional relationships with partners. However, some grantees still felt proposal feedback provided insufficient forward guidance. One organization received funding for 4 of 11 proposals submitted; they felt that the comments used for failing certain proposals sounded substantially identical to those getting funding, and that comments for rejected proposals did not sufficiently explain the reason the proposal was denied. Absent such feedback and in view of the size of the awards, the organizational resource and risk call into question the merit of preparing proposals. Also, at times responses from one submission cycle were so close to the next submission deadline that there was no time to respond to feedback on rejected proposals so as to redraft and resubmit them. Sometimes issues relating to USFWS are a result of factors beyond their control. For instance, a few grantees relayed stories of funding delays with the first round of USAID transfer funds. "There was a long delay at the beginning of the CARPE transfer -- in April 2005 grant written; in July 2005 grant approved and then money arrived in May 2006. By this time, I left the project." (Research Station Director, Gabon). In another instance, "For USFWS, we have to spend money before we get first grant payment; we are not a bank" -- (Landscape Segment Leader, CAR). In general, grantees that were funded by both USFWS and USAID/CARPE, were aware of differences between USFWS and USAID/CARPE funding priorities and restrictions. "USFWS funds ecoguards which USAID does not" (Project Director, Congo). "USFWS proposals target a specific field activity with a short time frame. USFWS funds ecoguards and WCS tops up per diems which CARPE does not do" -- (Country Director, Gabon). "USFWS provides catalyst funding to do a key survey or enhance law enforcement, something USAID does not do" (Landscape Lead, Gabon). As many grantees are funded by both USFWS and USAID, there is a desire by some to have some uniformity between the USFWS and USAID grants and reporting process. "It would be desirable to have USFWS to be in line with USAID in measuring specific performances" -- (WCS Country Director, DRC). On the other hand, "Reporting for USAID CARPE is difficult in a region where internet access is difficult". "CARPE represents the worst type of reporting -- having to follow a specific template; not enough leeway. USFWS is in the middle in comparison" (Landscape Segment Leader, CAR). Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 49 By and large, where efforts were funded by both, a majority believed the USFWS process less administratively onerous and more technically rigorous than those associated with USAID cooperative agreements. “USFWS Proposal requirements are clear; no problem with what they are asking from us" (Country Director, Congo). Some grantees believed a grant received from USFWS added to their effort's credibility and was a source of pride beyond grant dollars received -- official USG validation. "With USFWS, you have to write a good proposal to succeed; there is pride in winning support; you have to earn the funding." (Landscape Lead, Gabon). For some grantees that have less proposal writing capacity (compared to large international NGOs), the USFWS proposal process is challenging. "There was a lot of bureaucracy in getting grant; getting DUNS number; guidelines very demanding; there were communication gaps in the submission process; then when we received the grant, there was a delay. I had to take personal loan and pay interest until grant came in. Even now there are always questions about the proposal. It's actually good that USFWS continues to ask questions with each submission. I like the fact that my donor is acting as a check and balance" (NGO Director, Cameroon). Grantees expressed mixed concerns with their reporting experience. "USFWS does not provide feedback on reports" and our only "interaction with USFWS is twice a year through reports" -- (Landscape Lead, DRC). "USFWS receipt reporting is not straightforward." (Non-CARPE grantee, DRC) “We don't have trouble with USFWS; the reporting is straight forward; they definitely read and review proposals. Can't remember ever seeing comments on a technical problem, even we reported real problems in the implementation." (Country Director, Cameroon) 4.4 Grantee Performance in Achieving of Conservation Objectives GACF and its USAID-supported grants lack an overt strategic framework or plan to guide its grant making (though strategic function seems implicit at some levels). With this lack of a transparent, well-articulated, and easily accessible strategic plan that establishes conservation priorities, it is difficult to define parameters for resource allocation and for assessing programmatic and grantee performance. The program as evaluated had no metrics against which to measure specific and institutional performance. The evaluation team detected and confirmed in interviews that a de facto vision and strategic selection of grants was being practiced. The preceding two findings sections of this report suggest that the lack of visibility and transparency of the fund’s strategy negatively impacted collaboration with USAID and created some confusion among grantees about what types of proposals USFWS was interested in funding. Nevertheless, there are discernable if implicit patterns to the process of allocating and judging the success of the funds. Most of the grants are programmatic field grants. These grants go directly towards specific operational level implementation, and as noted, in several circumstances, USFWS funding reaches parity with CARPE funding at the operational level. Although the USFWS did not articulate explicitly its strategic areas of intervention, analysis of the grants and summary statements from the program suggest the following eight categories of grant support. Our analysis of grant results and impact are organized to reflect these strategic areas of intervention Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 50 4.4.1 Monitoring and Applied Research Data-driven decision support approaches are a pillar necessary for achieving effective conservation. Given the immensity of the Congo Basin, the lack of conservation capacity in the region, and indications of declining great ape populations, it is essential to invest in science￾based efforts that collect data on species, habitat, and conservation threats and effectiveness of conservation approaches. "While the overall population of Great Apes in region is declining, there are many gaps in data and monitoring. We've not been able to pool data; there is no data clearinghouse; there is no decision support system." (International Staff based in Cameroon) The GACF supports applied research efforts that employ the best and most feasible scientific approaches for species and ecological monitoring; that build monitoring and research capacity; and that advance innovation in conservation practice. In fact, USFWS is one of the few donors that supports conservation science activities across the region. "Ranger-based Monitoring was started with USFWS funding; and funded exclusively by USFWS; USFWS is a niche donor for IGCP." (General Director NGO, Rwanda) There is ample evidence that USFWS GACF research investments to date have already increased the knowledge of various great ape populations across Central Africa. For example, both CARPE and USFWS contributed to a WCS-led survey that identified one of the largest recorded populations of western lowland gorillas, reported to be as high as 150,000 individuals in the Lac Tele landscape -- an area that straddles the Republic of Congo and DRC border. This population was found outside the existing protected area network in the region and highlights the conservation opportunities lying outside parks. USFWS funded ape census surveys; spatially explicit habitat suitability models; ranger-based data collection methods; critical behavioral research and an array of threat analyses (e.g., impacts of hunting, bushmeat trade, logging, and roads) have been used to set conservation priorities for great ape populations. This has included input into several strategic conservation assessments such a great ape conservation priority effort for Western Equatorial Africa; a bonobo conservation planning effort for DRC and the production of Best Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Conservation through the IUCN Primate Specialist Group. In this regard, grantees expressed greater desire for sharing best practices and exchange lessons regarding survey methods and data management amongst USFWS grantees. For instance, one WWF field director felt that USFWS could step in and help coordinate and standardize some data management issues by helping to share lessons across programs. Specifically cited was the proprietary “Management Information System” (MIST). MIST was being simultaneously adopted by one group and spawned by another based on wildly divergent assessment of the system’s utility and viability in the Congo Basin. USFWS grants support both organizations. In other instances, USFWS also supports different technologies (cyber tracker, GPS/Ranger-Based Monitoring, etc) that are not compatible; recipient groups could benefit from a comparative assessment of methodologies and establishment of best practices. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 51 From individual animal tracking to ground level transects to satellite-based remote sensing, data collection is an essential element in guiding conservation investments and actions. The USFWS GACF plays a critical role in building the foundation of great ape conservation knowledge. 4.4.2 Critical Habitat Protection There are no great apes without secure suitable habitats and USFWS is supporting critical habitat identification and protection across all of Africa. While the GACF/CARPE funds are focused on great apes as a flagship species, the GACA is also explicit in directing conservation funds to great apes “and their habitat.” Grants focusing on habitat conservation are primarily going toward protected area programs and, to a lesser extent to conservation of great ape habitat outside parks and protected areas. Grant funds support buffer zone conservation in surrounding communities and in forest concession zones such as the CIB concession in Kabo, Republic of Congo as part of the PROGEPP effort adjoining Parc National de Nouabalé-Ndoki. Support to the Virunga landscape and especially to IGCP reinforced the conservation status of protected area habitat in Rwanda and, to a lesser extent, in the DRC. Mountain gorilla habitat in the Virungas is limited. The habitat lacks a buffer zone, and is surrounded by a hard edge perimeter by densely settled agricultural lands. USFWS grants have contributed to stabilizing pressures on the remaining habitat. For instance, GACF grants support Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International with dawn-to-dusk monitoring of 30% of all gorilla populations in Rwanda. Such monitoring vigilance is vital in maintaining habitat security for gorillas. The Goualougou Triangle in the NNNP area of the TNS landscape of Congo represents another avenue in which USFWS support has formed a solid scientific and institutional foundation for the preservation of a near-pristine forest rich in great ape and other biodiversity that had been slated for logging. Without USFWS support, this habitat just recently featured in National Geographic would be less visible and subject to less conservation protection. CARPE has systematically identified large landscape priorities for the Congo Basin. The macro￾zoning of these CARPE large landscapes is not refined enough for detailed sub-area conservation management. USFWS grants provide the necessary details that make the CARPE designations more robust. USFWS fund the detailed surveys, and subsequent patrols, enforcement and management coordination that give substance to the governance and structure created by CARPE funding. Improving targeted support remains an ongoing concern in the grant review process. One grantee nonetheless asks, “Why does there appear to be more Great Ape conservation emphasis on gorillas than chimps?” Chimps are less vulnerable due to their fission and fusion behavior; more adaptable than gorillas and have a wider geographic range. Gorillas are sitting ducks in comparison. It would be wise to invest in areas where gorillas and chimps are sympatric. Outside of this, western chimp populations in the Guinea Highlands and the Tai Forest are a priority." (Program manager, WWF) Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 52 For example, GACF funding helped AWF determine where to focus protected area development and great ape conservation efforts in the Maringa-Lapori-Wamba landscape in DRC though funding of targeted surveys using methodologies developed by other USFWS GACF partners. This information helped leverage USAID and other donor funding to the landscape. The landscape lead from AWF stressed how the landscape “infrastructure costs” meant the use of smaller grant funds such as those from GACF could go directly to field conservation activities, in this case leading to more precise and efficient definition of priority zones for conservation. 4.4.3 Species Recovery and Health All great ape species are endangered, and overall population trends seem to indicate steady decline. In some areas, declines have been halted resulting in growth of isolated small populations that exhibit local success with census counts yielding numbers in the hundreds. Populations in decline are less resilient to disturbance and more susceptible to the cumulative impacts of ecological and health threats. Detrimental human impacts are driving great apes toward extinction. Species Recovery and Health should be a strategic pillar for any great ape conservation approach. The evaluation team was able to observe several USFWS funded efforts in the field and our findings may assist the USFWS in refining its efforts in this realm. Eastern Gorilla Rehabilitation and Reintroduction: Through grants to MGVP, and DFGFI, the USFWS was asked to provide short term bridge funding for the rehabilitation of confiscated Eastern Gorillas in the Virunga region. USFWS funding supported captive Mountain Gorilla and Grauer's Gorilla in captive facilities in Kinigi Rwanda and Goma, DRC. The underlining objective of this support is to develop a program to reintroduction captive gorillas back into the wild. As part of this plan, funding included support for a regional vision for the management of confiscated gorillas in eastern DRC, Rwanda and Uganda. Grantee reactions were mixed in reporting outcomes of these investments. From the vantage of the evaluation team, governmental and non-governmental interests and vision for long term gorilla rehabilitation seem out of alignment. MGVP had particular issues with the rehabilitation goals of ICCN in DRC. There was stated tension between MGVP and DFGFI over rehabilitation goals in DRC, especially with regards to the facility in Tayna operated by DFGFI. While USFWS supports most major great ape conservation players in the Virunga region, it has chosen not to play an independent broker role in bringing consensus amongst its diverse stakeholders. While neutrality is a worthwhile goal in some circumstances for a grant-maker, funding actors with divergent goals can exacerbate existing tensions and enhance conflict. There is an opportunity for USFWS to broker common agreement in such a situation. What is clear to the evaluation team is that great ape rehabilitation requires a long term resource strategy. Individual animals need support on a multi-generational scale. USFWS grant process is designed with a shorter term outcome horizon. The USFWS may consider working with grantees to develop short term targets that assist grantees in reporting outcomes and enabling USFWS to justify funding long term efforts with short term time horizons. Great ape rehabilitation is a promising area of great ape species recovery. As individual great apes are long lived, investments in captive programs need sustainability planning. Short term Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 53 pulses of investment in long term captive efforts can have adverse consequences where a solution is additive to a problem. Should the USFWS seek to invest in this arena, we recommend that any grant seeker submit a sustainability plan for the long term care of individual animals or a recovery plan for the reintroduction of individual as is the practice with US-based endangered species recovery efforts. Disease surveillance: In Gabon at the ZSL site in Mikongo with Lope National Park, we viewed an underutilized field laboratory. The facility was located in an area of Lope National Park (and for that matter in the country of Gabon) distant from monitored great ape populations. While it is laudable to have such facilities in the bush, they require constant care and maintenance to ensure optimal operation when need arises. “You can't do it for five years. long term effort, too complex; you can set up research facility but to sustain it is another matter." (Project Director, Gabon). Diseases such as ebola hemorrhagic fever are a major threat to the survival of great apes in Africa. In regions where human and apes interact, there is concern for higher risk of spreading shared pathogens. As one expert commented, "Different primates in the same area share more disease than the same primates in different areas". Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 54 Map 3: Ebola outbreaks and mortality (From Nellemann, C., I. Redmond, J. Refisch (eds). 2010 UNEP) Disease surveillance capacity is very limited across the Congo Basin. This can be said for humans as well as great apes. Monitoring great ape disease dynamics requires a sophisticated network of collaborating health facilities across the region with trained personnel, coordinated sampling protocols and maintained diagnostic facilities plus a systematic disease sampling strategy devised by wildlife epidemiologists. The investment required to establish an effective disease surveillance program and maintain it over time is beyond the grant size and budget of the GACF. That much said, where there are well monitored great ape subpopulations such as in areas of ecotourism endeavors or long term research sites, localized wildlife health monitoring can be an effective conservation investment. Furthermore, in regions of known outbreaks, rapid response support can help assess disease impacts and develop strategies for disease control. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 55 4.4.4 Governance and Enforcement USFWS grants funds a diversity of conservation actors and actions that are not permitted or easily supported through the CARPE program. Importantly, FWS grants have contributed to international cross-border protected area management coordinating structures and programs. For example, GACF grants have supported improved transboundary management themes in several landscapes include those supporting protected area management’s enforcement responsibilities. Improving conservation managers’ capacity to enforce regulations protecting critical great ape habitat was widely identified as a theme that USFWS GACF funds had supported and one in which the impact was tangible and significant. "USFWS funds have been leveraged to support ecoguard patrols in Odzala." -- Pauwel de Wachter, WWF "USFWS can be a law enforcement partner with us on CITES, and ESA." -- David Greer, WWF "Accountability needs to be linked to wildlife code enforcement." -- David Greer, WWF 4.4.5 Conservation Outreach and Education It is particularly challenging to determine the impact of USFWS support to efforts categorized as conservation outreach and education. The linkages from increased knowledge and awareness to changed attitudes and then to more conservation-centered practices are difficult even in long￾term programs. Over the course of GACF grants, most programs are only able to systematically report more immediate changes in knowledge from before to after an intervention. To evaluate these efforts, primarily their contribution must be assessed in the context of a causal chain that is generally known to have an impact. USFWS have supported both standalone conservation outreach efforts and other grantee programs that have an outreach education component. 4.4.6 Training/Capacity Building/Technical Assistance Sustaining conservation efforts over time is a function of investments in training and capacity building. The USFWS and its GACF have supported training and capacity building across all areas of its grant making efforts from monitoring and research to governance and enforcement. In many ways training and capacity building is a cross cutting theme that is integrated into many other technical programs. For example, USAID GACF grants for surveying and monitoring great populations have been carried out for all species and in almost every country where grants intervene. These combined efforts have lead to extensive training from professional to field surveyor level staffs, to the definition of a set of best practices for great ape conservation managers and to the construction of a Regional Training Center in Lope National Park in Gabon. USFWS grants have partially Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 56 supported all aspects of this systematic application of an important methodology. As a result, surveys of ape populations are of comparable quality across sites, training needs can be readily identified, and more importantly, practitioners’ understanding of great ape distribution has been substantially increased. Training relies on sharing expert knowledge and technical assistance is often the method is use to deploy such information. The GACF provides technical assistance in two main ways. First, it does so through grants to support technical expertise within NGOs, and governments or through individuals/consultants. Second, the USFWS does so through deploying its own highly qualified technical staff. The professional personnel of USFWS and its WWB are an asset that is highly valued by the great ape conservation community and GACF grantees. By using its own capacity, the USFWS is contributing to the mission of great ape conservation through substantial non￾monetary assistance to its grantees. This non-monetary assistance includes both management￾oriented and field-related assistance. Some examples of USFWS staff inputs includes strategic planning advice; the development of performance measures; the facilitation of collaboration; providing expertise on addressing specific field conservation challenges; and sharing research and best practices. To some degree, all WWB programs provide similar support services, and the Service is looking to expand cross-program synergies. 4.4.7 Strategic Planning/Best Practices Development and Dissemination USFWS grants build rapport among operational level implementers of Great Ape conservation. USFWS staff and grantees have regular contact through proposal preparation, grant reporting and other interactive levels of communication. Such networking at the operational level has greatly strengthened USFWS capacity to play a more strategic role among the great ape conservation community. Despite its small size the GACF program management has already achieved substantial outcomes at the strategic level, which translate or can be expected to translate to conservation outcomes in the field. Strategic support can come in the form of direct grant support, networking and participation in strategic planning exercises, and serving as a catalyst and has addressed such themes as: • Best practices guidelines • Regional action plans for different Great Ape species • Program coordination among partners The Best Practices Guidelines are an ongoing area of support for the Division and one that is funded by both CBFP GACF funds and USFWS GACF funds. These guidelines, with partial funding from GACF, are the product of the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Specialists have developed them to address critical issues in great ape conservation based on a consensus of best practices for field conservationists. Each publication provides up-to-date guidance for scientists working on a daily basis with great apes, as well as for the many development organizations, donors and government agencies that are involved in great ape conservation. So far guidelines have been or are being produced that address reducing impacts of logging, reintroduction of great apes, for surveys and monitoring of great ape populations, for great ape tourism and for mitigating human – great ape conflict. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 57 In addition to providing direct support for these consensus documents, many of the contributors to these publications have been the beneficiaries of GACF grants. For example, under WCS Fiona Maisels received multiple grants to develop, support and extend survey and monitoring methodologies. Dr. Maisels is a key contributor to the related IUCN/SSC publication. Similarly, the guidelines addressing one of the primary threats to great ape survival – commercial logging – are largely authored and based on research carried out by David Morgan and Crickette Sanz in the TNS landscape and supported for nearly a decade by USFWS grants.9 For the last four years, this work received CBFP GACF funding. The Regional Action Plans have also received support from the USFWS GACF, though much but not all of it thus far has been outside the USAID funding. This ongoing work will require not only the elaboration of additional plans but a continuous effort to update and refine prior plans. The evaluation noted that USFWS is helping lay the groundwork for the production of a bonobo plan and is currently involved in the furthering strategic work to advance the regional action plan for the conservation of the Cross River gorilla. The team examined the Cross River action plan and interviewed field staff on the usefulness of the plan. The five year plan stemmed from a 2006 workshop. It provides a state of the art informational summary of the Cross River gorilla populations, their habitat and corridors and provides a summary action program with a planned $4.6 million budget that addresses a range of issues including boundary demarcation, legal, institutional, research, enforcement and others. The plan helped field partners to seek funding, which to some extent was met with USFWS grants, but as with bonobos, the conservation partners seemed to require an external catalyst to further the strategic development process. The USFWS GACF, as a respected government agency, does not directly compete with its NGO partners, is seen by the NGOs for the most part as a neutral broker, and thus embodies a power to convene and focus NGO around key themes. In addition to support for best practices and action plans, USFWS has exercised this power to convene and catalyze implementing NGOs to further their conservation agenda. The evaluation found that these efforts were consistent with CBFP and CARPE goals and objectives whether focused on CARPE landscapes or on applying lessons from CARPE to other non-CARPE landscapes. Through GACF, USFWS was playing a significant role as a strategic catalyst in several geographic and thematic areas. The team, for example, observed USFWS playing a more strategic role in the trans-boundary Virungas landscape, coordination of bonobo conservation groups, developing a landscape approach in the Cross River zone, refocusing strategic support in Northern Congo, and exploring a more active role for government in conservation partnerships in Gabon. From a USAID standpoint the transfer results in overhead costs being shifted from one agency to another with some loss in efficiency and with duplicate efforts that could have been combined. This was reported to our team as experienced by USAID primarily as a “loss” where added value is not recorded. USFWS often plays this catalytic role in areas where USAID is not active or where presence or involvement is limited – the Virungas, bringing TL2 into the bonobo 9 Interestingly, Goualougo Triangle Ape Project received the first award of the Great Ape Conservation Award of 2000 and report that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not only increased the conservation status of chimpanzees and gorillas in northern Congo. They credit visionary leadership and persistent follow through as being responsible for the results that are now being generalized among practitioners. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 58 mainstream, working with non-CARPE NGOs, spreading CARPE partner landscape approaches to non-CARPE landscapes. With improved understanding USAID could better recognize the overall USG benefit not only through direct GACF grants support for strategic planning but also from this less defined role as a catalyst in developing a larger network of practitioners. 4.4.8 Fostering Innovative Opportunities Through such networking and longstanding relationships with the conservation community, USFWS has been able to identify and strengthen a group of less-established researchers, smaller international and local NGO’s, and indirectly, a cadre of host country conservation practitioners. Some USFWS grants provide seed funding that encourages innovation, start-up pilot efforts and entrepreneurial activity. One recipient stated, "USFWS is open to innovation or efforts out of the ordinary," and that without such proactive, entrepreneurial efforts, the program would never secure funds. (Executive Director, ABC) These can be technical in nature such as support to research on real time cell phone transmission of unauthorized human entry into protected areas or economic as in the case of building capacity such as that of INCEF in using innovative video tools in behavior change programs. USFWS funded an innovative experiment in communication by supporting the inclusion of gorilla conservation messages in the context of a local radio drama series presented by the Population Media Center. Beginning 2006, 301 episodes on two rural radio channels were broadcast and will terminate with 312. Interest is high, and a second related and expanded series may result. The mainstreaming of conservation and linking it with other sectors in popular culture is having some measure of success based on feedback. The GACF provides grants to numerous ecotourism initiatives, most of which include efforts to further great ape habituation. Habituation of lowland gorillas, bonobos remains experimental. This amounts to support for ecotourism R&D, which is a precondition to attracting long term private sector investment in sustainable (conservation-based) ecotourism. Ecotourism is an innovative approach to conservation funding and sustainability, but comes with some risks and uncertainty. Ecotourism is drawing large numbers of visitors to Rwanda and to a lesser extent to the surrounding mountain gorilla populations in Uganda (Bwindi) and Congo (where official tourism has just restarted). Permits are lucrative and attract support for protected areas programs. At 100 permits per day (Uganda (44) and Rwanda (56) subscribed. Ave # group x 100 = x gorillas of 720 visited per day. + researcher groups visited per day.) Visitation may be overburdening gorilla populations in the region. One asks, are they still in the wild? Long-term impact of this intense human ape contact is not fully understood. A high percentage of mountain gorillas are or are being habituated. Some are habituated for research but more and more are being made available for gorillas tracking. The impact on these populations is unknown but the risks to them are increased by this increasingly omnipresent tourism even as it finances conservation in the hosting countries. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 59 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 60 USG direct development support to other governments in the region is minimal. The USAID program operates through a set of NGO and USG partners and is limited with what can be done directly, even with DRC government. CARPE cross-cutting support institutions, such as US Forest Service are establishing technical links to governments, but under the CARPE structure they are restricted from providing direct financial support. Department of State remains involved in the CBFP and engages governments in the region but with minimal staff and resources, efforts are mostly centered on a few policy issues. The team found national government staff in several countries highly interested in playing a more direct implementer role in the GACF program. For example, the Gabon Director of Fish, Game and Aquatic Resources suggested that their staff could work with forestry concessions to establish new, non-national park, protected areas in zones of high conservation value within the concessions. The NGO grantees also felt USFWS could play an important government role that NGOs could not meet. One landscape lead noted the, "Gabon government has no clear understanding of how USFWS funding works and there has been no engagement with the higher levels of government outside the lower levels at the Ministry of Wildlife." (GACF grantee/CARPE landscape lead, Gabon). The evaluation team found that USFWS had identified this opportunity and was seeking within available resources, to develop direct government links including with the government of Gabon. Direct grants to government where accountability requirements can be met represent an example of how the program seeks and develops not only technical but also institutional, innovative opportunities. 5. KEY CONCLUSIONS 5.1 General Conclusions The GACF program in Central Africa has evolved steadily to a point where a stronger institutional presence in the region and across grants is merited. Given the GACF’s limited resources even with the additional USAID transfer monies, an expanded USFWS institutional role has greater likelihood of success if it is part of an overall coordinated effort of the broader Wildlife Without Borders program. A wider DIC review of expanding USFWS presence in the region is merited. Among USG agencies, USFWS is best-placed to administer conservation species-focused grants for great ape species and species’ habitat in Central Africa. The focus on flagship species with substantial habitat requirements can catalyze and focus attention on core protected area and conservation management issues within larger landscapes. The available resources to support the Great Ape Conservation Fund are inadequate to the challenges and would benefit from a more explicit approach toward attracting financing into priority activities supported by the GACF. USFWS is a permanent government agency with a long term mandate in Central Africa. If CARPE funding changes priorities or stops, USFWS support at some level can be expected to continue, thus a long-term strategy should anticipate the maturing and phase-out of the 20-year CARPE effort. 5.2 Conclusions on Transfer Mechanism Communication regarding GACF/CARPE grant program is weak and undercuts potential efficiency and effectiveness at the operational level in landscapes. USFWS GACF lacks explicitly structured processes that would ensure such communication. De facto communication assured from earlier staff and grant procedures has weakened with time and changes in personnel. Based on the operational successes of the grants and the perceived complementarity of the two agencies field activities, efforts to improve communication and collaboration between them are warranted. Programs funded by each enhance the results of the other. 5.3 Conclusions on grant management process USFWS, USAID and their international initiatives will mutually benefit from greater communication and coordination. As programs evolve, as staffing changes, and as priorities shift, communication is essential in efficiently delivering limited USG services over a wide geographic area and funding directly to field-based efforts. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 61 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 62 Communicating ideas clearly and succinctly is a critical function of a proposal or a report and this should be fostered through more precision in the proposal and reporting process which will assist USFWS in the review of proposed efforts and outcomes delivered. Greater precision in proposal and report design can also assist the USFWS in archiving and retrieving data with a timeliness that allows the GACF to serve as an important conservation database for Great Apes. The USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund could foster the development of a coherent and coordinated Great Ape Conservation Strategy across all scales of implementation for local site￾based efforts to national and regional levels of activity throughout the Congo Basin. 5.4 Conclusions on Achieving Conservation Objectives Despite their relatively small scale and low profile to date, the USFWS CARPE grants are critical to enabling conservation partners to meet important conservation objectives. Grant size is not an indication of grant success as many small grants given by the GACF have yielded highly leveraged outcomes; successful conservation outcomes often result from a partner’s larger, ongoing conservation efforts to which the grants make significant, sometimes critical contributions. The GACF program is more than just a limited collection of unrelated small grants to a narrow group of conservation NGOs.. These grants have leveraged more than the resources attributed to the specific direct matches by grant applicants. There is field-based evidence that USFWS investments have indirectly leveraged other large donor conservation infrastructure projects (such as ECOFAC and CARPE) throughout Central Africa. Based on the grantees’ ability to adapt funding to these varied contexts, USFWS appropriately funds single (one-off), clustered and sequential grant-making strategies. Where USFWS grants reach some degree of concentration in coverage, on average say three or more grants provided in a CARPE landscape, USFWS has the potential to develop its own thematic or landscape program strategy. A distinction could be explicit between GACF and CARPE grants and those targeted at an explicit GACF priority program. Priority programs could evolve over time and help grants lead to measurable longer term conservation outcomes. While not specifically, spelled out as a strategy, many grants already follow this pattern By focusing grants, USFWS is capable taking a strategic lead and core donor role for limited periods in selected landscapes, as they have done to some extent, in the Virunga landscape in the past and do so currently in the Congolese portions of the TNS landscape. Outside of CARPE, USFWS funds Cross River and the new landscape, TL2 in DRC. There is capacity to increase and refine this strategic approach to selecting grants -- in essence making USFWS a sort of venture capital funder in these circumstances. 6. RECOMMENDATIONS/LESSONS LEARNED 6.1 General recommendations All stakeholders need to work together to increase support. Great ape conservation is a long term endeavor that will require continuing advocacy of US government support for great ape species conservation programs. Great apes are primate species of global conservation concern. Their numbers are in decline. Yet, they provide a positive identity to a region of world where there is sadly too little attention paid to the plight of both the human and ecological condition. The USFWS is the most important bilateral government undertaking that is designed to and specifically targets the conservation of great ape species. The GACF, if nothing else, serves as an example of how one nation can choose a more proactive approach to change the trajectory of conservation events. Partners and stakeholders need to continue and expand advocacy of US government support for great ape species conservation programs. The USFWS is the only bilateral government funding effort targeting the conservation of great ape species. The GACF, if nothing else, serves as an example of how one nation can choose a more proactive approach to change the trajectory of conservation events. USFWS needs to develop an updated and comprehensive Great Ape conservation strategy to guide its grant making activities. Strategic planning should include stakeholder engagement and employ the best available science. The USFWS Great Ape strategy should be periodically revised to reflect the dynamic challenges facing Great Ape conservation on the ground. Systematic sharing of programming prioritization and synopsis of grant awards should be communicated regularly to CARPE/Kinshasa (and other concerned USAID operating units). FWS should produce a revised format for grantee submissions and reporting that link grants to core CARPE results and to other strategic GA conservation priorities. USFWS needs to create a standardized, preferably web-based, common application form with predetermined narrative word limits and metadata identifiers for proposals and reports. Any additional rich data and findings can be included in addenda. Funded proposals, mid-term and final reports and other products emanating from GACF support should retroactively be posted to the internet and publicly available. USFWS should play an explicit and proactive role in convening stakeholders around GACA (and related) conservation objectives. USFWS needs to expand its interactional donor role, which would be helped by adding staff and improving coordination between GACF program and administrative functions. As a hub of Great Ape Conservation in the Congo Basin, USFWS, beyond making grants, can enable cross￾fertilization of ideas; devise initiatives that synthesize findings and best practices; develop efforts that advance policy, resourcing, science and capacity building across the entire range of Great Ape conservation. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 63 USFWS should establish an information and communication strategy that 1) builds networks within the Great Ape conservation and donor community; 2) shares results across these stakeholder groups; 3) profiles grant activities and field programs; 4) communicates strategic priorities and information about the GACF; and 5) makes outreach material available to the general public though the internet and other media. Increase involvement of national governments in GACF program. Expand and further develop a proactive approach to capacity building, particularly of national staffs, that leads toward direct government to government grants. Establish substantive and geographic priorities for grants. For example, in the short term, pull back from blanket support to ecotourism to focus on higher potential sites where investment in habituation programs is a precondition to a viable higher value tourism market. 6.2 Recommendations on Transfer Mechanism USAID should increase the speed of both the signing of an annual memorandum of agreement and transfer of funds to the USFWS to ensure sufficient time is allowed to program available funding. USFWS should prepare periodic summaries of the recently approved and recently completed grants for general communication to CBFP stakeholders. In particular, these should be shared on a timely basis with CARPE management. As part of the effort, USFWS could select extract elements from grantee reporting that management implications for the CARPE Kinshasa office (or other field-based CARPE personnel). USAID/CARPE should endeavor to use an improved understanding of the GACF grant operations and results to improve its own management of the land use planning efforts in each of the affected landscapes. By benefiting from USFWS coordination and management of the grants and the range of activities they are able to support could offset what are perceived as lost resources allocated to the USFWS program administration. USAID and USFWS should clarify the geographic and species requirements for future funding under a biodiversity funds transfer. If the scope of the transfer is expanded many of the CARPE specific recommendations and findings in this report could be applied to improving collaboration and coordination in other parts of Africa where both agencies play a role. This coordination could also be instructive to other federal agencies involved in African biodiversity conservation. 6.3 Recommendations on grant management process Streamline and standardize reporting formats. Existing proposal outline categories should have defined character or word limits with a focus on brevity. All proposal submissions and reports should have fixed page lengths in set page margins, font and type size. Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 64 Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund 65 Proposal narratives should be no longer than five pages (preferably three) plus supporting materials and financials. Essential material such as that covering budget and key personnel would not count toward the narrative. The USFWS should require all submissions to be provided online. This would assist personnel in sharing information with reviewers, archiving information in databases, enabling staff and researchers to perform periodic evaluations, conducting synthesis review of findings and information and communicating results and activities. The USFWS may want to consider keyword tagging on all proposals and reports to assist in future metadata analysis of proposals and outcomes reported. The team recommends that USFWS consider recruiting an evaluation/knowledge management specialist (one FTE) to assist Species Fund Program Officers in reviewing reports as a collective across several species funds. Such a position can be augmented with contractual assignments to analyze grants data and develop synthesis review assessments. The evaluation team strongly recommends a strategic planning exercise for the GACF that includes partners such as USAID, other governmental agencies, international donors and external great ape conservation expertise. The USFWS is putting in place an advisory group for Great Apes and the other multinational species funds that will help address the need for strategic guidance to the program. To expand upon this effort, the USFWS may also seek to consult with the National Academy of Science or IUCN in developing a strategy using the best science and elevating the profile of great ape conservation in the process. In the end, the USFWS needs a strategy that should posted on its web page and accessible to the public. 6.4 Recommendations on Achieving Conservation Objectives Require grantees to better establish and justify logical links of short term grants to longer term conservation objectives. Grantees should include and report on progress and where possible impact indicators in this effort. Grantees should improve data management capacity. USFWS should support an effort to establish best practices and lessons learned for ranger patrol data collection and management. This could be integrated into training efforts such as those provided at the Lope regional center. Work with grantees to establish criteria for judging success of field efforts including the development or adoption of appropriate indicators for the scale and duration of the effort. 7. ANNEX See separate file, Volume 2 Report Great Ape Conservation Fund – Evaluation of USAID/CARPE Funding Transfer Volume 2: Annexes Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 1 -- List of Contacts Name Title Organization Contact Information Ruggiero, Richard Chief, Near East, So. Asia & Africa Branch US Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of International Conservation richard_ruggiero@fws.gov 703.358.2460 Hirsch, Brian Africa Bureau Environmental Officer USAID, AFR bhirsch@usaid.gov + 1 202.712.5613 Resch, Tim Regional Environment Officer, Biodiversity Advisor USAID, AFR tresch@usaid.gov Russell, Diane Chief Biodiversity Team USAID, EGAT Casseta, Matthew Pubic Outreach Officer Us Department of State, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science cassettamv@state.gov + 1 202 647-6828 Korte, Lisa Science & Technology Policy Fellow U.S. Department of State, Office of Central African Affairs kortelm@state.gov +1 202.647.4514 Shaw, Ellen Forest Policy Advisor US Department of State, Bureau of Oceans, Environment and Science ShawEM@state.gov + 1 202 647-0658 Beck, Jim Africa Program Specialist USDA Forest Service International Programs jpbeck@fs.fed.us + 1 202 219-4854 Frohardt, Katie Executive Director Fauna and Flora International katie.frohardt@fauna-flaura.org + 1 202 375-7766 Six, Kirsten Assistant Director Africa Program WCS ksix@wcs.org Cox, Sally President Bonobo Conservation Initiative scox@bonobo.org Hurley, Michael Executive Director Bonobo Conservation Initiative mhurley@bonobo.org +1 202.332.1014 Sherlis, John Advisor, Science & Policy Bonobo Conservation Initiative john@sherlis.com 202.265.7705 202.549.3898 Lewis, John Managing Director Terra Global Capital john.lewis@terraglobalcapital.com Overton, Greg Conservation Partnerships Director, Africa Program The Nature Conservancy goverton@tnc.org + 1 860 344-0716 #333 Deutsch, James Director Africa Programs Wildlife Conservation Society jdeutsch@wcs.org + 1 718 220-2962 Dayanand, Nav Senior Federal Affairs Offices Wildlife Conservation Society ndayanand@wcs.org +1 202 624-8432 Keith, Lucy Research Scientist Wildlife Trust, FL keith@wildlifetrust.org + 1 727 895 140 Carroll, Richard Africa and Madagascar Program Director World Wildlife Fund richard.carroll@wwfus.org Lewis, Matthew Sr. Program Officer, Species Conservation World Wildlife Fund matthew.lewis@wwfus.org + 1 202 495-4335 Morgan, David Executive Director African Association of Zoos and Aquariums Cranfield, Mike Director Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project List of Contacts United States US Government Non-Governmental Organizations Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Name Title Organization Contact Information Flynn, John Director USAID/CARPE jflynn@usaid.gov Tchamou, Nicodeme Regional Coordinator USAID/CARPE ntchamou@usaid.gov +243 81.555.4545 +243 81.700.7195 Yanggen, David Deputy Director USAID/CARPE dyanggen@usaid.gov + 243 81 555-4541 Andre, Claudine Director Lola ya Bonobo Hart, Terese Lukuru Wildlife Research Foundation teresehart@gmail.com (243)(0)998274380 Hart, John Lukuru Wildlife Research Foundation johnhart@uuplus.com Dupain, Jef AWF jdupainawfdrc@micronet.cd Malonga, Richard WCS rmalonga@wcs.org Mwinyihali, Robert Asst. Country Director WCS, Global Conservation Program rmwinyihali@wcs.org +001 208.330.7056 Tshombe, Richard Country Director WCS rtshombe@wcs.org Basabose, Augustin Conservation Science Officer WWF, International Gorilla Conservaton Programme ak_basabose@yahoo.com +243 808-504089 +243 997- 740505 Ilambu, Omari Country Director WWF oilambu@wwfcarpo.org +243 99 99 15 109 Bonilla, Juan Carlos Interim Director Dian Fossey Juancarlosbonilla@yahoo.com 540.841.3306 Ibrahima, Midou Country Manager World Bank mibrahima@worldbank.org +242 281.46.38 +242 663.19.69 Eastham, Alan Ambassador US Dept of State Weiner, David INCEF diweiner@earthlink.net Kinzonzi N'Kounkou Education Coordinator INCEF Cameron, Ken WCS kencameron2004@yahoo.com Magoungou,Firmin Project Manager WCS Mahoungou_firmin2002@yahoo.fr +242 524.9676 Maisels, Fiona Director, Biological Monitoring WCS fmaisels@uuplus.com fmaisels@wcs.org Reed, Trish WCS trishreeddvm@yahoo.com Rufin Aleba, Rene Asst. Manager WCS wcscongo@yahoo.fr +242 810346 M: +242 556.44.29 Telfer, Paul Director WCS ptelfer@wcs.org +242 522 6542 +242 590 5258 Thomas, Hannah Principal Technical Advisor WCS hthomas@wcs.org Hakizumwami, Elie Regional Forest Officer WWF EHakizumwami@wwfcarpo.org +237 22.21.70.83 +237 22.21.62.67 Romero Canizares, Felix Director of Forests WWF/Spain fromero@wwf.es +34 91.354.05.78 Farrell, Mike International Port Security Liaison Officer U.S. Dep. of Homeland Security  Coast Guard mike.c.farrell@uscg.mil +31 10.442.4458 x0222 +31 62.316.9593 Cavicchi, Serena Opearations Consultant World Bank scavicchi@worldbank.org +236 7279-6567 + 236 2161-6138 Pelissier, Cyril Conservation Advisor World Wide Fund for Nature cpelissier@wwfcarpo.org Thibault, Marc Principal Technical Advisor WWF mthibault@wwfcarpo.org +236 70.93.20.95 Todd, Angelique WWF Sangha, Lebeangali Tour Guide WWF Sangha Project Central African Republic Democratic Republic of Congo Congo Brazzaville Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Name Title Organization Contact Information Noungou, Adrien Director of Wildlife & Hunting Ministry of Forestry, Water, Fish and Parks 00 241 76.14.44 White, Lee Chief Climate Change Scientist Government of Gabon lwhite@uuplus.com Allogo,Constant CARPE Focal Point IUCN ca.obame@iucn.org allogoba@yahoo.fr +241 73 00 28 Jeffery,Kathryn Director SEGC-CIRMF lopesegc@gmail.com +241 7150020 Abernethy, Kate Stirling University k.a.abernethy@stir.ac.uk Ratiarison, Sandra Director Mikongo Conservation Centre Zoological Society of London Mikongo@gmail.com Starkey, Malcolm WCS-Gabon mstarkey@wcs.org Walston, Joe Country Director WCS-Gabon jwalston@wcs.org Keith,Lucy Research Scientist Wildlife Trust keith@wildlifetrust.org 727.895.7140 De Wachter, Pauwel Principal Technical Advisor WWF pdewachter@wwfcarpo.org pauwel_dewachter@hotmail.com +241 73.00.28 M: +241 07.84.00.34 Huijbregts, Bas Principal Technical Advisor, Gamba WWF BHuijbregts@wwfcarpo.org Huijbregts_bas@hotmail.com +241 7840020 Besangoye, Aniiset Team Leader Monitoring Lope National Park Aba'a Rostand Director CEDAMM Moukala Lingerom Field Assistant Lope National Park Kayisanabo, Fina Agribusiness Specialist USAID fkayisanabo@usaid.gov +250 783.304.3690 Safali, Venant Food Aid Manager USAID vsafali@usaid.gov +250 788.302.129 Folls, Joe USAID Rugamba, Rosette Director Office of Tourism and National Parks Fawcett, Katie Director Karisoke Research Center, Diane Fossey Gorilla Fund International karisoke@rwandal.com +250 08.30.75.26 Kayinangor, Eric Population Media Center Rwanda Kayinangoreric@yahoo.com + 250 78.855.7110 Sebatakane, Kakule Jean Rwanda Country Representative Population Media Center kakule@populationmedia.net +250 08.30.50.43 Nzeyimana, Theodore Radio Drama Producer Population Media Center inuma1@yahoo.fr +250 788.883.3697 Moman, Praveen Volcanoes Safaris praveen@volcanoessafaris.com (+250) 502.452/576.530 Bintu, Francine Partnership Administrator Volcanoes Safaris francine@volcanoessafaris.com +250 783.027.930 Barakabuye, Nsengiyunva Country Director WCS nbarakabuye@wcs.org (+250) 788.306.663 Chao, Nerissa PCFN Coordinator, Rwanda Program WCS Rwanda nchao@wcs.org +250 783.774.4697 Munanura, Ian Chief of Party WCS, Destination Nyungwe Project imunanura@wcs.org +250 8.30.66.62 Bana, Mediatrice Program Officer International Gorilla Conservation Program mbana@aufafrica.org +250 546.911 +250 08.30.16.41 Basabose, Augustin Conservation Science Officer International Gorilla Conservation Program ak_basabose@yahoo.com (+243) 0.997.740.505 (+243) 0.808.504.089 Rutagarama, Eugene Director International Gorilla Conservation Program erutagarama@awfafrica.org +250 58.0465 Gray, Marijke Information Management Officer International Gorilla Conservation Program Huston, John Agriculture Project Coordinator Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project De Wetter, Bernard Manager Sabyinyo Silverback Lodge bernard@governorscamp.com +254 714.606.941 +255 783.663.917 Rwanda Gabon Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Name Title Organization Contact Information Drori, Ofir Director LAGA - Wildlife Law Enforcement ofir@laga-enforcement.org +237 99.65.18.03 Greer, David Coordinator WWF African Great Apes Program dgreer@wwfcarpo.org 237 22.21.62.67 Hakizumwami, Elie Regional Forest Officer WWF Ehakizumwami@wwfcarpo.org +237 22.21.70.83 +237 22.1.62.67 Kofoworola Quist, Natasha Regional Representative WWF nquist@wwfcarpo.org 237 9931 271 Fotso, Roger Country Director WCS rfotsowcs@aol.com Nicholas, Aaron Director WCS Takamanda-Mone Landscape Project WCS anicholas@wcs.org Nkembi, Louis Director Environment and Rural Development Foundation lnkembi@yahoo.com Chin, Emmanuel Regional Director Ministry of Forestry and Fawn chinembiy@yahoo.com Cameroon Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 2 -- BIBLIOGRAPHY 1997. Can the Mountain Gorilla Survive? (Gorilla gorilla berringei). Population and Habitat Viability Assessment. Kampala, Uganda. 8-12 December, 1997. 2009. Journal of Berggorilla & Regenwald Direkthilfe 38. Bassey, A. E. a. J. O. 2001. Proceedings of the International Workshop and Conference on the Conservation of the Cross River Gorillas. International Workshop and Conference on the Conservation of the Cross River Gorillas, Calabar, Nigeria. April 6-9, 2001. Bergl, R. A., B.J. Bradley, A.M. Nsubuga and L. Vigilant. 2008. Genetic effects of habitat fragmentation, population size and demographic history on primate populations: The Cross River gorilla in a comparative context. American Journal of Primatology 70: 848- 859. Beudels-Jamar, R. C., R-M. Lafontaine, P. Devileers, I. Redmond, C. Devos et. and M-O. Beudels. 2008. Gorilla. Report on the Conservation Status of Gorillas. CMS Gorilla Concerted Action. CMS Technical Series Publication No 17. Bonn, Germany, UNEP/CMS Secretariat. Butynski, T. & members of the Primate Specialist Group 2000. Gorilla beringei ssp. beringei. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. CBFP. 2005. The Forests of the Congo Basin: A Preliminary Assessment. Washington D.C., Congo Basin Forest Partnership: 34p. CBFP. 2007. The Forests of the Congo Basin: The State of the Forest. Washington D.C., Congo Basin Forest Partnership: 256p. COMIFAC. 2008. Reunion de Concertation des Ministres Libreville. Coxe, S., N. Rosen, P. Miller and U. Seal, Eds. 2000. Final Report. Bonobo Conservation Assessment Workshop, Apple Valley, MN. Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN). Department, S. W. 2003. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Orangutan in Sabah. International Workshop on Orangutan in Sabah, Sabah, Malaysia. Edroma, E., N. Rosen and P. Miller, Eds. 1997. Conserving the Chimpanzees of Uganda. Population and Habitat Viability Assessment for Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii. Edroma, Entebbe, Uganda. Ellis, C. 2008. Investment Strategy for the Conservation of African and Asian great Apes. 2008- 2012 Report to WWF. Zeist, Netherlands, World Wildlife Fund: 115 pgs. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Ellis, S., I. Singleton, N. Andayani, K. Traylor-Holzer and J. Supriatna, Eds. 2006. Sumatran Orangutan Conservation Action Plan. Washington, D.C. and Jakarta, Indonesia, Conservation International. Facilitator, C. 2009. Beijing Mission Report by the Facilitator and Deputy Facilitator of the Congo Basin Forest Partnership. Draft translation. Version 3, USFWS: 5p. Fruth, B., Benishay, J.M., Bila-Isia, I., Coxe, S., Dupain, J., Furuichi, T., Hart, J., Hart, T., Hashimoto, C., Hohmann, G., Hurley, M., Ilambu, O., Mulavwa, M., Ndunda, M., Omasombo, V., Reinartz, G., Scherlis, J., Steel, L. & Thompson, J. 2007. Pan paniscus. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Kormos, R., C. Boesch, M.I. Bakarr and T. Butynski, Eds. 2003. West African Chimpanzees: Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: ix + 219. Kormos, R. and C. Boesch. 2003. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Chimpanzees in West Africa. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Biodiversity Sciences at Conservation International. Mittermeier, R. A., J. Ratsimbazafy, A.B. Rylands, l. Williamson, J.F. Oates, D. Mbora, J.U. Ganzhorn, E. Rodriguez-Luna, E. Palacios, E.W. Heymann, M. Cecilia, M. Kierulff, L. yongceng, J.Supriatna, C. Roos, S. Walker and J.M. Aguiar. 2007. Primates in peril: The world's 25 most endangered primates, 2006-2008. Primate Conservation 22: 1-40. Morgan, D. and C. Sanz. 2007. Best Practice Guidelines for Reducing the Impact of Commercial Logging on Great Apes in Western Equatorial Africa. Gland, Switzerland., IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group. Nellemann, C., I. Redmond, J. Refisch (eds). 2010. The Last Stand of the Gorilla – Environmental Crime and Conflict in the Congo Basin. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal. www.grida.no Oates, J., J. Sunderland-Groves, R. Bergl, A. Dunn, A. Nicolas, E. Takang, F. Omeni, I. Imong, R. Fotso, L. Nkembe and L. Williamson. 2007. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). Arlington, VA., IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and COnservation International. Oates, J.F., Tutin, C.E.G., Humle, T., Wilson, M.L., Baillie, J.E.M., Balmforth, Z., Blom, A., Boesch, C., Cox, D., Davenport, T., Dunn, A., Dupain, J., Duvall, C., Ellis, C.M., Farmer, K.H., Gatti, S., Greengrass, E., Hart, J., Herbinger, I., Hicks, C., Hunt, K.D., Kamenya, S., Maisels, F., Mitani, J.C., Moore, J., Morgan, B.J., Morgan, D.B., Nakamura, M., Nixon, S., Plumptre, A.J., Reynolds, V., Stokes, E.J. & Walsh, P.D. 2007. Pan troglodytes. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Oates, J.F., Bergl, R.A., Sunderland-Groves, J. & Dunn, A. 2007. Gorilla gorilla ssp. diehli. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Oates, J.F., Dunn, A., Greengrass, E. & Morgan, B.J. 2007. Pan troglodytes ssp. vellerosus. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Pielemeier, J., F. Sowers, C. Stoney and M. Adonis 2006. Mid-Term Assessment of the Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). Final Report. Arlington, VA, The Weidemann Consortium. Rosen, N. and O. Byers., Eds. 2002. Orangutan Conservation and Reintroduction Workshop: Final Report. Apple Valley, MN, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Sandbrook, C. and S. Semple. 2006. The rules and reality of mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) tracking: How close do tourists get? Oryx 40(4): 428-433. Sarmiento, E. E. 2003. The cross river gorilla: The most endangered gorilla subspecies. Primate Conservation 19: 65-72. Singleton, I., S. Wich, S. Husson, S. Stephens, S. Utami Atmoko, M. Leighton, N. Rosen, K. Traylor-Holzer, R. Lacy and O. Byers, Eds. 2004. Orangutan Population and Habitat Viability Assessment: Final Report. Apple Valley, MN, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Supriatna, J., J. Manansan, L. Tumbelaka, N. Anayani, M. Indrawan, L. Darmawan, S.M. Leksono, Djuwantoko, U. Seal and O. Byers, Eds. 2001. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for the Primates of Indonesia: Final Report. Apple Valley, MN, IUCN/SSC Conservation Breeding Specialist Group. Thompson, J., G. Hohmann and T. Furuichi, Eds. 2003. Bonobo Workshop: Behavior, Ecology and Conservation of Wild Bonobos. Inuyama Japan, Kyoto University Primate Research Institute. Thompson-Handler, N., R. Malenky and G. Reinartz, Eds. 1995. Action Plan for Pan paniscus. Report on Free Ranging Populations and proposals for Their Preservation. Milwaukee, WI, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County. Tutin, C., E. Stokes, C. Boesch, D. Morgan, C. Sanz, T. Reed, A. Blom, P. Walsh, S. Blake and R. Kormos. 2005. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Chimpanzees and Gorillas in Western Equatorial Africa. Washington, D.C., Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International. Tutin, C.E.G., Baillie, J.E.M., Dupain, J., Gatti, S., Maisels, F., Stokes, E.J., Morgan, D.B. & Walsh, P.D. 2007. Pan troglodytes ssp. troglodytes. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes UNEP/CMS/GOR-MOP1. 2008. Action Plan 2008 - Eastern Lowland Gorrilla (Gorilla beringei graueri). First Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Gorillas and Their Habitats, Rome, Italy. UNEP/CMS/GOR-MOP1. 2008. Action Plan 2008 - Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei). First Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of the Gorillas and Their Habitats, Rome, Italy. UNEP/CMS/GOR-MOP1. 2008. Action Plan 2008 - Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla). First Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Gorillas and Their Habitats, Rome, Italy. UNEP/CMS/GOR-MOP1. 2008. Draft Action Plan 2008 - Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). First Meeting of the Parties to the Agreement on the Conservation of Gorillas and Their Habitats. Doc 7b, Rome, Italy. USAID. 2005. Biodiversity: A Guide for USAID Staff and Partners, USAID. USFWS. 2007. Assistance Award Guidelines (Sept 6 2007). USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund. CFDA#15.629. Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.fws.gov/international. USFWS. 2007. Great Ape Conservation Fund Summary Report 2001-2007. USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund. USFWS. 2009. Notice of Funding Availability and Application Instructions (OMB No. 1018- 0123 Exp. Aug 2010). USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund. CFDA#15.629 Retrieved August 20, 2009, from http://www.fws.gov/international. USFWS. 2009. USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund. CDFA 15.629. Retrieved August 20, 2009s, from http://www.fws.govinternational. Walsh, P.D., Tutin, C.E.G., Oates, J.F., Baillie, J.E.M., Maisels, F., Stokes, E.J., Gatti, S., Bergl, R.A., Sunderland-Groves, J. & Dunn. A. 2007. Gorilla gorilla. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Wilson, M.L., Balmforth, Z., Cox, D., Davenport, T., Hart, J., Hicks, C., Hunt, K.D., Kamenya, S., Mitani, J.C., Moore, J., Nakamura, M, Nixon, S., Plumptre, A.J. & Reynolds, V. 2007. Pan troglodytes ssp. schweinfurthii. In: IUCN 2007. 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Yaounde Declaration. Summit of Heads of State of Central Africa on Conservation and Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests. March 1999 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 3 -- Statement of Work 1. Introduction / Background The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Division of International Affairs (DIC) administers a range of conservation grant programs, including the Great Ape Conservation Fund (GACF). The GACF was created in 2000 as part of the Great Ape Conservation Act which was passed by the U.S. Congress in response to the many threats jeopardizing the survival of great apes. FWS awards GACF grants for activities related to applied research, surveys, monitoring, infectious diseases, strengthening law enforcement, conservation education, and habitat protection to strengthen conservation efforts of all great ape species. The Fiscal Year 2007 Congressional appropriation of $1.4 Million to the Great Apes Conservation Fund was augmented by $2.5 Million from USAID's Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE). These additional funds complement other CARPE activities and support ape conservation in six Central African countries: Cameroon, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda. In FY07, these resources allowed FWS to leverage $4.7 Million in matching and in-kind funds to support 58 projects in Asia and Africa. The transfer of $2.5 million from USAID CARPE has occurred annually from FY06-FY08 and may continue in future years. The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of the Great Ape Conservation Fund as a delivery mechanism for great ape conservation as well as achieving USG CBFP conservation objectives in six central African countries of Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, and Gabon. Furthermore, the evaluation will provide recommendations to improve the Fund's performance. Specifically the evaluation will assess the process by which these grants are administered via a transfer of funds from USAID to FWS, examine transaction costs of this process, and determine any vulnerabilities or duplication of efforts which may exist as a result of this process. The evaluation will also assess the impact of USAID funding via the GACF on ape conservation and provide recommendations for improving program delivery, appropriate metrics for evaluating ongoing program performance, and assist in the development of appropriate short and long term program objectives. Although the evaluation will include site visits, the purpose is not to capture the full impact and results at selected sites but to document illustrative impacts achieved through the small grants program. FWS anticipates a participatory methodology will be employed for this evaluation with participation from both FWS and USAID under the leadership of an objective third party contractor. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Evaluation objectives 1. To evaluate the process used to award grants, including partner selection, size and number of grants, and coordination of FWS and USAID 2. To evaluate effectiveness of GACF/USAID funding to achieve great ape conservation. 3. To evaluate effectiveness of GACF in contributing to CBFP objectives. 4. Provide recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Great Ape Conservation Fund 5. To document selected site level great ape conservation impacts. With these overarching objectives in mind, the evaluation should analyze and provide a discussion of: ƒ Benefits and drawbacks of a small grants program for species conservation; ƒ Validity of underlying assumptions of the Fund's strategic process; ƒ Programmatic implications of transferring funds from USAID to FWS vs. alternative methodologies; ƒ Impact of transferred funds on FWS' appropriated money; ƒ Coordination between FWS and USAID; ƒ Selected site-level impacts of grants administered through the Fund and spillover effects (at sites, in country, and within organizations); ƒ Key lessons learned and their application toward similar Species Programs administered by FWS; and ƒ Key recommendations to FWS and USAID on comparative advantages and disadvantages of the Great Ape Conservation Fund model . 2. Work to be performed The contractor will work closely with the FWS Division of International Conservation and USAID's Central African Regional Program for the Environment (CARPE) to implement the evaluation. Primary tasks the contractor must accomplish are: A. Arrange and facilitate a half day discussion consisting of a minimum of two FWS officers and two USAID officers to provide input into the overall process and methodology to be employed. B. Develop an implementation plan including a methodology for the evaluation in close consultation with FWS and USAID officers. C. Gather and analyze information from a variety of sources including: 1) Information contained in existing databases, reports, and publications, held by Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes FWS or other organizations; 2) Surveys of a range of stakeholders including, but not limited to, FWS and USAID employees, partner conservation organizations, host-country governments, beneficiaries, and members of surrounding communities not benefiting from GACF through the use of online surveys and individual and small group interviews, and/or other instruments as deemed appropriate; and, 3) Site visits to projects funded by the GACF. D. In coordination with FWS, produce the necessary federal register notices and other documentation required by the Office of Management and Budget to authorize the information collection process. E. Travel to five project sites in at least two countries within Central Africa accompanied by FWS and USAID staff to document the impact of the GACF. F. Produce a detailed final report describing the process, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. A draft of the report will be provided to FWS and USAID for review and comment prior to final submission. G. Produce and deliver a PowerPoint presentation to FWS and USAID staff describing the process, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. H. Produce and deliver a presentation to partners and stakeholders in Washington DC. I. Recommendations will include but not be limited to the identification of appropriate performance metrics for use by FWS officers to measure the impact of grants awarded. J. Arrange, and facilitate meetings and coordinate necessary logistics with FWS and USAID officers and grantees during the life of the project as needed. 3. Government-Furnished Materials/Services FWS will provide access to all databases containing relevant information. FWS will also provide appropriate contacts to assemble staff, outside experts, stakeholders for information collection purposes. Meeting space will be provided by FWS as needed. 4. Summary of Deliverables ƒ An implementation Plan including detailed methodology for the evaluation. ƒ A detailed final report and accompanying PowerPoint presentation describing the process, data sources, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes ƒ Two presentations. All deliverables will be appropriately branded according to USAID and USFWS guidelines. 5. Location of work FWS and USAID maintain offices in the Washington D.C. metro area. A large amount of the GACF's program partners have offices in the Washington D.C. metro area. Site visits to a minimum of two countries and five project sites in Central African countries including Cameroon, Gabon, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, and Equatorial Guinea will be visited by the contractor. 6. Period of Performance The period of performance for this contract is Oct 1, 2008 - April 15, 2009. 7. Deliverable Schedule Nov 1, 2008 - FWS receives draft Implementation Plan and Methodology (USFWS/USAID will respond with comment within one week) Nov 25, 2008 - FWS receives final Implementation Plan and Methodology Mar 1, 2008 - FWS receives draft report of findings and Power Point presentation (USFWS/USAID will respond with comment within two weeks) April 1, 2008 - FWS receives final report and PowerPoint presentation April 15, 2008 - PowerPoint presentation delivered to FWS and other stakeholders. All deliverables must be in an editable format. USFWS reserves full ownership rights to the deliverables. (Schedule and Deliverables Modified by subsequent amendments) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 4 – Summary Table of GACF/CARPE Grants Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Conservation International A Conservation Survey of Great Apes and Elephants in Rio Muni, Equatorial Guinea Landscape 1 - Monte Alen- Mont 130,000.00 35,582.00 The Recipient will complete a geographically comprehensive survey of occupancy ranges, population sizes, and demographic trends of great apes and elephants in Río Muní; dentify and quantify the factors threatening these species in Río Muní; Wildlife Conservation Society Health Protection and Health Monitoring Program for the Recovery of Gorillas and Chimpanzees in Parc National de Kahuzi Biega, DRC Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $89,603.00 $188,956.00 Promotion of gorilla health monitoring and emergency intervention protocols, standardizing of reporting formats that are harmonious with those used in great ape health protection programs across eastern DRC, Republic of Congo, Gabon, Rwanda and Uganda Wildlife Conservation Society Monitoring the Post-conflict Recovery of Gorillas and Chimpanzees in Parc National de Kahuzi Biega, Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $77,231.00 $84,477.00 Organize and conduct workshops and follow-up training for monitoring methods in both the upland and lowland sectors; develop most appropriate methods for the surveyed areas and identify key monitoring sites; gather data using newly-refined techniques Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Biodiversity Monitoring and Censusing Maiko-UGADEC DRC Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $100,000.00 $22,500.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Biodiversity Surveys and Monitoring of the Maiko National Park and UGADEC Community-Based Wildlife Corridor, Eastern DRC,” is to improve conservation of biodiversity in Eastern DRC by surveying and monitoring great apes. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Community-based conservation: Establishing physical boundary demarcations for the Kisimba-Ikobo Nature Reserve, Eastern DRC Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $28,727.00 $5,617.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Community Based Conservation: Establishing Physical Boundary Demarcation for the Kisimba-Ikobo Nature Reserve, Eastern DR”, is to demarcate the boundaries of Kisimba-Ikobo Nature Reserve. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund The Democratic Republic of Congo Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $298,845.00 $457,487.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “The Democratic Republic of Congo Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center”, is to establish a facility based in Kasugho, DRC to rescue and rehabilitate as orphaned East African gorillas; reintroductions. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Linking Ecosystem Health with Integrated Conservation and Development Initiatives in Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega and Virunga Volcanoes Landscapes in DRC/Rwanda Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $199,981.00 $213,053.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Linking Ecosystem Health with Integrated Conservation and Development Initiatives in Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega and Virunga Volcanoes Landscapes in DRC/Rwanda”, is to improve human health in communities involved in conservation activities. International Conservation and Education Fund Building Capacity at Tayna Center for Conservation Biology for Video-Centered Outreach Activities Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $49,500.00 $36,510.00 The Recipient will improve protection of Eastern Lowland gorillas through increased awareness of local communities surrounding the Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center (GRACE) by creating and maintaining a video production and dissemination capacity. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International The Democratic Republic of Congo Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center Project Start-up and Year 1 Operations Landscape 10 – Maiko – Tayna￾Kahuzi Biega (DRC) $99,848.00 $535,007.00 The Recipient will train GRACE staff on animal care, veterinary care, implementation of conservation education programs, and data collection procedures and analysis; develop standard operating procedures for the center; move existing captive gorillas from other provisional locations. 943,735.00 1,543,607.00 Wildlife Conservation Society Preliminary surveys of chimpanzees in eastern Ituri Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 11 – Ituri – Epulu- Ar $47,257.00 $32,659.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Preliminary surveys of chimpanzees in eastern Ituri Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo”, is to gather baseline information on the status of chimpanzees, their forest habitats and other key wildlife species African Wildlife Foundation Regional Collaboration for Mountain Gorilla Conservation Ranger-Based Monitoring for a Regional Information System in the Virunga-Bwindi Forest Ecosystem Landscape 12 – Virunga $300,000.00 $361,500.00 Conduct workshops with regional partners to discuss results of the Ranger-based Monitoring (RBM) analysis and review management implications, formulate questions and determine what the PAAs require from the RBM data; the Conservation Officer will compile information. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund An Economic Study of Mountain Gorilla Tourism in the Virunga Volcanoes Conservation Area, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 12 – Virunga $17,316.00 $42,902.00 Qualify visitor opinions regarding satisfaction with the current tourism program and quantify their willingness to spend on conservation of biodiversity; develop policy recommendations for price incentives and investment; and, share results with the relevant parties. Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project (MGVP, Inc.) Confiscated Eastern Gorilla Rehabilitation and Planning for Reintroduction and Long Term Management Landscape 12 – Virunga $109,859.00 $168,505.00 This project develops veterinary and behavioral interventions and infrastructure to facilitate eventual reintroduction of captive mountain and Grauer’s gorillas into their natural habitats. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Wildlife Conservation Society Building Capacity for Rwanda's Great Ape Tourism Landscape 12 – Virunga $67,622.00 $18,850.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Building Capacity for Rwanda’s Great Ape Tourism”, is to contribute to the survival of chimpanzees and gorillas by improving the system of tourism practiced in two essential protected areas including Volcanoes National Park International Gorilla Conservation Programme Strengthening Transboundary Collaborative Processes in the Virunga Massif-Bwindi forest ecosystem Landscape 12 – Virunga $96,610.00 $205,440.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Strengthening Transboundary Collaborative Processes in the Virunga Massif-Bwindi Forest Ecosystem,” is to ensure the long￾term conservation of the mountain gorilla with a goal of improving joint management fk Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Research Population of Virunga Mountain Gorillas Landscape 12 – Virunga $42,267.00 $179,079.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Continued monitoring, protection and study of the research population of Virunga mountain gorillas”, is to provide continued monitoring, study and protection of the research population of mountain gorillas living in the wild. Conservation Through Public Health Establishing Gorilla Health Monitoring and Community Health Education Campaigns in and around Mount Tshiabirimu, DRC Landscape 12 – Virunga $64,900.00 $43,860.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Establishing Gorilla Health Monitoring and Community Health Education Campaigns in and around Mount Tshiabirimu, DRC is to reduce the prevalence and transmission of disease between apes and humans” Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Support for Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Research Population of Virunga Mountain Gorillas Landscape 12 – Virunga $97,006.00 $122,974.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Support for Continued Monitoring, Protection, and Study of the Research Population of Virunga Mountain Gorillas”, is to provide the necessary equipment and field supplies to provide adequate monitoring and protection Population Media Center Conserving the Habitat of the Mountain Gorilla through Behavior Change Communication Landscape 12 – Virunga $50,000.00 $288,100.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Conserving the Habitat of the Mountain Gorilla through Behavior Change Communication”, is to increase awareness through radio theatre of the linkages between sound environmental stewardship and poverty alleviation Africa Conservation Fund Biomass Briquette Project: Protecting Mountain Gorilla Habitat in Virunga through Alternative Fuels Landscape 12 – Virunga $49,560.00 $88,500.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Biomass Briquette Project: Protecting Mountain Gorilla Habitat in Virunga, DRC, through Alternative Fuels”, is to halt the destruction of mountain gorilla habitat caused by charcoal production through the introduction of alternative fuel sources. Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Mountain Gorillas of the Virunga Massif Landscape 12 – Virunga 142,125.00 381,005.00 The Recipient will contribute to the protection of mountain gorillas by continuing dawn-to-dusk protection and monitoring of the research population of gorillas; continuing collection of demographic and ranging data to assist the Rwandan national park service. Wildlife Conservation Society Environmental Education and Training to Protect Rwanda’s Great Apes Landscape 12 – Virunga 55,745.00 50,045.00 The Recipient will improve ORTPN’s ability to raise community awareness at Nyungwe and Volcanoes National Parks by developing comprehensive environmental education modules; train park staff to implement effective implementation of environmental education International Gorilla Conservation Programme Regional collaboration for mountain gorilla conservation: ranger-based monitoring for a regional information system in the Virunga-Bwindi forest ecosystem Landscape 12 – Virunga 59,510.00 152,070.00 The Recipient will strengthen the protection of mountain gorillas and their habitat through regional collaboration for transboundary conservation by continuing development of ranger based monitoring reference materials and maps, supporting ongoing data $1,152,520.00 $2,102,830.00 Wildlife Conservation Society Protection and Monitoring of Great Apes in Conkouati￾Douli National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba- Conkouati $79,607.00 $25,446.00 The purpose of this project is to provide support for a program of conservation and management through protection and applied research. The recipient will: conduct research to locate important gorilla and chimpanzee populations; conduct strategic surveillance Wildlife Conservation Society Protection Reinforcement to Save Gorillas at Conkouati￾Douli National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba- Conkouati $99,942.00 $24,127.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Protection Reinforcement to Save Gorillas at Conkouati-Douli NP, Republic of Congo”, is to protect apes and other endangered wildlife by working with the Government of Congo and various agents of exploitative industries Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Jane Goodall Institute Biological and Socio-Economic Surveys to Support Chimpanzee Conservation and Protected Area Design in the Western Republic of Congo Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati $177,412.00 $150,954.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Biological and Socio-Economic Surveys to Support Chimpanzee Conservation and Protected Area Design in the Western Republic of Congo,” is to determine the parameters for and to facilitate the establishment World Wildlife Fund, Inc. Enhancing the Great Ape Protection in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gamba Complex of Protected Areas, Gabon Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati $100,000.00 $177,522.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Enhancing the Great Ape Protection in Moukalaba-Doudou National Park, Gamba Complex of Protected Areas, Gabon,” is to provide assistance to a program that strives to improve the protection status of great ape populations. Wildlife Conservation Society Environmental and Socio-economic Audit of SINOPEC Oil Exploration Activities in Loango National Park, Gabon Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati $139,754.00 $180,871.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Environmental and Socio-economic Audit of SINOPEC Oil Exploration Activities in Loango National Park, Gabon”, is to mitigate the negative effects of planned oil prospecting in Loango National Park, Gabon. The Recipi Wildlife Conservation Society Protection of great apes at Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 2- Gamba- Mayumba￾Conkouati $178,675.00 $118,987.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Protection of Great Apes at Conkouati-Douli National Park, Republic of Congo”, is to protect populations of great apes and other large mammals within and around Conkouati Douli National Park by ensuring sufficient pr $775,390.00 $677,907.00 Wildlife Conservation Society Capacity-building in Gabon for Ape Ecological Research Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $52,611.00 $53,986.00 Creation of a resource center for ape ecological research at Lopé National Park that can be accessed nationwide by students, park managers and other conservation professionals and to develop national capacity in the understanding of ecological processes Wildlife Conservation Society Baseline Surveys of Ape Density in Birougou, Gabon Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $43,755.00 $36,959.00 A grant to provide baseline data on the distribution of large mammals, particularly great apes, in the southern portion of the Massif du Chaillu in Gabon. The recipient will conduct systematic surveys of wildlife density in Birougou NP; Zoological Society of London Mikongo Conservation Centre: Western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) Habituation and Health Monitoring for Ecotourism Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $49,226.00 $158,091.00 Continue and improve the habituation process of a group of western lowland gorillas; develop the gorilla health program to be able to monitor gorilla health and mitigate disease transmission from humans in the long-term; and build capacity at the local level Wildlife Conservation Society Evaluating the Impact of Babongo Pygmy Populations in Southern Lope and Waka National Parks Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $35,388.00 $26,037.00 The purpose of this project is to conduct baseline surveys of the area to map and identify all Babongo hunting camps and paths and to carry out initial outreach and awareness-raising activities. The data collected will be synthesized into a report to help Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lope￾Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon. Part II: Lope-Waka Corridor Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $49,316.00 $19,528.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lopé-Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon. Part II: The Lopé￾Waka Corridor” is to contribute to the conservation of great apes conservation by evaluating the human factor. University of Sterling Sustaining a Great Ape Health Program in Lope National Park, Gabon Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $46,526.00 $39,916.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Sustaining a Great Ape Health Program in Lopé National Park, Gabon”, is to improve ape and human health monitoring in Lopé National Park and raise public awareness on preventative health measures. Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lope￾Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon, Part:1 Lope National Park Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse $71,719.00 $53,656.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lopé-Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon. Part I: Lopé National Park”, is to evaluate the great ape conservation status in Lopé and improve the knowledge base Wildlife Conservation Society Capacity building for an anti-poaching strategy in the north￾west of the Lope-Waka great ape exceptional priority area. Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu- Louesse 79,833.00 57,051.00 The Recipient will reduce levels of great ape poaching in Lot 36 section of Lopé- Waka exceptional priority area by organizing two stakeholder meetings involving logging company representatives, the wildlife department, and local communities; Zoological Society of London Evaluating and mitigating impacts of human activities on western lowland gorillas in Lopé National Park, Gabon Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu￾Louesse 49,993.00 70,695.00 The Recipient will improve the long-term conservation of western lowland gorillas in Lopé National Park by gathering baseline data on local gorilla density, population structure, and distribution in the MCC area; correlating gorilla group distribution Wildlife Conservation Society Developing a great ape conservation strategy for the Lopé￾Waka and Ivindo great ape priority areas in Gabon Landscape 3- Lope- Chaillu- Louesse 78,705.00 42,507.00 The Recipient will assist the Gabonese Department of Wildlife Hunting (DFC) with producing a great ape conservation plan for the Lope-Waka and Ivindo priority areas using existing survey and socio-economic data on great ape abundance and threats $557,072.00 $558,426.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW World Wildlife Fund-Gabon Conservation of Great Apes as Flagship Species in the Odzala Landscape, Republic of Congo Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $55,507.00 $79,598.00 Establish the status of apes in the study area using recce methods, nest counts and reconnaissance surveys; analyze these data and produce thematic maps; fortify law enforcement measures in the landscape; increase collaboration with stakeholders Wildlife Conservation Society Developing Opportunities for Great Ape Ecotourism in the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park as a Model for a National Ecotourism strategy in the Republic of Congo Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $69,277.00 $19,351.00 Support to a project to assure the long-term conservation of great apes and other wildlife in the NNNP through sustainable funding mechanisms and to support constituencies generated by sustainable great ape ecotourism. The Last Great Ape Organization (LAGA) LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration - Wildlife Law Enforcement Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $47,235.00 $145,273.00 This project involves the building the capacity, through training and strategic planning, of the Government of Cameroon’s Ministry of Forests and Fauna to protect apes through better law enforcement and prosecution. World Wildlife Fund, Inc. Conservation of Great Apes: Providing Essential Equipment to Rangers in Several National Parks in the Congo Basin Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $3,145.00 $11,631.00 Inventory the received equipment; obtain a list of needed equipment from the rangers in the field; distribute it to the parks according to their identified needs; repack and prepare equipment for shipment; ship via airfreight; and monitor the arrival of this material World Wildlife Fund, Inc. WWF Great Ape Conservation Strategies in Southwest Cameroon National Parks and TRIDOM Interzone: Census, Biomonitoring and Human Health Education Initiatives Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $99,808.90 $53,370.70 The purpose of this project, entitled “WWF Great Ape Conservation Strategies in Southeast Cameroon National Parks and TRIDOM Interzone: Census, Biomonitoring and Human Health Education Initiatives”, is to support efforts to improve the conservation status Wildlife Conservation Society Controlling Transportation of Bushmeat by the Cameroon Railway Company (CAMRAIL) Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $74,800.00 $73,887.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Controlling transportation of bushmeat by the Cameroon Railway Company (CAMRAIL),” is to support the Government of Cameroon and CAMRAIL to enforce a governmental ban on transportation by rail of bushmeat Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Ivindo Landscape, Gabon Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $96,143.00 $58,148.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Ivindo Landscape, Gabon,” is to contribute to great ape conservation in Ivindo National Park, Gabon, by evaluating the wildlife conservation status of Ivindo National Par Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations in Southern Odzala-Kokoua national Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $65,531.00 $23,895.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Conservation and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations in Southern Odzala-Kokoua National Park, Republic of Congo,” is assess the status of gorillas and chimpanzees in the southern sector of the Odzala￾Kokoua National Park The Last Great Ape Organization (LAGA) LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration-Wildlife Law Enforcement Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $79,812.00 $112,606.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration-Wildlife Law Enforcement,” is to support efforts to improve capacity of the government of Cameroon to enforce laws through greater detection, apprehension and prosecution, to produce effective deterrent The Last Great Ape Organization (LAGA) LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration - Wildlife Law Enforcement Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $79,812.00 $112,606.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “LAGA-MINFOF Collaboration - Wildlife Law Enforcement 2008-2009”, is to assist the government of Cameroon to increase wildlife law enforcement capacity, produce effective deterrents to the killing of great apes and other species Bristol Clifton and West of England Zoological Society Ltd Great Ape conservation in the Dja-Minkele-Odzala Tri￾national forest (‘TRIDOM’) Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala- Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) $41,907.00 $8,096.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation in the Dja-Minkele- Odzala Tri-national Forest” is to involve local communities surrounding the Dja reserve in law enforcement activities and implement a great ape conservation education program Wildlife Conservation Society All for Great Ape Conservation’ Project in Urban and Rural Places: Phase 1 The Buffer Zone around the Odzala￾Koukoua National Park, Congo. Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) 52,788.00 46,304.00 The Recipient will increase public awareness and support to improve protection of great apes in the peripheral zone of the Odzala-Koukoua National Park by training teachers at schools surrounding the park in environmental curriculum design and implementation Wildlife Conservation Society Conserving the Great Apes of the Ivindo Complex Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala￾Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) 94,586.00 96,213.00 The Recipient will protect ape populations of the Ivindo complex by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of law enforcement activities; expanding law enforcement activities of ANPN, Eaux et Forêt, and local gendarmes The Last Great Ape Organization (LAGA) LAGA-MINFOF collaboration project on Wildlife Law￾Enforcement Landscape 4 – Dja-Odzala- Minkebe Tri-national (Tridom) 79,812.00 112,606.00 The Recipient will assist the Cameroonian government to increase wildlife law enforcement capacity by identifying large-scale dealers in great ape meat and live great apes; arresting and prosecuting large-scale illegal wildlife exploiters; raising $940,163.90 $953,584.70 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Wildlife Conservation Society Can Management of Wildlife in Logging Concessions Conserve Great Ape Populations in Northern Congo? Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $43,180.00 $23,679.00 This grant provides support for a study and follow-up work to evaluate the potential for carefully managed logging concessions to conserve ape populations. Wildlife Conservation Society Implementing Urgent Measures for the Surveillance and Protection of Great Apes in Northern Congo in Response to Recent Ebola Outbreaks Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $157,059.00 $112,433.00 Improvement and an increase in current efforts aimed at determining the impact of Ebola on ape populations; inclusion of systematic veterinary surveillance surveys in ‘hot zones’ and at-risk zones for carcasses and fecal collection for Ebola antibody International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $105,462.00 $69,051.00 Continue to build the capacity of local and national conservationists to use the video medium to communicate conservation messages to Congolese at all levels; using voice-over, dub videos into Lingala and French, which includes translating segments Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Chimpanzee Conservation and Research Project Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $63,854.00 $61,834.00 Continued support to an applied research, protection, and local capacity-building initiative that conserves one of Central Africa’s most important chimpanzee populations in the northern Republic of Congo. The recipient’s scope of work Wildlife Conservation Society Using Networked Human Detection Sensors to Technologically Enhance Anti-poaching Efforts Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $36,203.00 $20,573.00 The development and field testing, in the northern Republic of Congo, of an innovative technology that will detect poachers’ incursions into protected areas and will relay this critical information to park authorities and other interested partners. Wildlife Conservation Society Threats Assessment and Protection of Great Apes and Other Large Mammals in the North of the Nouabale-Ndoki NP and Buffer Zone: Mokabi Forestry Concession, ROC Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $60,617.00 $18,317.00 Improve understanding of the extent of current bushmeat off-take in the Mokabi FMU, spatial and temporal trends in off-take and major axes of commercial trade in bushmeatby mapping, demographic census and socio-economic surveys of all Wildlife Conservation Society Can Management of Wildlife in Logging Concessions Conserve Great Ape Populations in Northern Congo? Phase II Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $55,481.00 $17,385.00 The purpose of this project is to provide continued support for an applied study to determine the relative effects of hunting and logging on ape populations to derive concrete recommendations for conserving apes in logging concessions of forests in equatorial region Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of the Sangha/Likouala Provinces, Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $92,239.00 $36,750.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of the Sangha/Likouala Provinces, Republic of Congo”, is to provide support for the protection of apes and other endangered wildlife through collaboration Wildlife Conservation Society Implementing Critical Ebola Surveillance and Response Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $213,298.00 $87,648.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Implementing Critical Ebola Surveillance and Response Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo,” is to increase efforts aimed at determining the impact of Ebola hemorrhagic fever on ape populations Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Chimpanzee Conservation and Research Project Nouabale-Ndoki National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $57,362.00 $57,440.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Goualougo Triangle Chimpanzee Conservation and Research Project Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, Republic of Congo,” is to implement a comprehensive research and conservation program that addresses the major threats to chimpanzes in their habitat World Wildlife Fund-Central African Republic Coordination Office The Dzanga-Sangha Lowland Gorilla Habituation and Ecotourism Project Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $50,000.00 $89,000.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “The Dzanga-Sangha Lowland Gorilla Habituation and Ecotourism Project”, is to sustain a priority population of western lowland gorillas in the wild by habituating two gorilla groups, update a program on International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project: Dissemination and Evaluation Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $77,615.30 $50,261.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Public Awareness Project: Dissemination and Evaluation”, is to continue to build capacity in Republic of Congo Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Ape Project: Developing Strategies to Conserve Chimpanzees and Gorillas in the Congo Basin Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $58,498.00 $58,500.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Goualougo Triangle Ape Project: Developing Strategies to Conserve Chimpanzees and Gorillas in the Congo Basin”, is to improve the long-term conservation of both chimpanzees and gorillas through applied conservation research Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation through Ecotourism in Nouabale￾Ndoki National Park (Republic of Congo) Landscape 5- Sangha Tri- national $79,468.00 $64,613.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation through Ecotourism in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (Republic of Congo)”, is to to support, develop and promote ecotourism with an emphasis on great apes, in order to assure their conservation a Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of northern Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $104,006.00 $63,494.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of Northern Republic of Congo”, is to conserve great ape populations in all forestry concessions bordering Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park through targeted approach Wildlife Conservation Society Expanding Ebola Surveillance, Response and Preventive Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $185,571.00 $141,084.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Expanding Ebola Surveillance, Response and Preventive Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo”, is to protect apes and local communities from Ebola hemorrhagic fever through a multidisciplinary program Wildlife Conservation Society Protection of great apes and other large mammals along the northern and eastern borders of the Noubale-Ndoki National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national $61,668.00 $42,087.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Protection of great apes and other large mammals along the northern and eastern borders of the Noubale-Ndoki National Park (NNNP), Republic of Congo,” is to protect populations of great apes and other large mammals Wildlife Conservation Society Mbeli Bai Gorilla Study. Population dynamics of western gorillas: Monitoring and analysis of long term life history and demographic data. Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 52,625.00 37,434.00 The Recipient will continue to secure the long-term protection of gorillas and other forest mammals by: monitoring gorillas at three bais; monitoring phenological and climatic variables; creating a demographic gorilla database; continuing daily mentoring of staff World Wildlife Fund-Central African Republic Office (CAR) The Dzanga-Sangha Lowland Gorilla Habituation and Ecotourism Project Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 101,541.00 121,411.00 The Recipient will contribute to the protection of western lowland gorillas located in the Dzanga-Sangha Dense Forest Special Reserve and Dzanga-Ndoki National Park by continuing habituation of two gorilla groups at Mongambe camp; maintaining and further improving the status International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project Using Video Centered Education Outreach Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 51,722.00 176,428.00 The Recipient will reduce bushmeat hunting and consumption in Cuvette Ouest, Cuvette Central, Sangha, and Likouala provinces in the Republic of Congo through a sustained awareness campaign aimed at eliminating activities that threaten great ape populations Wildlife Conservation Society Assessment and Mitigation of Threats to Great Apes in the Ngombe Concession of the Eastern Buffer of Odzala Kokoua National Park, Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 79,920.00 62,007.00 The Recipient will preserve the integrity of great ape populations by conducting bushmeat surveys in the Ngombe logging camps and local communities; increasing surveillance on logging and national roads and coordinate patrol logistics at the Ngombe main Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Ape Project: Securing the Future of Chimpanzees and Gorillas in a Changing Landscape Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 172,330.00 108,546.00 The Recipient will improve the conservation of chimpanzees and gorillas and their habitat in the northern Republic of Congo by evaluating the impacts of logging on distribution, developing Ebola control measures and conducing parasitological analysis Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and human impact monitoring training, surveys, and protection in the Ndoki- Likouala landscape, Republic of Congo Landscape 5- Sangha Tri￾national 339,163.00 194,273.00 The Recipient will conduct a 10 week training course for Congolese biologists with classroom and fieldwork components; update great ape population density and distribution information to drive anti-poaching management and improve negotiation and conservation $2,298,882.30 $1,714,248.00 Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation and Monitoring of Great Apes in the Lac Tele Landscape Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $71,950.00 $20,677.00 Improve ape protection through the implementation of improved and effective surveillance and anti-poaching patrols; assure effective support for protection of apes through maintenance and improvement of the Bouanela guard post and through placement of support Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring the Lac Tele Landscape Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $97,898.00 $22,937.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Lac Tele Landscape”, is for the protection of an area in the northern Republic of Congo with one of the highest densities of western lowland gorillas. Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in the Lac Télé Landscape, Republic of Congo Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $89,926.00 $48,637.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in the Lac Télé Landscape, Republic of Congo”, is to conserve ape populations in the Lac Télé landscape through applied research, development of management $259,774.00 $92,251.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation and Monitoring of Great Apes in the Lac Tele Landscape Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $71,950.00 $20,677.00 Improve ape protection through the implementation of improved and effective surveillance and anti-poaching patrols; assure effective support for protection of apes through maintenance and improvement of the Bouanela guard post and through placement of support Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring the Lac Tele Landscape Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $97,898.00 $22,937.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Lac Tele Landscape”, is for the protection of an area in the northern Republic of Congo with one of the highest densities of western lowland gorillas. Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in the Lac Télé Landscape, Republic of Congo Landscape 7 – Lac Tele – Lac Tu $89,926.00 $48,637.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in the Lac Télé Landscape, Republic of Congo”, is to conserve ape populations in the Lac Télé landscape through applied research, development of management $259,774.00 $92,251.00 RARE Center for Tropical Conservation A Pride Campaign to Address the Bushmeat Crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie- Sankuru $82,750.00 $83,414.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “A Pride Campaign to Address the Bushmeat Crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,” is to provide support for public outreach, conservation education, and community mobilization for the benefit of bonobos and other species International Conservation and Education Fund Using Digital Media as a Mobile Outreach Educational Tool in Salonga-Lukenie-Sankuru Landscape in Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie- Sankuru $98,663.50 $151,884.70 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Using Digital Media as a Mobile Outreach Educational Tool in Salonga-Lukenie-Sankuru Landscape (SLS) in DRC,” is to raise awareness and improve engagement of communities in the landscape, community￾based organizations World Wide Fund for Nature - International Understanding and Mitigating the Impact of Wildlife Trade on Bonobo and Other Threatened Species in the Salonga￾Lukenie-Sankuru Landscape, DRC Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie- Sankuru $120,218.00 $144,985.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Understanding and Mitigating the Impact of Wildlife Trade on Bonobo and Other Threatened Species in the Salonga-Lukenie￾Sankuru (SLS) Landscape, DRC”, is to study wildlife trade with a goal of producing a monitoring design International Conservation and Education Fund Using Digital Media as an Outreach Educational Tool in the Salonga-Lukenie-Sankuru Landscape Landscape 8 – Salonga – Lukenie- Sankuru 91,423.20 91,400.50 The Recipient will decrease the hunting and consumption of Bonobos both in and around Salonga National Park, Democratic Republic of the Congo, by raising awareness of communities through the production and dissemination of a series of films emphasizing the value of great apes $393,054.70 $471,684.20 Les Amis des Bonobos due Congo (ABC) Bonobo Reintroduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Conservation Education and Health Monitoring at Lola Ya Bonobo Sanctuary Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $49,996.00 $346,900.00 This project establishes a better base of support among relevant individuals and communities and produces the necessary health profiles and guidelines for a planned bonobo reintroduction. The scope of work will include: improved enforcement of Bonobo Conservation Initiative Djolu Technical College: Building Capacity for Conservation of the Bonobo and its Habitat in the Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $44,911.00 $84,805.00 This project supports development of the curriculum, faculty, and infrastructure of a local institution for the benefit of Congolese conservationists. The recipient’s scope of work includes to: contribute to professors’ salaries and expenses including tr Bonobo Conservation Initiative Bonobo Peace Forest: Surveys, Information Exchange and Community Based Reserve Development Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $219,797.00 $198,354.00 This project supports an integrated program to work with local communities and Congolese scientists to conserve bonobos through applied research, surveys and monitoring, land-use planning and enhanced protection. African Wildlife Foundation Assessment of Bonobo Distribution and Development of Bio-monitoring Capacity In the Maringa-Lopori-Wamba CARPE Landscape, D.R. Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $121,353.00 $114,757.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Assessment of Bonobo Distribution and Development of Bio-monitoring Capacity in the Maringa-Lopori-Wamba CARPE Landscape, D.R. Congo”, is to facilitate the coordinated management of a viable bonobo population in MLW landscape. Les Amis des Bonobos due Congo (ABC) Eloko ya bonobo: bonobo reintroduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $197,530.00 $246,150.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “’Ekolo ya bonobo’: Bonobo Reintroduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, is to reintroduce a socially stable group of bonobos from the Lola Ya Bonobo Sanctuary into an appropriate natural environment. University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Population monitoring and abundance estimation of bonobos (Pan paniscus) in relation to timber harvest, slash￾and-burn agriculture, and bushmeat hunting… Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori $43,728.00 $44,299.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Population Modeling and Abundance Estimation of Bonobos (Pan paniscus) in Relation to Timber Harvest, Slash-and-burn Agriculture, and Bushmeat Hunting”, is to determine the impact of habitat loss, road density, and hunting. African Wildlife Foundation Socioecological Research of Wild Bonobo in the Lomako￾Yokokala Faunal Reserse in the Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori 162,555.00 90,500.00 The Recipient will evaluate how the spatio-temporal distribution of food influences the spatio-temporal distribution of bonobos within its home range by mapping distribution of available fruit, vegetation types, and bonobo in one community; and compiling data Bonobo Conservation Initiative Community-based Bonobo Conservation at the Mompono￾Duale Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori 64,355.00 69,695.00 The purpose of this project is to develop a coordinated strategy for the Duala forest, strengthen community involvement in forest and wildlife management, identify potential zones for protection, and share information with local, national, and internationally. $904,225.00 $1,195,460.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Grantee: Project Title Landscape Award: Counter Part: SOW Wildlife Conservation Society Training for an Integrated System of Ape Population Surveillance and Anti-poaching Effort in Gabon Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $35,460.00 $53,315.00 A project to increase the effectiveness of anti-poaching efforts in Gabon by providing combined information on animal and human activities in national parks that can be used for better strategic and tactical deployment. Wildlife Conservation Society Sustaining Great Ape Health in Gabon Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $80,953.00 $75,607.00 The promotion of conservation success across protected area landscapes in Gabon through an integrated and multi-disciplinary program at the interface between great ape, ecosystem and human health. Wildlife Conservation Society Inclusion of 'Ape Conservation' in the Environmental Education Curriculum for Primary Level around Gabon's National Parks Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $51,409.00 $60,438.00 A project to promote conservation by encouraging awareness of the plight of apes and the issues surrounding their conservation among primary school children living in close proximity to wild chimpanzees and gorillas and thus increase their willingness to coexist Wildlife Conservation Society Creating Cross-institutional Links for Wildlife Law Enforcement in Gabon Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $25,140.00 $30,483.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Creating Cross-cutting Links for Wildlife Enforcement in Gabon” is to inform all institutions in Gabon with law enforcement obligations of the current state of the illegal wildlife harvest and trade; to create new links Wildlife Conservation Society Building Capacity for Great Ape Conservation in Gabon and Cameroon Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $298,985.00 $180,943.00 This project supports training and equipping local ape conservationists and institutions better conserve apes and manage ape habitat in these two countries. The recipient’s scope of work includes to: develop a model training curriculum for park guards using improved technology. Wildlife Conservation Society Roll-out of the Ape Conservation Environmental Education Module to Urban Primary Schools in Key Provincial Capitals of Gabon Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,4,6 $62,354.00 $32,734.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Roll-out of the ‘Ape Conservation’ Environmental Education Module to Urban Primary Schools in Key Provincial Capitals of Gabon,” is to raise awareness of primary school children in Gabon of wildlife conservation Wildlife Conservation Society Building Capacity for Great Ape Conservation in the Republic of Congo Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,5,6, $152,013.00 $29,225.00 This project develops training and planning programs to assist national and site-based personnel in protecting and conserving great apes. The recipient’s scope of work includes: increase capacity of national monitoring institutions and individuals to collect quality information. Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring Training in Central Africa Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,5,6, $49,834.00 $27,766.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring Training in Central Africa,” is to increase the number of trained wildlife field and park staff capable of monitoring great apes and human impact in the Central African region. The Aspinall Foundation RALF-MEF Collaboration on Wildlife Law Enforcement Multiple - Landscape 1,2,3,5,6, $47,316.00 $50,838.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “RALF-MEF Collaboration on Wildlife Law Enforcement, Republic of Congo,” is to assist the Republic of Congo to increase wildlife law enforcement capacity, produce effective deterrents to the killing of great apes and other wildlife. Wildlife Conservation Society Building Capacity for Great Ape Conservation in DRC Multiple - Landscape 7,8,9,10,1 $163,207.00 $78,083.00 This project works at the national and site levels to build capacity of Congolese conservationists through training, mentorship and equipment assistance. The recipient’s scope of work includes: increase capacity for community-based monitoring at two sites Conservation International Formulating a Global Conservation Strategy for the Bonobo, Phase I Multiple - Landscape 8,9 (DRC 49,291.00 96,563.00 The Recipient will facilitate a 2-3 day workshop in the USA involving key representatives of relevant organizations to establish terms of engagement between bonobo conservationists and agree upon an approach to strategic planning for bonobo conservation; Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Development of an Ape Survey Database (A.P.E.S.) Multiple (all landscapes) $23,880.00 $28,760.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Development of an ape survey database (A.P.E.S.)”, is to support efforts to provide an accurate and objective global picture on the status and distribution of great apes, and thus help in developing long-term management. Conservation International Publication of Best Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Conservation by the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group II Multiple (all landscapes) $39,793.00 $44,086.00 The purpose of this project, entitled “Publication of Best Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Conservation by the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group II”, is to improve the survival prospects of wild apes by developing international standards and increasing committments. $1,079,635.00 $788,841.00 Wildlife Conservation Society Itombwe Massif Conservation Project: Delimitation and Zoning of the Itombwe Natural Reserve for Protection of Great Apes Outside Landscape adjacent to Landscape 10 $102,884.00 $58,589.00 The purpose of this project, entitled, “Itombwe Massif Conservation Project: Delimitation and Zoning of the Itombwe Natural Reserve for Protection of Great Apes” is to complete biological inventories of the Itombwe Massif to assess great ape and other wildlife Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation of the Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) in Cameroon and Nigeria Outside Landscape (CARPE supports 29% of total project budget for partial support activities in Cameroon) $54,600.00 57,234.00 The Recipient will implement a community-based gorilla guardian management and monitoring system to improve protection of Cross River gorillas implement a cyber￾tracker monitoring system in Okwangwo; conduct surveys of habitat corridors $157,484.00 115,823.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 5 – Grantee Guidelines Specific grantee guidance for accessing Great Ape Conservation Grant funds is found at http://www.fws.gov/international/dic/species/great_apes/ga_howtoapply.html . The NOFA (http://www.fws.gov/international/dic/pdf/NOFAGreatApe2010.pdf) is undergoing revision. The Evaluation Team contributed internally to the revision effort to ensure that the team’s findings were fully taken into account. No separate CARPE specific grant guidance is provided; the overall grants applicants are filtered geographically during the review process. When funded, USFWS maintains a distinctive systems and records for CARPE funds. General grantee guidance for USFWS grants is described at: http://www.fws.gov/international/dicprograms/AAG%209-6-07.pdf Proposals, both CARPE and non-CARPE are reviewed based on the following score sheet and related review meetings. Division of International Conservation GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND PROPOSAL REVIEW SHEET A. To be considered for funding a proposal must promote the conservation of great apes by focusing on: • Conservation programs to protect at-risk ape populations and their habitats; • In-situ research on ape populations and habitat including surveys and monitoring; • Community outreach and conservation education; • Compliance with CITES and other applicable laws that prohibit or regulate the taking or trade of apes or regulate the use and management of ape habitat; • Protected area/reserve management in important ape range; • Development and execution of ape conservation management plans; • Efforts to decrease human-ape conflict; and • Strengthening of local capacity to implement conservation programs. B. Score the proposal on each of the following items. Points per item are shown below. Add up each item score and record in total score box. How does the proposal address the requested elements and program priorities? The project is well justified, has clear benefits, and is a high priority for the conservation of great apes and their habitat (Score: 0-20) The qualifications of the organization and key personnel are evident, and appear to be adequate to achieve project goals and objectives. (Score: 0-10) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes The goals are well defined, and are relevant to the project’s statement of need. (Score: 0-5) The objectives are well defined, measurable, and are realistic for the project’s anticipated timeframe. (Score: 0-10) The implementation methods are adequately described, and are appropriate to the goals and objectives. (Score: 0-10) The activities are well defined, and are realistic to the project’s anticipated timeframe. (Score: 0-10) The proposal includes a well-organized timetable of activities, which can be accomplished during the project’s anticipated timeframe. (Score: 0-5) The expected products/outputs are identified and enumerated, their impact on the resource is apparent, and they will be effectively distributed to resource managers, researchers and other interested parties. (Score: 0-10) The monitoring and evaluation plans are well described, and are appropriate and adequate. (Score: 0-5) The proposal adequately details coordination of project activities with similar, on going or planned, activities of other stakeholders. (Score: 0-5) Applicant and other counterpart cash and in-kind contributions are acceptable. (Score: 0-5) The budget line items are appropriate, reasonable, allowable and well justified. (Score: 0-5) TOTAL (0-100) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Additional Review Considerations C. In addition to the scores resulting from Section B. considerations, projects will be prioritized for funding based on the degree to which they propose to: ι Make a significant contribution to the protection, maintenance and/or enhancement of important populations of the target species and/or their habitats ι Act as a catalyst for activities in a previously neglected area with potential significant conservation value ι Address an emergent issue with potential significant conservation value ι Addresses a conservation need identified by a specialist group, or by a regional, national or global strategy ι Utilize requested funds in an efficient, cost-effective manner to accomplish project objectives ι Build upon complementary activities of other organizations/individuals in a manner which will lead to efficient, effective conservation of the resource ι Conduct activities that are non-duplicative of other on-going activities ι Conduct activities that will be harmonious with international, national and/or regional conservation priorities, action plans and/or strategies ι Implement an important element of a larger scale/scope project that would provide synergetic value ι Apply the best scientific and technical information available in support of project activities ι Provide training essential to the development of local capacity to implement conservation activities ι Provide project management experience to local personnel, strengthening the local capacity to manage conservation programs ι Include the participation of local people in the project activities ι Promote networking, partnerships and/or coalitions ι Provide for the development of a demonstration activity that can be replicated for widespread use ι Implement activities or provide benefits that have the potential to be sustained beyond the life of the grant Reviewer Comments: ƒ Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 6 – Implementation Plan Implementation Plan Timeline for Key Activities Date External Evaluation Team FWS/USAID Pre-implementation and planning phase October 1- November 25, 2008 1. Hold internal team planning meeting to review SOW and evaluation tasks/questions 2. Assemble and review documentation from key stakeholders 3. Produce preliminary implementation plan 4. Prepare ½ day workshop with key USG counterparts to fully develop implementation plan requirements 5. Focus on grantee questionnaire prior to IP revision 6. Incorporate feedback from FWS and USAID participants into revised approach and plan Deliverable: Draft Implementation Plan and Evaluation Methodology, Workshop Agenda and materials 1. Provide team with appropriate documentation and contacts 2. Participate in team’s preliminary review of evaluation tasks 3. Participate in ½ workshop to establish expanded evaluation team and to review draft implementation plan 4. Provide guidance on revision on Implementation Plan Evaluation Redesign and Preparation for Data Collection November 25, 2008 - January 23, 2009 1. Analyze grantee documentation 2. Revise and submit preliminary implementation plan 3. Draft survey instruments and interview guides for grant recipients and CBFP organizations 4. Submit survey documentation for public posting 5. Carry out initial key informant and focus group with US-based stakeholders Deliverable: Revised draft Implementation Plan 1. Facilitate travel arrangements and coordinate with USAID and grantee field partners 2. Review proposed survey instruments prior to administration; assist in obtaining approvals for travel, and clearances 3. Assist in initiating approvals for grantee survey Field Case Study Data Collection in Central Congo Basin January 24- February 17 1. Prepare and undertake field travel 2. Collect data from field-based stakeholders 3. Gather data for field site case studies 4. Carry out consensus building meetings based on initial findings Deliverables: Key data summaries, consensus building working documents; updated data gathering guidelines 1. Accompany and participate with evaluation team as appropriate in US and CARPE region data gathering activities 2. FWS Evaluation participant Dirck Byler represents USG on field team 3. Participates in exit meeting prior to team’s departure to Gabon 4. Approve implementation plan Survey Preparation and Data Collection and US-based Key Informant Interviews February 18 - June 30, 2009 1. Obtain clearance to submit survey to OMB for approval to distribute survey 2. Team monitors survey response rates, stores data and provides encouragement and feedback to respondents to increase 1. FWS Officer Hope Gray will collaborate with team, FWS administration and OMB to ensure efficient OMB approvals 2. Facilitate evaluation team involvement in relevant GACF and other FWS activities Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes completion rate 3. Team contacts and meets with USG and other key informants to complete data gathering in US Deliverable: Final questionnaire approved by OMB and to be administered via Survey Monkey 3. Review progress and share findings from US-based stakeholders Preparation of Preliminary Report Second Field Visit to Cameroon and Eastern Highlands July 1- August 17, 2009 1. Carry out second field team visit 2. Prepare field visit to Central and Eastern Highland Region of Congo Basin (Rwanda, DRC) 3. Discuss preliminary findings and conclusions with CARPE and partner staff as possible 4. Continue consensus building meetings based on ongoing findings Deliverable: Preliminary Evaluation Report including initial field case study write-ups 1. Support team in field, 2. Prepare detailed participatory strategy for later stage work with involvement of Dirck Byler as key travel team member 3. Engage USAID and other USG bilateral and regional staff to interact to facilitate and where appropriate accompany the evaluation team Data Analysis and Report Preparation August 18 - October 10, 2009 1. Collect data from field-based stakeholders and stakeholders in the region 2. Carry out key informant and focus group with US-based stakeholders 3. Redesign stakeholder survey to create a simpler grant recipient survey instrument Deliverable: Evaluation Field Visit Report 1. Extended evaluation team (FWS and USAID members) supports data review and drafting as appropriate 2. FWS and USAID to provide annex materials as appropriate 3. Contribute to and review preliminary draft report materials Presentation and Dissemination of Results October 11- completion of task 1. Team analyzes and synthesizes data from all sources and produces draft report 2. Produce, distribute and administer online surveys 3. Team closes off input from survey respondents and works with SM analysts to prepare raw survey results, (frequencies, descriptive statistics, analyses) 4. Team refines draft deliverables and incorporates feedback from survey and review 5. Prepare Powerpoint presentation 6. Coordinate with FWS to arrange final presentation of evaluation results to stakeholders 7. Assist USFWS as appropriate with initiating actions based on findings and recommendations of the evaluation Deliverables: Final Report and Delivered Powerpoint Presentation for FWS/USAID and extended stakeholder group 1. Draft document received by FWS for review and comment 2. FWS provides timely review and comments on draft report 3. Provide guidance on FWS and/or USAID branding requirements 4. Facilitate organization, venue and invitations for final presentation 5. Approve Final Report and Deliverables Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 7 – Grantee Survey A survey of grant recipients was prepared but due to administrative issues postponed until a later date. A hard copy of the online forms is included below here. Page 1 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Agency for International Development have approved this evaluation. These agencies are conducting an evaluation of the grants program though the Great Ape Conservation Fund to the Congo Forest Basin region of Central Africa. The evaluation comes at a critical juncture for apes and their habitat in the Congo Basin. Your participation in this survey is an important part the US FWS/USAID evaluation. The team has made an effort to contact as many stakeholders as possible over the course of its work. Inevitably, we could not cover all institutions and field sites, or, for those we did visit, we could not cover them exhaustively. This questionnaire gives us the opportunity to complete the picture. As part of the evaluation effort, you will be asked to complete the following survey questions, which should take approximately 30 minutes to 1.5 hours, depending on the detail included in open-ended responses. We invite and encourage your participation, but it is voluntary. Survey responses will remain anonymous (meaning that responses will not be linked in any way to individual respondents). The evaluation will assess three major areas of the Great Ape Conservation Fund’s grant program: 1) Interagency coordination between the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) through its CARPE (Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment) effort and the Congo Basin Forest Partnership (CBFP). 2) Grants management mechanics and operations 3) Grantee performance in advancing or achieving conservation aims through GACF-CARPE funding The purpose of this grantee survey is to assess the following: •Impact on grantee organization at the field project level •Grantee satisfaction of the grants process •Quality of interactions between US FWS and grantees •Clarity of communications about the US FWS Great Ape Conservation Fund’s goals and strategy •Grantee understanding of USFWS, CBFP and CARPE objectives as they impact the grants process •Value of the overall partnership with US FWS to the grantee •Information on grant impact and performance to achieve conservation goals. •Dissemination of lessons learned and best practices The survey consists of a series of sections, each containing a number of related questions. You have the option of moving forward and backward through the survey. You may save your progress and come back to complete or add to the survey, or modify responses until you are satisfied. Once your questionnaire is complete, just hit the submit button. No further action is required. In order to progress through this survey, please use the following navigation links: - Click the Next >> button to continue to the next page. - Click the Previous >> button to return to the previous page. 1. US Fish and Wildlife Service GACF-CARPE Grantee Survey Page 2 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund - Click the Exit the Survey Early >> button if you need to exit the survey. - Click the Submit >> button to submit your survey. Answers to questions marked with an asterisk (*) are required. Questions regarding this survey can be addressed to Dr. Frederick Sowers, Evaluation Team Leader (fsowers@gpverdes.com). THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION! Page 3 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 2. Overview Questions 1. How did you become aware of the Great Ape Conservation Fund? (check all that apply) 2. How important is the value of the USFWS grants to sustaining your organization's efforts in the field? gfedc Through direct personal contact with a US Fish and Wildlife staff person. gfedc Referral to the USFWS by another government agency gfedc Referral to the USFWS/GACF by another nonprofit organization gfedc Suggestion from another person within your organization gfedc Reading USFWS International Programs literature gfedc Public presentation by USFWS in meetings or events that you attended gfedc Don't remember Other (please specify) nmlkj Extremely important/Critical nmlkj Important nmlkj Supportive - somewhat important nmlkj Useful but not essential nmlkj Not important nmlkj N/A Page 4 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 3. Please describe your level of interaction and communication with the USFWS as compared to other donors that support your project: 4. Which best describes your understanding of the strategic priorities of the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund? * 5. Please describe what you consider to be the top three priorities of the Great Ape Conservation Fund: 1. 2. 3. 6. There are two sources of financing for the Great Ape Conservation Fund -- USFWS core program funds and USAID/CARPE transfer funds. Are you aware of any differences in grantees' eligibility for each of these sources? nmlkj More than other donors (more accessible) nmlkj About the same as other donors nmlkj Less than other donors (less accessible) nmlkj Minimal nmlkj None, e.g. use an intermediary to communicate with USFWS nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Extremely clear nmlkj Good understanding for all grants matters nmlkj Fair understanding but with some uncertainty nmlkj Vague general awareness but without specifics nmlkj Little or no clear understanding nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Not previously aware that funds had two sources If you answered yes, what do you understand the differences to be? Other Page 5 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 7. How do you perceive USFWS's collaboration with Congo Basin Forest Partnership(CBFP)? *8. How do you perceive USFWS's collaboration with USAID CARPE? 9. How do you perceive the USFWS's collaboration with other Great Ape donors? nmlkj Very Strong nmlkj Somewhat Strong nmlkj Adequate nmlkj Somewhat weak nmlkj Very Weak or absent nmlkj Don't know nmlkj Very Strong nmlkj Somewhat Strong nmlkj Adequate nmlkj Somewhat weak nmlkj Very Weak or absent nmlkj Don't know nmlkj Very Strong nmlkj Somewhat Strong nmlkj Adequate nmlkj Somewhat weak nmlkj Very Weak or absent nmlkj Don't know More Other Page 6 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 10. How do you perceive the USFWS's collaboration with other host country governments and government agencies of the Central Africa Forestry Commission (COMIFAC)? nmlkj Very Strong nmlkj Somewhat Strong nmlkj Adequate nmlkj Somewhat weak nmlkj Very Weak or absent nmlkj Don't know Other Page 7 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 3. Grantee and Respondant Profile 1. Which of the following best categorizes your organization/entity? 2. Which of the following best describe your organization/entity's mission (check all that apply)? gfedc US-based 501(c)(3) gfedc NGO based outside Africa gfedc Africa-based NGO gfedc Government gfedc Educational/University gfedc Individual gfedc Private sector entity gfedc Fiscally sponsored project Other (please specify) gfedc Science-based conservation group gfedc Community-based conservation group gfedc Capacity-building/training organization gfedc Educational organization gfedc Technical assistance organization gfedc University gfedc Research Institute gfedc Government agency Other (please specify) Page 8 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 3. Which best describes your individual relationship with the US FWS Great Ape Conservation Fund/CARPE program: (Check only one choice even though more than one could apply.) 4. Please describe the category or categories of project funding that best apply to your USFWS grant(s): 5. Is your grant-supported project fiscally sponsored by another organization or by a private individual? nmlkj Principal Field Contact nmlkj Field-based implementation staff member nmlkj Financial/Administrative staff nmlkj Regional/Country Program Director nmlkj International Director nmlkj Supporting Partner nmlkj Fiscal Sponsor/Fiscal Agent nmlkj Development Officer nmlkj Other (please specify) gfedc Applied research, monitoring and management gfedc Capacity building gfedc Conservation education and community outreach gfedc Wildlife health gfedc Habitat/protected area/ecosystem conservation and management gfedc Development/execution of species conservation management plans gfedc Wildlife protection and law enforcement gfedc Captive management gfedc Sustainable development in protected area buffer zones gfedc Wildlife trade gfedc Capture/translocation Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If yes, who is the fiscal sponsor? Page 9 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 6. Are you working with formally identified partner organizations that are helping you implement your grant? 7. If you are formally partnered with other organizations to assist in the implementation of your grant, please identify them here (Provide a single response for each type of organization with whom you partner) : FWS grant monies are shared with partner Partner adds additional funding to the effort FWS grant supports the partner's participation Partner provides services or authorization at no charge Large international NGO gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc Smaller international NGO gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc Local NGO gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc National level government agency gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc Local government agency gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc Private sector operator gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc Other gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc 8. In which country/countries is the USFWS funded work being conducted? Please list only those countries that pertain to the specific USFWS grant. 1. 2. 3. 4. *9. Is this effort located within an identified USAID CARPE landscape? nmlkj Yes; if yes continue to question 7. nmlkj No; if no skip question 7 and go to question 8. nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Partially nmlkj Not applicable Page 10 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 10. Is your organization a CARPE Landscape Lead Implementer as identified by USAID in the landscape where you are funded by this specific USFWS grant? 11. What species of Great Ape do you target for the purposes of this USFWS grant? (Check more than one if several species are targeted) * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No gfedc Gorilla gfedc Chimpanzee gfedc Bonobo Page 11 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 4. Partnering with the US FWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 1. What is your perspective of the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund's granting process? Please check all that apply. Very high High Medium Low Very Low N/A Accessibility nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Transparency nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Flexibility nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 2. What is your perception of how USFWS grants are reviewed and decisions are made? * 3. Compared to other grant application processes you pursue, how much effort do you put into the USFWS application? Other (please specify) nmlkj Very clear nmlkj Somewhat clear nmlkj Neutral nmlkj Somewhat unclear nmlkj Very unclear nmlkj Not sure nmlkj Much more than other grant applications nmlkj Somewhat more than other grant applications nmlkj The same as other grant applications nmlkj Somewhat less than other grant applications nmlkj Much less than other grant applications Please add any comments you have on the USFWS application process: Page 12 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 4. Did you have initial contact with USFWS to review application guidelines, determine appropriateness of submission and determine priority country and area of support before submitting your proposal? 5. Which of the following best describes how you access USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund application materials (check only one): 6. If you have received more than one grant for the same effort, would you consider the USFWS grant renewal process: 7. The USFWS requires matching funds for its grants. Please describe the level of effort required to meet the match. * nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Directly through the USFWS website nmlkj Through an intermediary within our own organization, such as our head office nmlkj Through an intermediary in another organization nmlkj Direct communication with USFWS nmlkj Through USAID or CARPE nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Easier than the initial request nmlkj About the same as the initial request nmlkj More difficult than the initial request for the following reasons: nmlkj Very easy nmlkj Rather easy nmlkj About the same as other donors in matching nmlkj Rather difficult nmlkj Very difficult Page 13 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 8. Please describe how you achieve a match for your USFWS grant (check no more than two): 9. The present grant size for the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund ranges from $10,000 to approximately $200,000. Do you think: 10. Please answer the following question ONLY if your organization receives multiple grants for the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund: since grantees sometimes receive multiple grants after review, would there be benefits if USFWS bundled grant reporting, evaluation and accounting efforts? gfedc Primarily in-kind support gfedc Other non-governmental donor funds gfedc Other US government funds gfedc Non-US government funds gfedc Private foundation funds gfedc Private individual donors gfedc Other (please specify) nmlkj This is an optimal range for grant support. No change recommended. nmlkj USFWS should give more grants at a lower level of support. nmlkj USFWS should give fewer grants at a higher level of support. nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes - Strongly agree nmlkj Yes - Moderately agree nmlkj Maybe - Would make little difference nmlkj No - Moderately disagree nmlkj No - Strongly disagree While our organization receives multiple grants, project level management dictates separate reporting regardless. nmlkj Other Other Page 14 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 11. What is your level of comfort in approaching USFWS with a grant implementation problem? * 12. How burdensome is writing a new USFWS GACF grant proposal compared to preparing similar proposals for other donors? 13. How burdensome is writing a mid-term report for your USFWS grants compared to other donors? nmlkj Very comfortable nmlkj Somewhat comfortable nmlkj Neutral nmlkj Somewhat uncomfortable nmlkj Very uncomfortable nmlkj Not sure nmlkj Much more nmlkj Relatively more nmlkj About the same nmlkj Slightly less nmlkj Much less nmlkj Much more nmlkj Relatively more nmlkj About the same nmlkj Slightly less nmlkj Much less Page 15 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 14. How burdensome is the end of project reporting for the USFWS grants compared to other government donors? 15. How burdensome is preparing and submitting a new USFWS GACF financial reports compared to similar proposals for other donors? nmlkj Much more nmlkj Relatively more nmlkj About the same nmlkj Relatively less nmlkj Much less Please add any comments below: nmlkj Much more nmlkj Relatively more nmlkj About the same nmlkj Slightly less nmlkj Much less Other Page 16 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 5. If you didn't get a grant Answer the questions in this section only if proposals that you worked on were turned down by the GACF review committee. This could apply to proposals that were later modified and resubmitted and then either funded or presently pending. 1. Have you submitted any USFWS grant proposals that were rejected? 2. Did you receive a denial letter in a timely fashion? 3. Did you receive feedback on your denial? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If Yes, can you comment on the rejection process? Were you given clear guidance on why the decision to deny the application was reached? Did you have an opportunity to follow-up with USFWS on their decision? Were you notified of the decision in a timely manner? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't remember nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj Don't remember If yes, did you ask for feedback? Page 17 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 4. If you received feedback on a rejected proposal, how helpful was it? nmlkj Very helpful nmlkj Somewhat helpful nmlkj Neutral nmlkj Somewhat unhelpful nmlkj Very unhelpful Do you have any suggestions for improving the GACF's feedback process? Page 18 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 6. Grant Performance and Impact 1. Are you presently a USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund grantee? 2. For which years did you receive funding from the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund? 3. USFWS provides grants for implementation periods lasting for up to two years; have you received designated multi-year grants? 4. Have you received renewal grants from USFWS for Great Ape conservation? Please specify number of grants (include both CARPE and non-CARPE GACF grants): nmlkj Yes nmlkj No gfedc 2004 gfedc 2005 gfedc 2006 gfedc 2007 gfedc 2008 gfedc 2009 nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj none nmlkj 1 nmlkj 2 nmlkj 3 nmlkj 4 or more Page 19 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 5. Has your organization's Principle Field Contact (i.e. primary grantee contact) changed between renewals? 6. What is the annual funding received for your USFWS grant? 7. Estimate your USFWS grant as a percentage of your overall funding for the grant-supported project: 8. How important are USAID CARPE funds to your Great Ape Conservation Fund grant project and activities? * Very important Important Somewhat important Less important Unimportant (no CARPE funding) Most recent grant nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Other grants generally nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 9. Do you receive additional US Government funding for your Great Ape project outside of the funding you receive from USFWS and/or USAID CARPE? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If Yes, how many times has this position turned over? nmlkj 0 - 20% nmlkj 21 - 40% nmlkj 41 - 60% nmlkj 61 - 80% nmlkj 80 - 100% Observations on the nature of the relationship to CARPE nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If yes, please specify this funding Page 20 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 10. Are you managing more than one USFWS grant at any one time? 11. How often do you meet with USFWS during the grant period? *12. Have you ever had a problem arise with your USFWS grant? 13. If you answered Yes to question 3, did you contact USFWS with the problem? 14. If Yes, can you estimate the time (in days) between when a problem was recognized and when the problem was reported to the USFWS? nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If yes, how many grants for how many years? nmlkj Only during application and reporting nmlkj On a monthly basis nmlkj About once or twice every six months nmlkj Indirectly, we use an intermediary nmlkj Never nmlkj Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes nmlkj No If Yes, please specify: nmlkj Yes nmlkj No Page 21 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 15. Do you think the USFWS GACF grants offer a positive value beyond the grant's monetary value? 16. If Yes, please categorize this non-monetary value. Check all that apply. 17. Current grant guidelines ask grantees to report on conservation impact. Since the grants are for 1-2 year period and often complement larger program presence of the grantee organization, the GACF does not have impact indicators or other specific performance metrics. In evaluating the implementation of your grant(s), what indicators or other measures of success do you think would be appropriate and feasible to employ on the ground? 18. Please add any comments that clarify how your grant(s) have contributed to achieving conservation of great apes and their habitat. nmlkj Yes nmlkj No nmlkj N/A gfedc Association with USFWS enhances status of the project gfedc Allows the project to leverage support from other donors gfedc Enables project to connect to other grantees gfedc Communication with other donors about project gfedc Other (please specify) Page 22 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 7. Communicating Results 1. Do you have a sense that your end of project reports are read and actions taken by USFWS? Yes Not sure No Reports are read nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Grantee receives feedback nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Information is shared with others nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj Actions are taken by FWS based on reporting nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj 2. How do you primarily disseminate findings and outcomes of your efforts (choose all that apply)? * 3. Does the USFWS catalyze knowledge-sharing between projects that are similarly funded through the Great Apes Conservation Fund? gfedc Only through the USFWS grant reports gfedc Through scientific publications gfedc Through lay publications gfedc Through organizational newsletters gfedc Through professional societies gfedc Through reports to other agencies gfedc Through conference presentations gfedc Other (please specify) nmlkj Yes, routinely nmlkj Yes, infrequently nmlkj No nmlkj Not sure Comment: Page 23 USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund 4. Should USFWS have data sharing guidance as part of its grant agreement? 5. Please select the top 2 ways you think USFWS can add value to its grants: (Image and thanks to be included in final) ______________________________________________________________ gfedc Yes, data sharing protocols are needed for all USFWS grantees to advance Great Ape Conservation Yes, data sharing is needed for those efforts where a predominant amount of data were collected with USFWS funds gfedc gfedc No, data sharing protocols should not be included Comment: gfedc Periodic technical and cross-fertilization workshops gfedc Webinars gfedc Electronic list-serves gfedc Newsletter gfedc Synthesis review of data gfedc Data assessment gfedc Metadata analysis Please include any additional ideas of your own: Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 8 -- Text of Great Ape Conservation Act and Related Formal Documents See separate PDF file PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 114 STAT. 1789 Public Law 106–411 106th Congress An Act To assist in the conservation of great apes by supporting and providing financial resources for the conservation programs of countries within the range of great apes and projects of persons with demonstrated expertise in the conservation of great apes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000’’. SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds that— (1) great ape populations have declined to the point that the long-term survival of the species in the wild is in serious jeopardy; (2) the chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, orangutan, and gibbon are listed as endangered species under section 4 of the Endan￾gered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533) and under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249); (3) because the challenges facing the conservation of great apes are so immense, the resources available to date have not been sufficient to cope with the continued loss of habitat due to human encroachment and logging and the consequent diminution of great ape populations; (4) because great apes are flagship species for the conserva￾tion of the tropical forest habitats in which they are found, conservation of great apes provides benefits to numerous other species of wildlife, including many other endangered species; (5) among the threats to great apes, in addition to habitat loss, are population fragmentation, hunting for the bushmeat trade, live capture, and exposure to emerging or introduced diseases; (6) great apes are important components of the ecosystems they inhabit, and studies of their wild populations have pro￾vided important biological insights; (7) although subsistence hunting of tropical forest animals has occurred for hundreds of years at a sustainable level, the tremendous increase in the commercial trade of tropical forest species is detrimental to the future of these species; and (8) the reduction, removal, or other effective addressing of the threats to the long-term viability of populations of great 16 USC 6301. 16 USC 6301 note. Great Ape Conservation Act of 2000. Nov. 1, 2000 [H.R. 4320] VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 114 STAT. 1790 PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 apes in the wild will require the joint commitment and effort of countries that have within their boundaries any part of the range of great apes, the United States and other countries, and the private sector. (b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are— (1) to sustain viable populations of great apes in the wild; and (2) to assist in the conservation and protection of great apes by supporting conservation programs of countries in which populations of great apes are located and by supporting the CITES Secretariat. SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. In this Act: (1) CITES.—The term ‘‘CITES’’ means the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at Washington March 3, 1973 (27 UST 1087; TIAS 8249), including its appendices. (2) CONSERVATION.—The term ‘‘conservation’’— (A) means the use of methods and procedures necessary to prevent the diminution of, and to sustain viable popu￾lations of, a species; and (B) includes all activities associated with wildlife management, such as— (i) conservation, protection, restoration, acquisi￾tion, and management of habitat; (ii) in-situ research and monitoring of populations and habitats; (iii) assistance in the development, implementa￾tion, and improvement of management plans for man￾aged habitat ranges; (iv) enforcement and implementation of CITES; (v) enforcement and implementation of domestic laws relating to resource management; (vi) development and operation of sanctuaries for members of a species rescued from the illegal trade in live animals; (vii) training of local law enforcement officials in the interdiction and prevention of the illegal killing of great apes; (viii) programs for the rehabilitation of members of a species in the wild and release of the members into the wild in ways which do not threaten existing wildlife populations by causing displacement or the introduction of disease; (ix) conflict resolution initiatives; (x) community outreach and education; and (xi) strengthening the capacity of local commu￾nities to implement conservation programs. (3) FUND.—The term ‘‘Fund’’ means the Great Ape Con￾servation Fund established by section 5. (4) GREAT APE.—The term ‘‘great ape’’ means a chimpanzee, gorilla, bonobo, orangutan, or gibbon. (5) MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND.—The term ‘‘Multinational Species Conservation Fund’’ means such fund as established in title I of the Department of the Interior 16 USC 6302. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 114 STAT. 1791 and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999, under the heading ‘‘MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND’’. (6) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Interior. SEC. 4. GREAT APE CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the availability of funds and in consultation with other appropriate Federal officials, the Secretary shall use amounts in the Fund to provide financial assistance for projects for the conservation of great apes for which project proposals are approved by the Secretary in accordance with this section. (b) PROJECT PROPOSALS.— (1) ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS.—A proposal for a project for the conservation of great apes may be submitted to the Secretary by— (A) any wildlife management authority of a country that has within its boundaries any part of the range of a great ape if the activities of the authority directly or indirectly affect a great ape population; (B) the CITES Secretariat; or (C) any person or group with the demonstrated exper￾tise required for the conservation of great apes. (2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—A project proposal shall include— (A) a concise statement of the purposes of the project; (B) the name of the individual responsible for con￾ducting the project; (C) a description of the qualifications of the individuals who will conduct the project; (D) a concise description of— (i) methods for project implementation and out￾come assessment; (ii) staff and community management for the project; and (iii) the logistics of the project; (E) an estimate of the funds and time required to complete the project; (F) evidence of support for the project by appropriate governmental entities of the countries in which the project will be conducted, if the Secretary determines that such support is required for the success of the project; (G) information regarding the source and amount of matching funding available for the project; and (H) any other information that the Secretary considers to be necessary for evaluating the eligibility of the project for funding under this Act. (c) PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall— (A) not later than 30 days after receiving a project proposal, provide a copy of the proposal to other appropriate Federal officials; and (B) review each project proposal in a timely manner to determine if the proposal meets the criteria specified in subsection (d). (2) CONSULTATION; APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.—Not later than 180 days after receiving a project proposal, and subject Deadline. Deadline. 16 USC 6303. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 114 STAT. 1792 PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 to the availability of funds, the Secretary, after consulting with other appropriate Federal officials, shall— (A) consult on the proposal with the government of each country in which the project is to be conducted; (B) after taking into consideration any comments resulting from the consultation, approve or disapprove the proposal; and (C) provide written notification of the approval or dis￾approval to the person who submitted the proposal, other appropriate Federal officials, and each country described in subparagraph (A). (d) CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL.—The Secretary may approve a project proposal under this section if the project will enhance pro￾grams for conservation of great apes by assisting efforts to— (1) implement conservation programs; (2) address the conflicts between humans and great apes that arise from competition for the same habitat; (3) enhance compliance with CITES and other applicable laws that prohibit or regulate the taking or trade of great apes or regulate the use and management of great ape habitat; (4) develop sound scientific information on, or methods for monitoring— (A) the condition and health of great ape habitat; (B) great ape population numbers and trends; or (C) the current and projected threats to the habitat, current and projected numbers, or current and projected trends; or (5) promote cooperative projects on the issues described in paragraph (4) among government entities, affected local communities, nongovernmental organizations, or other persons in the private sector. (e) PROJECT SUSTAINABILITY.—To the maximum extent prac￾ticable, in determining whether to approve project proposals under this section, the Secretary shall give preference to conservation projects that are designed to ensure effective, long-term conserva￾tion of great apes and their habitats. (f) MATCHING FUNDS.—In determining whether to approve project proposals under this section, the Secretary shall give pref￾erence to projects for which matching funds are available. (g) PROJECT REPORTING.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Each person that receives assistance under this section for a project shall submit to the Secretary periodic reports (at such intervals as the Secretary considers necessary) that include all information that the Secretary, after consultation with other appropriate government officials, deter￾mines is necessary to evaluate the progress and success of the project for the purposes of ensuring positive results, assessing problems, and fostering improvements. (2) AVAILABILITY TO THE PUBLIC.—Reports under paragraph (1), and any other documents relating to projects for which financial assistance is provided under this Act, shall be made available to the public. (h) LIMITATIONS ON USE FOR CAPTIVE BREEDING.—Amounts provided as a grant under this Act— (1) may not be used for captive breeding of great apes other than for captive breeding for release into the wild; and VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 114 STAT. 1793 (2) may be used for captive breeding of a species for release into the wild only if no other conservation method for the species is biologically feasible. (i) PANEL.—Every 2 years, the Secretary shall convene a panel of experts to identify the greatest needs for the conservation of great apes. SEC. 5. GREAT APE CONSERVATION FUND. (a) ESTABLISHMENT.—There is established in the Multinational Species Conservation Fund a separate account to be known as the ‘‘Great Ape Conservation Fund’’, consisting of— (1) amounts transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into the Fund under subsection (e); (2) amounts appropriated to the Fund under section 6; and (3) any interest earned on investment of amounts in the Fund under subsection (c). (b) EXPENDITURES FROM FUND.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to paragraph (2), upon request by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer from the Fund to the Secretary, without further appropriation, such amounts as the Secretary determines are necessary to provide assistance under section 4. (2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.—Of the amounts in the account available for each fiscal year, the Secretary may expand not more than 3 percent, or up to $80,000, whichever is greater, to pay the administrative expenses necessary to carry out this Act. (c) INVESTMENT OF AMOUNTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall invest such portion of the Fund as is not, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury, required to meet current with￾drawals. Investments may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States. (2) ACQUISITION OF OBLIGATIONS.—For the purpose of investments under paragraph (1), obligations may be acquired— (A) on original issue at the issue price; or (B) by purchase of outstanding obligations at the market price. (3) SALE OF OBLIGATIONS.—Any obligation acquired by the Fund may be sold by the Secretary of the Treasury at the market price. (4) CREDITS TO FUND.—The interest on, and the proceeds from the sale or redemption of, any obligations held in the Fund shall be credited to and form a part of the Fund. (d) TRANSFERS OF AMOUNTS.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The amounts required to be transferred to the Fund under this section shall be transferred at least monthly from the general fund of the Treasury to the Fund on the basis of estimates made by the Secretary of the Treasury. (2) ADJUSTMENTS.—Proper adjustment shall be made in amounts subsequently transferred to the extent prior estimates were in excess of or less than the amounts required to be transferred. (e) ACCEPTANCE AND USE OF DONATIONS.—The Secretary may accept and use donations to provide assistance under section 4. Amounts received by the Secretary in the form of donations shall 16 USC 6304. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6581 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 114 STAT. 1794 PUBLIC LAW 106–411—NOV. 1, 2000 LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 4320: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 106–792 (Comm. on Resources). SENATE REPORTS: No. 106–472 (Comm. on Environment and Public Works). CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000): July 25, considered and passed House. Oct. 19, considered and passed Senate. Æ be transferred to the Secretary of the Treasury for deposit into the Fund. SEC. 6. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund $5,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2001 through 2005. Approved November 1, 2000. 16 USC 6305. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 05:06 Nov 16, 2000 Jkt 089139 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6580 Sfmt 6580 E:\PUBLAW\PUBL411.106 APPS27 PsN: PUBL411 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 9 -- Transfer Mechanism In reference to “Allocation and Reimbursement Among Agencies” Extracted from FAA of 1961 as Amended: ‘‘(d) Any agreement for the transfer or allocation of funds appropriated by this Act, or prior Acts, entered into between the United States Agency for International Development and another agency of the United States Government under the authority of section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law, shall expressly provide that the Office of the Inspector General for the agency receiving the transfer or allocation of such funds shall perform periodic program and financial audits of the use of such funds: Provided, That funds transferred under such authority may be made available for the cost of such audits.’’. Section 632 (extract): Agencies.—(a) The President may allocate or transfer to any agency of the United States Government any part of any funds available for carrying out the purposes of this Act, including any advance to the United States Government by any country or international organization for the procurement of commodities, defense articles, military education and training,1033 or services (including defense services). Such funds shall be available for obligation and expenditure for the purposes for which authorized, in accordance with authority granted in this Act or under authority governing the activities of the agencies of the United States Government to which such funds are allocated or transferred. (b) Any officer of the United States Government carrying out functions under this Act may utilize the services (including defense services) and facilities of, or procure commodities, defense articles, or military education and training 1034 from, any agency of the United States Government as the President shall direct, or with the consent of the head of such agency, and funds allocated pursuant to this subsection to any such agency may be established in separate appropriation accounts on the books of the Treasury. ‘‘TRANSFERS BETWEEN ACCOUNTS ‘‘SEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may be transferred to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government, except pursuant to a transfer made by, or transfer authority provided in, this Act or any other appropriation Act. ‘‘(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), in addition to transfers made by, or authorized elsewhere in, this Act, funds appropriated by this Act to carry out the purposes of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 may be allocated or transferred to agencies of the United States Government pursuant to the provisions of sections 109, 610, and 632 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. ‘‘(c) None of the funds made available by this Act may be obligated under an appropriation account to which they were not appropriated, except for transfers specifically provided for in this Act, unless the President, not less than five days prior to Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes the exercise of any authority contained in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to transfer funds, consults with and provides a written policy justification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate. ‘‘(d) Any agreement for the transfer or allocation of funds appropriated by this Act, or prior Acts, entered into between the United States Agency for International Development and another agency of the United States Government under the authority of section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 or any comparable provision of law, shall expressly provide that the Office of the Inspector General for the agency receiving the transfer or allocation of such funds shall perform periodic program and financial audits of the use of such funds: Provided, That funds transferred under such authority may be made available for the cost of such audits.’’. 332 Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87–195) Sec. 632 Additional Help: 306 File Name: 306sai_050503_cd32 Revision: 05/05/2003 Sample 632(a) Memorandum of Agreement to Transfer Funds From USAID to Another Agency MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE [DEPARTMENT OF ___________] TO TRANSFER FUNDS I. AUTHORITY Under Section 632(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (the “FAA”), and the Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 20__ (Public Law ___-___), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) hereby agrees to transfer to the [Department of ______ ](the “Recipient Agency”) $_____________ in funds appropriated for [the Economic Support Fund]. II. PURPOSE The Recipient Agency will use the funds transferred under this Memorandum of Agreement to ______________________________________________________ _______________________________________. Funds transferred by this Agreement are available for obligation and expenditure for the purposes for which such funds are authorized, in accordance with authority granted in the FAA or authority governing the activities of the Recipient Agency. III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS A. USAID will transfer the funds from its account to the Recipient Agency’s account by means of a Nonexpenditure Transfer Authorization (Standard Form 1151). - 2 – Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes B. The Recipient Agency will administer the funds transferred under this Memorandum of Agreement in accordance with all applicable law. The Recipient Agency will be responsible and accountable for the management, audit, and use of such funds. The Office of the Inspector General for the Recipient Agency must perform periodic program and financial audits of the use of the funds, and the Recipient Agency may use funds allocated under this Memorandum for the cost of such audits. UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RECIPIENT AGENCY _______________________________ _________________________________ [Name] [Name] [Deputy] Assistant Administrator [Title] Bureau for [ ] [Office] Date____________________ Date______________________ ACCOUNT NUMBERS: USAID: [RECIPIENT AGENCY]: Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 10 -- Evaluation Field Site Profiles Site Visit Profiles and Notes: USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund Assessment 2009 I. Location: Lola ya Bonobo Sanctuary (Les Petites Chutes de la Lukaya, Kinshasa, DRC) Lead Organizations: Les Amis des Bonobos due Congo (ABC) Key Personnel: Claudine Andre USAID CARPE Landscape: Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba 74,544 km² Target Species: Bonobo (Pan paniscus) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 2006 GA-0325 98210-6-G181 Les Amis des Bonobos due Congo (ABC) Bonobo Reintroduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo: Conservation Education and Health Monitoring at Lola Ya Bonobo Sanctuary USFWS: $49,996.00 Leveraged Funds: $346,900.00 2008 GA-0485 98210-8-G641 Eloko ya bonobo: bonobo reintroduction in the Democratic Republic of Congo USFWS: $197,530.00 Leveraged Funds: $246,150.00 Activity: Conservation, Wildlife Health, Training, Education Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Direct observations with participation in field activities. Formal project presentation. Interview with Director and staff. Inquiry with in-country and regional professional peers. Interviews with key informants: Jef Dupain - AWF; John and Terese Hart - Tshuapa-Lomami￾Lualaba Project (TL2); Findings: Lola ya Bonobo (Bonobo Paradise) is a 60 acre bonobo sanctuary located roughly 25 kms west of Kinshasa, DRC. Established in 1994 by Claudine Andre and in operation since 1995, this sanctuary is the lead bonobo rehabilitation facility in the Congo Basin. USFWS has been supporting preparatory work for the first reintroduction of captive bonobos into the wild. A suitable site just at the western edge of the Maringa – Lopori – Wamba landscape has been selected as the release area. The region is considered suitable habitat for bonobos, but none are resident now in the wild. Working with AWF, PASA, WSPA, and others, ABC released eight orphaned bonobos into the region on June 14 2009. The evaluation team conducted its site visit in January 2009 prior to this release and was impressed by the level of detailed preparation employed by ABC for this historic event. There are obvious risks associated with reintroduction of any endangered species, especially one as high profile as bonobos. From individual animal veterinary care to strict compliance with IUCN primate reintroduction guidelines, ABC seemed to have covered the essential bases -- at least to the level feasible given the capacity in DRC. ABC has been engaging the Po community in the release area to ensure local community support for the effort. A successful reintroduction could provide the first habituated group of bonobo in the wild and serve as a springboard for limited but highly visible ecotourism development in the region. The reintroduction site is near Basankusu, which serves as the principal entry to the MLW landscape. Landscape lead, WWF, is based in Basankusu. Grant support to ABC represents the innovative nature of some grant making decisions, as well as FWS willingness to nurture smaller NGOs based or active in the Central Africa region. This is also an example of how CARPE GACF grants can build upon and leverage the macro-zoning, governance and land use planning accomplishments of the USAID CARPE consortia. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes (Bonobo release site: Map courtesy AWF and ABC) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes II Location: Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba Interviews held in Kinshasa, DRC and Washington DC (carpe.umd.edu/resources/map-library/ accessed 21 October 2009) Lead Organizations: African Wildlife Foundation Key Personnel: Jef Dupain - AWF; Sally Coxe - BCI; Michael Hurley - BCI; Jon Scherlis- BCI USAID CARPE Landscape: Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba Target Species: Bonobo (Pan paniscus) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 20006 GA-0335 98210-6-G198 Bonobo Conservation Initiative Djolu Technical College: Building Capacity for Conservation of the Bonobo and its Habitat in the Democratic Republic of Congo Landscape 9 – Maringa – Lopori – Wamba USFWS: $44,911.00 Leveraged Funds: $84,805.00 2006 GA-0345 98210-6-G206 Bonobo Conservation Initiative Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Bonobo Peace Forest: Surveys, Information Exchange and Community Based Reserve Development USFWS: $219,797.00 Leveraged Funds: $198,354.00 2008 GA-0441 98210-8-G523 African Wildlife Foundation Assessment of Bonobo Distribution and Development of Bio-monitoring Capacity In the Maringa-Lopori-Wamba CARPE Landscape, D.R. Congo USFWS: $121,353.00 Leveraged Funds: $114,757.00 2008 GA-0513 98210-8-G654 University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Population monitoring and abundance estimation of bonobos (Pan paniscus) in relation to timber harvest, slash-and-burn agriculture, and bushmeat hunting. USFWS: $43,728.00 Leveraged Funds: $44,299.00 2009 GA-0624 96200-9-G243 African Wildlife Foundation Socioecological Research of Wild Bonobo in the Lomako- Yokokala Faunal Reserse in the Democratic Republic of Congo USFWS: $162,555.00 Leveraged Funds: $90,500.00 2009 GA-0646 96200-9-G248 Bonobo Conservation Initiative Community-based Bonobo Conservation at the Mompono-Duale Forest, Democratic Republic of Congo USFWS: $64,355.00 Leveraged Funds: $69,695.00 Activity: Research, Monitoring, Conservation, Training Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Formal project presentation. Focal interviews with project leads. Inquiry with in-country and regional professional peers. Field findings supplemented by interviews with Washington based BCI and AWF staff. Interviews with key informants: Claudine Andre - ABC; John and Terese Hart - Tshuapa￾Lomami-Lualaba Project (TL2); Jef Dupain Findings: Through CARPE, AWF has been building a governance presence with a conservation driven agenda in a region where essentially the state structures had collapsed. Increasingly landscape functions and capacities such as that for GIS analysis were being relocated to Basankusu which serves as an anchor for three regional centers in the expansive landscape. GACF CARPE grants supported baseline surveys of bonobo populations (about which little is still known). A complementary non-CARPE grant supports similar survey work in the neighboring TL2 landscape, where the grantees note distribution maps showing an absence of bonobos often mean Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes an absence of surveys. Additional support to BCI and Univ of Georgia ( termed a “piggy-back” grant due to its close coordination with AWF) and other bonobo work in the region suggested a need for a more cohesive bonobo strategy. USFWS, through its ties to multiple groups, recognized that tensions between different bonobo support organizations prevented development of such a strategy. This recognition led to a facilitated intervention that is paving the way for more strategic collaboration in the region. Already USFWS grants have resulted in formal collaboration between AWF and non-CARPE consortia grantees, ABC and BCI. It is difficult yet to determine the conservation impacts of USFWS grants or even of the overall support (including other donor support such as longstanding bonobo research funded by the Japanese). Dupain suggests that support to the ecoguards patrolling Lomako Reserve is producing improvements in moving local people from indiscriminate to more controlled hunting and toward establishment of a future community forest reserve along the lines of that pioneered in the Tayna region further east. Care is needed to make sure future USFWS grants do not overlap other support including USG CARPE and USAID/Kinshasa (Livelihoods). One area of USFWS might be in the habituation of bonobos. At the time of the evaluation fieldwork, the AWF biologist at Lomako was already initiating habituation efforts and was in contact with ABC regarding the release partnership. The MLW landscape also represents a site where USFWS grants and Arcus Foundation grants were coordinated and mutually supportive. Dupain suggested CARPE and GACF were compatible and both necessary but distinct in their orientation. He cited a burden with different reporting demands, primarily because of the species focus of the USFWS grants. CARPE funds reaching the landscape are less than one million per year for a landscape extending hundreds of miles and virtually without infrastructure. Consequently GACF-CARPE grant funds are significant and leverage AWF core funds and other grant funds such as those of Arcus and the Alexander Abraham Foundation. For AWF CARPE has covered sunk costs and core staff contracts, so other funders monies can be channeled directly to field activities. This raises interesting monitoring and indicator reporting issues in reporting results. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes III. Location: Sangha Tri-National Region • Nouabale-Ndoki National Park, Congo; • PROGEPP (Project for Ecosystem Management of the Periphery of Nouabale-Ndoki National Park), Congo • Ndoki National Park, CAR • Dzangha-Sangha Special Reserve, CAR • Dzangha-Sangha National Park (Map - courtesy WWF/Carpo) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Lead Organizations: WCS in Congo and WWF in CAR Key Personnel: Hannah Thomas and Fiona Maisels -- WCS; Angelique Todd – WWF; David Morgan (in Cameroon) Direct field observation; focus group interviews with researchers, trackers, eco-guards, key personnel interviews with park and program staffs including available PROGEPP staff (Beyler only); visits to high value sites – baies; USAID CARPE Landscape: Sangha Tri-National Landscape (36,236 km2 ) Target Species: Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla); Subspecies -- Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) ; Chimpanzee (Pan troglodyte) -- Subspecies: Central Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodyte) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 2006 GA-0266 98210-6-G081 Wildlife Conservation Society Can Management of Wildlife in Logging Concessions Conserve Great Ape Populations in Northern Congo? USFWS: $43,180.00 Leveraged Funds: $23,679.00 2006 GA-0283 98210-6-G107 Wildlife Conservation Society Implementing Urgent Measures for the Surveillance and Protection of Great Apes in Northern Congo in Response to Recent Ebola Outbreaks USFWS: $157,059.00 Leveraged Funds: $112,433.00 2006 GA-0318 98210-6-G152 International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project USFWS: $105,462.00 Leveraged Funds: $69,051.00 2006 GA-0338 98210-6-G200 Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Chimpanzee Conservation and Research Project USFWS $63,854.00 Leveraged Funds: $61,834.00 2006 GA-0355 98210-6-G242 Wildlife Conservation Society Using Networked Human Detection Sensors to Technologically Enhance Anti-poaching Efforts USFWS $36,203.00 Leveraged Funds: $20,573.00 2007 GA-0358 98210-7-G100 Wildlife Conservation Society Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Threats Assessment and Protection of Great Apes and Other Large Mammals in the North of the Nouabale-Ndoki NP and Buffer Zone: Mokabi Forestry Concession, ROC USFWS $60,617.00 Leveraged Funds: $18,317.00 2007 GA-0364 98210-7-G102 Wildlife Conservation Society Can Management of Wildlife in Logging Concessions Conserve Great Ape Populations in Northern Congo? Phase II USFWS $55,481.00 Leveraged Funds: $17,385.00 2007 GA-0385 98210-7-G192 Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of the Sangha/Likouala Provinces, Republic of Congo USFWS: $92,239.00 Leveraged Funds: $36,750.00 2007 GA-0404 98210-7-G292 Wildlife Conservation Society "Implementing Critical Ebola Surveillance and Response Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo" USFWS $213,298.00 Leveraged Funds: $87,648.00 2007 GA-0409 98210-7-G294 Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Chimpanzee Conservation and Research Project Nouabale-Ndoki National Park, Republic of Congo USFWS: $57,362.00 Leveraged Funds: $57,440.00 2007 GA-0437 98210-7-G318 World Wildlife Fund-Central African Republic Coordination Office The Dzanga-Sangha Lowland Gorilla Habituation and Ecotourism Project USFWS: $50,000.00 Leveraged Funds: $89,000.00 2008 GA-0467 98210-8-G530 International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project: Dissemination and Evaluation USFWS: $77,615.30 Leveraged Funds: $50,261.00 2008 GA-0478 98210-8-G637 Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Ape Project: Developing Strategies to Conserve Chimpanzees and Gorillas in the Congo Basin USFWS: $58,498.00 Leveraged Funds: $58,500.00 2008 GA-0479 98210-8-G638 Wildlife Conservation Society Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Great Ape Conservation through Ecotourism in Nouabale-Ndoki National Park (Republic of Congo) USFWS: $79,468.00 Leveraged Funds: $64,613.00 2008 GA-0480 98210-8-G639 Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape Conservation and Monitoring in Multiple-Use Forests of northern Republic of Congo USFWS: $104,006.00 Leveraged Funds: $63,494.00 2008 GA-0489 98210-8-G643 Wildlife Conservation Society Expanding Ebola Surveillance, Response and Preventive Measures to Protect Great Apes in Northern Republic of Congo USFWS: $185,571.00 Leveraged Funds: $141,084.00 2008 GA-0507 98210-8-G650 Wildlife Conservation Society Protection of great apes and other large mammals along the northern and eastern borders of the Noubale-Ndoki National Park, Republic of Congo USFWS: $61,668.00 Leveraged Funds: $42,087.00 2009 GA-0569 96200-9-G067 Wildlife Conservation Society Mbeli Bai Gorilla Study. Population dynamics of western gorillas: Monitoring and analysis of long term life history and demographic data. USFWS: $52,625.00 Leveraged Funds: $37,434.00 2009 GA-0586 96200-9-G101 International Conservation and Education Fund Great Ape Public Awareness Project Using Video Centered Education Outreach USFWS: $51,722.00 Leveraged Funds: $176,428.00 2009 GA-0628 96200-9-G246 Wildlife Conservation Society Goualougo Triangle Ape Project: Securing the Future of Chimpanzees and Gorillas in a Changing Landscape USFWS: $172,330.00 Leveraged Funds: $108,546.00 2009 GA-0630 96200-9-G247 Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and human impact monitoring training, surveys, and protection in the Ndoki￾Likouala landscape, Republic of Congo USFWS: $339,163.00 Leveraged Funds: $194,273.00 2009 GA-0565 96200-9-G071 World Wildlife Fund-Central African Republic Office (CAR) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes The Dzanga-Sangha Lowland Gorilla Habituation and Ecotourism Project USFWS: $101,541.00 Leveraged Funds: $121,411.00 Activity: Research and Monitoring, Enforcement, Training, Landscape Conservation, Education Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Direct observations with participation in field activities. Formal project presentations. Inquiry with in-country and regional professional peers. Focus group interviews with researchers, trackers, eco-guards, key personnel interviews with park and program staffs including available PROGEPP staff (Beyler only); visits to high value sites – bais; Interviews with key informants: -- Ken Cameron - WCS; Bryan Curran - WCS; David Morgan - St. Louis Zoo; Trish Read - WCS; Paul Telfer - WCS; David Weiner - INCEF Findings: The Sangha Tri-National Landscape is a major investment site for the USFWS and its CARPE funds. The area straddles the Sangha River and includes Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in Republic of Congo, Ndoki and Dzangha-Sangha National Parks and Dzangha-Sangha Dense Forest Special Reserve in CAR and Lobéké National Park in Cameroon. There are five logging concessions bordering Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park in Congo. Within several of these concessions, WCS, the Government of Congo, the timber company CIB (Congolaise Industrielle des Bois) and the local community have developed a collaborative conservation and timber development effort known as PROGEPP (Projet Gestion des Ecosystèmes Périphériques au Parc National Nouabalé-Ndoki) (Project for the Management of Ecosystems Adjacent to the Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park). The Sangha Tri-National Landscape is truly a world class location. The wildlife viewing is extraordinary with remarkable forest clearings such as Dzangha Bai in CAR and Mbeli Bai in Congo, that allow clear access to elephants, forest buffalo, bongo, gorillas and other species. In addition, both CAR and Congo have habituated Western Lowland Gorilla groups in each country for ecotourism. In Mondika field camp just at the edge of Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park, there are two Western Lowland Gorilla groups habituated for tourism: the Kingo Group (n = 7 or 8 individuals) and the larger Buka group (n= 13-14 individuals). The Kingo group was the former research group of Diane Doran and needed seven years to habituate. The Buka group habitation began in February 2008 and results to date seem to indicate near complete stage of habituation by 2010. Roughly 100 tourists have visited Mondika camp. Non-habituated gorilla groups can be viewed from the mirador at Mbeli Bai where USFWS is funding gorilla behavioral and monitoring research. In the Bai Hokou area of Dzangha-Sangha National Park in CAR, the primary gorilla ecotourism group is the Makumba Group (n = 12 to 14 individuals). The Makumba Group habituation began in 2000. There was a second ecotourism group but the Silverback was mortally wounded in a fight with a competing male and the group disbanded. Efforts are made in habituating a second gorilla group at this time. USFWS support has been critical in funding gorilla ecotourism efforts in both CAR and Congo. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Beyond gorilla ecotourism, the GACF has been supporting combined gorilla and chimpanzee research and monitoring through the Goualougo Triangle Ape Project. The work on chimpanzee behavior and ecology is most notable with the use of field cams to record tool use and social interactions. The project is developing new remote field technologies to not only track apes but also illegal human activity in the region. The new technology uses metal sensors to trigger remote cell camera and transmission of the image in real time. The technology shows promise to vastly increase the efficiency of ranger patrol efforts. The evaluation team was not able to visit project field site but met with Dr. David Morgan in Cameroon. Outside of the core protected areas, the evaluation team was able to travel to Kabo at the edge of Nouabalé-Ndoki National Park to visit the PROGEPP initiative. This effort is a sustainable forestry collaboration with CIB, a timber concern that has two concessions adjacent to Nouabalé￾Ndoki. WCS provides conservation planning and monitoring and ecoguard training to ensure forest operations maintain the region's biodiversity values while generating economic development. The PROGEPP effort is a FSC certified operation. While the evaluation team did not have time to do a thorough project visit, it was able to gather some information worthy of more detailed follow-up. For instance, it learned that CIB had constructed a new permanent logging camp of substantial size and several new forestry access roads without notifying its conservation partner; and that in order to maintain its workforce in a depressed economy, many CIB workers were given part-time employment in field camps, thus allowing free-time for potential bush meat hunting. PROGEPP management has been uneven during the USFWS grants and provides a case study that documents GACF’s proactive approach to funding. Judging the project too critical to abandon, USFWS chose to intervene directly with the grantee to jointly determine how increase the effectiveness of not only PROGEPP but of the overall Congo portion of the TNS landscape. Throughout the Sangha Tri-National landscape and much of the Congo Basin, WCS is leading efforts to improve biodiversity and ranger-based monitoring. In the region, WCS is perfecting MIST (Management Information System), its field monitoring system. The evaluation team shares MIST designer's view that once perfected, MIST will advance conservation monitoring. In the meantime, there were mixed reviews of MIST implementation reported to the evaluation team across the Congo basin, primarily with MIST ease of use, compatibility with ongoing non￾WCS monitoring programs, local capacity to implement properly and various program glitches with the database. Comparing conservation efforts in CAR and Congo in the Sangha Tri-National region were very informative for the evaluation team. It shows the challenges of conserving a contiguous landscape across multi-jurisdictional zones of governance. At the ecological level, the system is unified while at the governance level the region remains balkanized. Here at least, through comparison, the evaluation team views the tri-national challenges in managing Mountain Gorillas in the Virungas as making progress and can share lessons with the Sangha system. Without a doubt this landscape is a globally significant area but the government and NGO capacity is thin on the ground. Last year, local conflict between the park and the local community in Bayanga, CAR precipitated the need for national army intervention to stop spiteful elephant killings. The strain of insufficient capacity was evident in WWF's offices in Bayanga, Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes CAR and WCS's local headquarters in Bomassa, Congo. The evaluation team interviewed one international tour operator who believed this lack of capacity and its impact on local governance were barriers to major private sector tourism investment. Furthermore, this lack of capacity limits coordination and communication between governmental and NGOs across this shared landscapes effectively balkanizing NGO presence as well. While USFWS intervened in the Congo side, tri-national structures for management exist that could be called upon. Additionally, despite an offshore fund being set up to help coordinate management, each country including the Cameroon side that the team did not visit are or had recently experienced a relative breakdown of the NGO support structures. The permanent state institutions are not yet strong enough to manage the challenges without this support. The evaluation team suggests that closer coordination with CARPE on challenges of this magnitude in geographic areas of this import would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of USG support efforts. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes IV. Location: Lope National Park, Gabon (from WCS Final Report GA-0326 – adapted from Tutin et al 2005) Lead Organizations: Centre International de Recherches Medicales de Franceville; University of Stirling; Wildlife Conservation Society; Zoological Society of London Key Personnel: Kathryn Jeffery - CIRMF; Sandra Ratiarison - ZSL; Malcolm Starkey - WCS; Joe Walston - WCS USAID CARPE Landscape: Landscape 3 -- Lope-Chaillu-Louesse 35,000 km² Target Species: Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla) -- Subspecies: Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla); Chimpanzee (Pan troglodyte) -- Subspecies: Central Chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes troglodyte) USFWS Grants relevant to site: Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes 2006 GA-0269 98210-6-G034 Wildlife Conservation Society Capacity-building in Gabon for Ape Ecological Research USFWS: $52,611.00 Leveraged Funds: $53,986.00 2006 GA-0310 98210-6-G167 Zoological Society of London Mikongo Conservation Centre: Western gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla) Habituation and Health Monitoring for Ecotourism USFWS: $49,226.00 Leveraged Funds: $158,091.00 2006 GA-0326 98210-6-G169 Wildlife Conservation Society Evaluating the Impact of Babongo Pygmy Populations in Southern Lope and Waka National Parks USFWS: $35,388.00 Leveraged Funds: $26,037.00 2007 GA-0416 98210-7-G289 Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lope-Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon. Part II: Lope-Waka Corridor USFWS: $49,316.00 Leveraged Funds: $19,528.00 2008 GA-0454 98210-8-G526 University of Sterling Sustaining a Great Ape Health Program in Lope National Park, Gabon USFWS: $46,526.00 Leveraged Funds: $39,916.00 2008 GA-0463 98210-8-G529 Wildlife Conservation Society Great Ape and Human Impact Monitoring in the Lope-Waka Exceptional Priority Great Ape Area, Gabon, Part:1 Lope National Park USFWS: $71,719.00 Leveraged Funds: $53,656.00 2009 GA-0568 96200-9-G066 Wildlife Conservation Society Capacity building for an anti-poaching strategy in the north-west of the Lope-Waka great ape exceptional priority area. USFWS: 79,833.00 Leveraged Funds: 57,051.00 2009 GA-0581 96200-9-G100 Zoological Society of London Evaluating and mitigating impacts of human activities on western lowland gorillas in Lopé National Park, Gabon USFWS: 49,993.00 Leveraged Funds: 70,695.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes 2009 GA-0604 96200-9-G238 Wildlife Conservation Society Developing a great ape conservation strategy for the Lopé-Waka and Ivindo great ape priority areas in Gabon USFWS: 78,705.00 Leveraged Funds: 42,507.00 Activity: Research and Monitoring, Enforcement, Training, Landscape Conservation, Education Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Direct observations with participation in field activities. Formal project presentations. Inquiry with in-country professional peers. Review of grant documents. Interviews with key informants: -- Kate Abernethy - U. Stirling; Bas Huijbregts - WWF; Fiona Maisels - WCS; Adrien Noungou - Gov of Gabon; Kirstin Siex - WCS; Lee White - Gov of Gabon Findings: Lope National Park is one of the national park jewels of Gabon. Easily accessible from the outskirts of Libreville by train (and less so by automobile), Lope is the hub of great ape conservation and training for the country. Lope is well known for the long term great ape research efforts of Tutin and Fernandez begun in 1983 and later cohorts such as White and Abernethy who were based out of the Lope research station (Station D’Etudes des Gorilles et Chimpanzees – SEGC) now administered by CIRMF. In addition, Lope is the site of Gabon's conservation training facility serving government managers and personnel and university students for over a decade. Lope has no reliable great ape ecotourism. In the Mikongo area of Lope, ZSL has established an ecotourism site for western gorilla viewing. While well-maintained and superbly designed, the Mikongo camp is not ideally located for great ape viewing. The site was selected to enhance local community engagement and benefit with ecotourism but is poorly situated with regards to reliable great ape presence in the park. There are no habituated gorilla or chimpanzee groups in the park at this time, although efforts have been made in the recent past. ZSL staff openly admits that tourism operations are costly; they are not structured as a tourism enterprise and there is no money to market the tourism opportunities at Mikongo which include bird watching, forest walks and occasional primate encounters. The facility was constructed by a European Union funded project without sufficient research. One of two such facilities was already shut down. The proximate habituated gorilla group ranged into village lands. Despite being located relatively near the local village to incentivize the population, the local chief refused to grant the facility permission to track gorillas into its lands. The facility at Mikongo may have value as a research base or for limited tourism (lesser ape perhaps) in conjunction with other uses. It is an example of why close field monitoring of grantees can be helpful in avoiding inefficient follow-up grants and in helping NGO partners to refine their programs. Overall, Lope has limited tourism with one main government-operated lodge near the railway depot and the Mikongo camp. Long term focal great ape research which has defined Lope as a site of scientific importance in the world of primatologists appears to be in period of dormancy. Tutin’s long term gorilla research ended in 1999 due to the loss of a silverback male. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Habituation efforts since that time have failed. There has been only one focused study on chimps according to SEGC Director Kat Jeffrey. The primate population is being monitored in a different fashion through fecal and hair DNA sampling. The average density of great apes is relatively low compared to other sites in the western region of the Congo Basin. In Lope, genetic and health information is collected via line transect methods. There is periodic monitoring conducted by WCS focusing on presence/absence and census information. This monitoring is only done in a portion of the landscape and not the complete area. To its credit GoG and WCS staff are attempting to better align land use designations with on the ground densities of great apes. Higher density areas are not readily accessible. This is an example where close coordination with the CARPE zoning and land use efforts could improve analysis, review, and decision-making of grant applications. The USFWS is supporting complementary primate health surveillance efforts with CIRMF and ZSL. There is some basic parasite screening and public health education being implemented. With WCS, USFWS is funding research to study the socio-ecology of Babongo pygmy populations in the southern portion of Lope National Park. The work is centered on four villages south of Lope. None of the villages are included in national census reports or the current Lope park management plan. While the impact of pygmies on wildlife appears limited, the region has been identified for commercial logging and WCS has established a baseline for any future impacts from this proposed industry on the area. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes V. Location: Volcanoes National Park/ Parc des Volcans -- Kigali, Musanze, Kinigi, Rwanda (Virunga Volcanoes - UNEP - Africa: Atlas of our Changing Environment) Lead Organizations: African Wildlife Foundation, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, International Gorilla Conservation Programme, Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project, Population Media Center, Wildlife Conservation Society Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Key Personnel: Mike Cranfield - MGVP, Katie Fawcett - DFGFI, Maryke Gray - AWF/IGCP, Jean Sebatakane Kakule - Population Media, Felix Ndagijimana - DFGFI, Eugene Rutagarama - IGCP USAID CARPE Landscape: Virunga Landscape -- 15,155 km² Target Species: Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei); Subspecies -- Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 1. 2006 GA-0314 98210-6-G148 Recipient: African Wildlife Foundation Regional Collaboration for Mountain Gorilla Conservation: Ranger-Based Monitoring for a Regional Information System in the Virunga-Bwindi Forest Ecosystem. In partnership with African Wildlife Foundation. This project supports the creation of an integrated system, using information gathered primarily through ranger-based monitoring, to gain consensus among experts from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda, on how to best conserve and manage Mountain Gorillas in the Albertine Rift. USAID/FWS: $300,000. 2. 2006 GA-0346 98210-6-G207 Recipient: Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project Confiscated Eastern Gorilla Rehabilitation and Planning for Reintroduction and Long Term Management. In partnership with Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project. This project develops veterinary and behavioral interventions and infrastructure to facilitate eventual reintroduction of captive Mountain and Grauer’s gorillas into their natural habitats. USAID/FWS: $77,246. 3. 2007 GA-0421 98210-7-G295 Recipient: Wildlife Conservation Society Building Capacity for Rwanda's Great Ape Tourism. In partnership with the Wildlife Conservation Society. Provide training to ecotourism staff to ensure strict adherence to guidelines aimed at minimizing negative impacts to Great Apes and the environment. USAID/USFWS: $67,622. 4. 2007 GA-0422 98210-7-G302 Recipient: International Gorilla Conservation Programme Strengthening transboundary collaborative processes in the Virunga Massif-Bwindi forest ecosystem. In partnership with the International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Improve protected area management by supporting regional collaboration between Rwanda, Uganda, and DRC. USAID/USFWS: $96,610. 5. 2008 GA-0459 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Research Population of Virunga Mountain Gorillas. In partnership with Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. This project provides support for continued monitoring, study and protection of the research population of mountain gorillas living in the Virunga massif and further develops Rwandan scientific capacity in data collection and analysis. USAID/FWS: $42,267.00 Leveraged: $179,079.00. 6. 2008 GA-0512 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Support for Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Research Population of Virunga Mountain Gorillas. In partnership with Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. The purpose of this project is to provide continued monitoring, study, and protection of the research population of mountain gorillas living in the Virunga massif. FWS/USAID: $97,006.00 Leveraged Funds: $122,974.00. 7. 2008 GA-0546 Recipient: Population Media Center Conserving the Habitat of the Mountain Gorilla through Behavior Change Communication. In partnership with Population Media Center. The purpose of this project is increase awareness of the linkages between appropriate environmental stewardship and poverty alleviation to reduce threats to mountain gorilla habitat. USAID/FWS: $50,000.00 Leveraged Funds: $281,100.00 8. 2008 GA-0547 Recipient: Africa Conservation Fund Biomass Briquette Project: Protecting Mountain Gorilla Habitat in Virunga through Alternative Fuels. The purpose of this project is to protect Mountain Gorilla Habitat in Virunga, DRC by halting the destruction of mountain gorilla habitat caused by charcoal production through the introduction of alternative fuels. USAID/FWS: $49,560.00 Leveraged Funds: $88,500.00 9. 2009 GA-0575 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Continued Monitoring, Protection and Study of the Mountain Gorillas of the Virunga Massif In partnership with Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. The purpose of this project is to support continued monitoring, study, and protection of the research population of mountain gorillas living in the Virunga massif. FWS/USAID: $142,125.00 Leveraged Funds: $381,005.00 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Activity: Research and Monitoring, Enforcement, Training, Landscape Conservation, Education Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Direct observation of field activities; project presentations; cross reference inquiries Interviews with key informants: -- Mediatrice Bana - WWF/IGCP, Augustin Basabose - WWF/IGCP/ICCN, Francine Bintu - Vocanoes Safaris, Bernard De Wetter - Sabyinyo Silverback Lodge, Annette Lanjouw - Arcus, Eric Kayinangor - Population Media, Praveen Moman -Vocanoes Safaris, Theodore Nzeyimana - Population Media, Liz Williamson - CI/IUCN Findings: The team visited Volcanoes National Park/Parc des Vulcans in Rwanda to assess GACF efforts within the CARPE Virunga Landscape and in particular, assess grants related to the conservation of Mountain Gorillas. Parc des Vulcans, along with Mgahinga National Park in Uganda, and Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, forms a trinational protected area around the Virunga Volcanoes. The region is home to more than half of the world's Mountain Gorillas (n=380) and is the epicenter of gorilla ecotourism. The area is famous for the research of George Schaller and Dian Fossey. The region has recently experienced the tragedy of genocide. The Mountain Gorilla population continues to make a steady increase over the past three decades, despite a few unfortunate gorilla poaching events. All gorilla groups in Rwanda are habituated, either for ecotourism or research. The maximum number of tourist permits given in Rwanda is 56. There are seven gorilla groups habituated for tourism with eight tourists /per group maximum. The majority of gorilla groups in DRC are habituated . There are six habituated mountain gorilla groups in DRC. Five groups can be visited by tourists as the other group has only four individual animals. As DRC is just recovering its tourist operations after a period of instability -- of these five groups, only three groups have come online with 26 tourist permits per day. There are no resident gorilla groups in the Uganda portion of the Virungas. At this time, on any given day, a maximum of 82 tourist permits are allocated for gorilla tourism at a cost of US$500 per one hour visit. In addition, there are tourist permits for Golden Monkey (Cercopithecus mitis) viewing; tours to Dian Fossey's research site at Karisoke; and trekking up several of the volcanoes. These numbers add to the daily visitations of primate researchers; research assistants; gorilla trackers; security patrols; and the occasional unsanctioned visitors. The demand for tourist permits is greater than the permits available. Tourist demand is growing in the region as stability and prosperity return. The number of tourist facilities in Rwanda has expanded rapidly over the past five years, increasing the number of beds available. The tourist experience in Rwanda is relatively organized and well regulated. There is little interpretation regarding the ecological of the Virungas with most tourist education focusing on gorilla group and individual behavior. In general, the typical tourist learns little of the conservation challenges and opportunities regarding mountain gorillas, other Virunga species, and the conservation of gorilla habitat. It appears that the gorilla tourism process is a lost opportunity to recruit supporters for gorilla conservation efforts. Furthermore, the team directly observed that the high price of the gorilla permit creates a perverse incentive for tourists, especially those with illness or physical problems. As a rule, if a tourist is ill and thus capable of transmitting a disease to Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes gorillas such as influenza or other respiratory diseases, the tourist is required to forfeit their ticket. Nevertheless, when the price of a ticket is expensive, the competition for limited permit supplies is great and with the overall of cost of traveling to Rwanda on a fixed time frame so high, tourists have many incentives to conceal their true health status to take advantage of their unique wildlife viewing moment. The evaluation team observed a tourist faint within the Sousa mountain gorilla group as a result of high altitude effects. Surrounding the Virunga Volcanoes is one of the highest densities of human rural habitation in the world with up to 800 individuals per km2. The boundary of this trinational protected area is a discreet hard edge. Mountain gorillas survive in a isolated patch of habitat surrounded by humanity and poverty. A similar situation exists for the other patch of mountain gorillas than live further north in the Bwindi/Impenetrable Forest of Uganda (n=320 with range 302-336). The small scale of the Virungo Volcanoes coupled with the small population size of the mountain gorillas should dictate a cohesive conservation and management approach. And it does appear that governmental and non-governmental entities are working toward this unified goal. The challenge of operational continuity across three countries remains visible but progress is being made. The IGCP has been working since 1991 to build capacity and commitment in all three nations and that work is well evidenced. Communication and common management/monitoring approaches among parties is evident. MGVP appears to have the trust and support of all three nations in providing veterinary care for gorillas and nascent public health support for gorilla personnel and surrounding communities. DFGFI sets a global standard for long term gorilla behavioral research and conservation monitoring. The positive evolution of governmental and non-governmental efforts gives hope for the mountain gorillas. That much said, there is still room for improvement. The integration between international NGO efforts could be improved and the competition for resources and identity are factors visible to outsiders. More specifically, some programmatic issues were observed by the team. Long term gorilla orphan care is a huge challenge for the NGOs with inadequate facilities in Goma and issues of co-housing Eastern Lowland and Mountain Gorillas in the same facility in Kinigi. The captive animal maintenance costs for the NGOs and governments is a concern expressed by all parties involved. The integration of gorilla, veterinary, and ecological monitoring in the Virungas across nations and across organizational jurisdictions needs to be addressed. A common data architecture which can integrate information collection is needed. With regards to IGCP, the team observed separation of local identity with ICGP and AWF with discreet branding of both organizations in Musanze and Kinigi, Rwanda. This led the team to wonder whether IGCP would evolve into its own independent organization distinct from its three founding institutions (WWF, FFI and AWF). Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes VI. Location: Maiko National Park and Tayna Nature Reserve, DRC (source: carpe.umd.edu/where-carpe-works/maiko/ accessed 21 October 2009) Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes UGADEC areas in the eastern DRC in Larger Context Lead Organizations: Conservation International, Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund, International Gorilla Conservation Programme, Mountain Gorilla Veterinary Project, Key Personnel: Juan Carlos Bonilla - DFGFI/CI, Mike Cranfield - MGVP, Bryna Griffin - DFGFI USAID CARPE Landscape: Maiko-Tayna-Kahuzi-Biega Landscape -- 67,121 km² Target Species: Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei); Subspecies -- Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 1. 2007 GA-0413 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Biodiversity Surveys and Monitoring of the Maiko National Park and UGADEC Community-Based Wildlife Corridor, Eastern DRC. The purpose of this project is to improve conservation of biodiversity in Eastern DRC by surveying and monitoring great apes. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes USAID/FWS: $100,000.00 Leveraged Funds: $22,500.00 2. 2008 GA-0462 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Community-based conservation: Establishing physical boundary demarcations for the Kisimba-Ikobo Nature Reserve, Eastern DRC. The purpose of this project is to demarcate the boundaries of Kisimba-Ikobo Nature Reserve. USAID/FWS: $28,727.00 Leveraged Funds: $5,617.00 3. 2008 GA-0492 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund The Democratic Republic of Congo Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center. The purpose of this project is to establish a facility based in Kasugho, DRC to rescue and rehabilitate orphaned eastern gorillas. USAID/FWS: $298,845.00 Leveraged Funds: $457,487.00 4. 2008 GA-0539 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund Linking Ecosystem Health with Integrated Conservation and Development Initiatives in Maiko Tayna Kahuzi-Biega and Virunga Volcanoes Landscapes in DRC/Rwanda. The purpose of this project is to improve human health in communities that live in close proximity to great apes. USAID/FWS: $199,981.00 Leveraged Funds: $213,053.00 5. 2009 GA-0594 Recipient: Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund. The Democratic Republic of Congo Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center Project. The Recipient will train GRACE staff on animal care, veterinary care, implementation of conservation education programs, and data collection procedures and analysis; develop standard operating procedures for the center; move existing captive gorillas from elsewhere including Rwanda. USAID/FWS: $99,848.00 Leveraged Funds: $535,007.00 6. 2009 GA-0574 Recipient: International Conservation and Education Fund Building Capacity at Tayna Center for Conservation Biology for Video-Centered Outreach Activities. The Recipient will improve protection of Eastern Lowland gorillas through increased awareness of local communities surrounding the Gorilla Rehabilitation and Conservation Education Center (GRACE) by creating and maintaining a video production and dissemination of conservation information capacity. USAID/FWS: $49,500.00 Leveraged Funds: $36,510.00 Activity: Research and Monitoring, Enforcement, Boundary demarcation and Landscape Conservation, Sanctuary support/mountain gorilla survival, Training and Outreach Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Project presentation ex-situ in Rwanda. Inquiry with in-country and regional professional peers. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Interviews with key informants: -- Christopher Kerr - ex DFGFI/PASA, Patrick Mehlman - CI, Felicia Nutter - ex MGVP, Chris Whittier - ex MGVP Findings: Our case focused on the Dian Fossey grants. Established by renowned conservationist Dian Fossey as the Digit Fund, and renamed the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund International after her death in 1985, DFGFI has conducted conservation and research projects in Africa for over 40 years. Since 2001, DFGFI has established a strategic partnership with customary authorities from traditional territories (collectivités) in the eastern DRC, who have organized themselves into local community associations with the objective of establishing community-based reserves. The associations are in turn organized into a larger group, the Union of Associations for the Conservation of Gorillas and Community Development in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (UGADEC). UGADEC is the local partner in the implementation of this project. DFGFI assisted UGADEC develop planning, management and field implementation capacity, as well as secure financing from partners such as Conservation International (CI), the Global Conservation Fund (GCF), the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and USAID, among others, to support conservation and development projects. This alliance is a major outcome of CARPE support and its presence has allowed GACF-CARPE grants to buttress conservation efforts in an area of major conflict and poor governance structures. The key element of UGADEC’s overall strategy is implementing a land use and development plan for over 5 million hectares of their ancestral territories in the Congo Forest and the Albertine Rift . With DFGFI technical support, the traditional authorities in UGADEC have developed a plan that anchors on a chain of nature reserves covering an estimated area of 1.2 million hectares (which encompass most of the remaining habitat of the endangered Grauer’s gorilla and create a conservation corridor between the state-run Maiko and Kahuzi-Biega National Parks), and focalized investments in the surrounding “development zones” in key development aspects such as health, education, and livelihoods. A $100,000 2008 grant from USFW supported biodiversity surveys in 3 areas, 2 in Maiko, 1 in REGOUWA (community reserve). The work focused on megafauna including not only gorillas but elephants, okapi, chimps and the rare Congolese peacock. USFWS supported establishment of the GRACE sanctuary which raises issues for USAID about whether such funds could be properly scored as biodiversity earmark funds. Although USFWS is primarily concerned about the survival great apes in the wild, particulary mountain gorillas, some sanctuary activities may not meet USAID’s strict criteria. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes VII. Location: Western Highland (Cross River) Landscape: Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary, Cameroon Highlands, Northwest and Southwest Provinces, Cameroon. (http://www.berggorilla.de/english/gjournal/crossr.html accessed 21 October, 2009) Lead Organization: Wildlife Conservation Society Key Personnel: Aaron Nicholas - WCS USAID CARPE Landscape: No CARPE Presence; USAID Nigeria The Cross River Gorilla inhabits the transboundary Western Highlands of Cameroon and Nigeria along the Cross River. This 12,000 km2 region is presently outside the designated CARPE landscapes. Target Species: Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) USFWS Grants relevant to site: 1. 2007 GA-0363 98210-7-G145 Recipient: Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla in Cameroon and Nigeria USFWS: $87,291.00 2. 2007 GA-0420 98210-7-G291 Recipient: Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla in Cameroon and Nigeria USFWS: $84,427.00 3. 2008 GA-0511 Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Recipient: Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla Gorilla gorilla diehli in Cameroon and Nigeria USFWS: $80,088.00 Leveraged Funds: $49,675.00 4. 2009 GA-0617 Recipient: Wildlife Conservation Society Conservation of the Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) in Cameroon and Nigeria USFWS:$160,610.00 Leveraged Funds:$57,234.00 5. 2006 GA-0265 Recipient: Fauna and Flora International, Developing Infrastructure for the Protection of Cross River Gorillas in SE Nigeria and SW Cameroon. Support to secure the long-term survival of the population of the Cross River gorillas and other great apes living in this region and their habitats through law enforcement activities backed by strong community education and sensitization programs. USFWS $89,227 6. GA-0371 98210-7-G190 Recipient: Fauna and Flora International, Inc.Support to the Conservation Management of Cross River gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli) at Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary, SE Nigeria and Bechati-Lebialem, SW Cameroon Award amount: $65,390.00 7. GA-0490 Fauna and Flora International Community-based Management and Conservation of Cross River gorilla at the Bechati-Lebialem Forest and Bechati-Mone Forest Corridor, Western Cameroon Award Amount: $36,131.00 Activity: Research and Monitoring, Enforcement, Training, Landscape (habitat) Conservation, Corridor development (Bechati-Mone), Livelihood and Outreach Evaluation Team Data Methodology: Direct observations with participation in field activities. Three day hike into the main station of the Kagwene Sanctuary; accompanied rangers on monitoring patrol, observed WCS and MINFOF working on governance issues including non￾permit grazing of cattle, sheep and goat herds within Sanctuary boundaries; Met with key informants in surrounding urban areas and outside the field area Interviews with key informants: -- Emmanuel Chin, Regional Director, Ministry of Forestry and Wildlife, Gov. of Cameroon; WCS research personnel in Kagwene Field Station; Louis Nkembi. Director Environment and Rural Development Foundation (ERuDeF) Findings: Kagwene Gorilla Sanctuary is one of 12 or so pockets of habitat (see map) for the Cross River Gorilla. This habitat resembling a “string of pearls” spans the Cameroon-Nigeria border, but the evaluation was confined to the Cameroon side (a CARPE/CBFP country). The Cross River Gorilla is considered the most endangered Great Ape in Africa with less than 300 individuals remaining. The current priorities and focus of conservation efforts include securing remaining Cross River habitat; enhancing understanding of the status of species; developing a landscape conservation approach that restores connectivity between isolated populations; and Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes building governmental and local conservation capacity. Cross River Gorillas throughout their range are not habituated for either research or ecotourism purposes. At present, this seems appropriate in the areas in which the team traveled. A recent report suggested that at some point in the future, ecotourism based on the Cross River gorilla might be feasible. The GACF does not support any ecotourism grants at present; this theme was not evaluated. The evaluation team was able to join WCS researchers in tracking Cross River Gorillas in Kagwene. Individual gorilla nests and fecal specimens were observed as well as obvious sign of recent travel in the forest. The mountainous terrain in Kagwene is challenging with significant relief that tops out at around 6600 ft. In the reserve, the team observed illegal livestock grazing with cattle ranging near the highest meadows in the small sanctuary. The evaluation team was able to observe the process of conflict resolution with the local grazer whose cattle were found in the park. The team found that USFWS was playing a core donor role for the Western Highlands landscape with support grants applying to partners in both Nigeria and in Cameroon. At this time no transboundary coordinating body has been established as has been done in TNS, the Virunga landscape and elsewhere in the CARPE Congo Basin landscapes. A planning document undertaken by concerned NGO and government agencies for planning hints at the connectivity and need for coordinated action. The team felt that such a body could reinforce efforts to scale up the conservation effort. The team noted that this was an incredibly rich area with very little international support and constituency. WCS has a significant ground presence. Other organizations collaborated with WCS or had their own programs. Recently a large German-funded project was undertaken to support improved management of the Takamanda Reserve. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Strategic Support Descriptions Best Practices Guidelines The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group with partial funding from the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund has developed a series of guidelines to address critical issues in great ape conservation, drawing on the expertise of PSG members to create a consensus of best practices for field conservationists. Each publication in the series will provide up￾to-date guidance for scientists working on a daily basis with great apes, as well as for the many development organizations, donors and government agencies that are involved in great ape conservation. Best Practice Guidelines to Reduce the Impact of Logging Morgan, D. and Sanz, C. 2007. Best Practice Guidelines for Reducing the Impact of Commercial Logging on Great Apes in Western Equatorial Africa. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. One of the fiercest dangers to great apes is the destruction of their forest habitat by commercial logging operations. This threat was highlighted in May 2005 at an expert workshop held in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo. In response, Drs. David Morgan and Crickette Sanz have developed a new set of best-practices guidelines for Western Equatorial Africa, to help blunt the worst effects of tropical logging on the surviving great apes in the region. Targeted at forestry managers and partners working in logging concessions, these guidelines present practical, straightforward recommendations to help reduce the impact of logging on great apes, including cost-benefit analyses and the expected long-term consequences for great apes in the region. If these guidelines are upheld by professionals working in tropical forestry, they will contribute greatly to the survival of great apes in the region, and will serve as a blueprint for developing site-specific management plans. Best Practice Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Great Apes Beck, B., Walkup, K., Rodrigues, M., Unwin, S., Travis, D. and Stoinski, T. 2007. Best Practice Guidelines for the Re-introduction of Great Apes. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. Re-introduction is one of many proposed tools for conserving great apes, but the process may be long, complex, expensive and often fraught with pitfalls. To assist current and future re-introduction projects, the IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group has produced the Best-Practice Guidelines for Great Ape Re-introduction, designed to provide a framework of simple, practical standards for wildlife professionals working with great ape re-introduction. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Although the IUCN has previously established working protocols for plant and animal re￾introduction, the great apes present unique challenges and concerns owing to their singular cognitive development. This prompted the Primate Specialist Group to reconsider the existing guidelines in terms of the specific needs of great apes. The resulting synthesis, representing the expert opinion of primatologists and re-introduction practitioners, is presented here as part of the series of best-practices documents. Specifically designed for rehabilitators and specialists in re-introduction, these guidelines start from the fundamental assumption that re-introductions should not endanger wild populations of great apes or the ecosystems they inhabit. Equally important is the health and welfare of the individual great apes being re-introduced, as well as the caretaker staff and the residents of the surrounding areas. The re-introduction guidelines also require that the factors which first threatened great apes in the proposed site of release have been addressed and resolved. For all great ape individuals being considered for re-introduction, the guidelines recommend extensive medical screenings, to protect both the re-introduced individuals and any wild apes they may interact with. Once re-introduced, the apes must be closely monitored for at least a year – a challenge in itself, given the apes’ size, strength and wide-ranging habits. The new guidelines address these and many other issues in detail, and the Primate Specialist Group recommends that they be taken into consideration by all groups and programs planning great ape re-introduction. Best Practice Guidelines for Surveys and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations Kühl, H., Maisels, F., Ancrenaz, M. and Williamson, E. A. 2008. Best Practice Guidelines for Surveys and Monitoring of Great Ape Populations. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group is publishing new guidelines for surveys and monitoring of great ape populations. These guidelines address a need which has existed since great ape studies began – the challenge of collecting consistently high-quality data for comparison between a wide variety of sites, and often across many years. This need is driven less by academic interest than by the urgent demands of field-based conservation. The maelstrom of threats which now endanger all the great apes must be addressed by immediate action on every scale: initiatives at individual sites, strategies on the regional and national level, and species-wide action plans and international accords. All of these efforts must be founded on accurate field data – and to fully understand the impact of specific threats, and to measure if conservation programs are succeeding, it is essential to have baseline density estimates and sustained monitoring of great ape populations. The newest publication in the Best Practice series outlines current approaches to these issues, offering guidance and perspective on choices that must be made by wildlife biologists, site managers, government agencies and the conservation community at large. This report provides an overview of the variety of survey methodologies that have been Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes developed, as well as a decision tree to help select the approach that is best for a particular site or situation, depending on available resources. As a continuation of this report, a series of modules will be made available online, which will present detailed information on survey design, field techniques, analytical approaches, and practical issues such as logistics, finance and standardized reporting. These new IUCN guidelines will help researchers to standardize their data collection and, just as importantly, will allow for improved comparisons between datasets. This will complement the A.P.E.S. database (http://apes.eva.mpg.de), which is intended to serve as a repository for survey data on great apes, and to analyze trends in their populations. These survey and monitoring guidelines, combined with resources available via A.P.E.S., are important steps towards a comprehensive understanding of the conservation status of great apes, at both the population and species level. Best Practice Guidelines for Mitigating Human - Great Ape Conflict Hockings, K. and Humle, T. 2009. Best Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Mitigation of Conflict Between Humans and Great Apes. IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland. The IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group has published a new set of guidelines on the prevention and mitigation of conflict between humans and great apes. Presented as part of the Best Practice series for great ape conservation, this report is designed to help researchers and wildlife managers understand the causes of human - great ape conflict, and find equitable ways to resolve it. Written by Drs. Kimberley Hockings and Tatyana Humle, these guidelines focus on an increasingly troublesome issue: the intensifying interactions between humans and great apes, which often flare into conflicts over immediate resources such as food and water. All too often, the ultimate cause of these conflicts is the inexorable expanse of human settlements into the great apes’ remaining forest habitat. With the majority of great apes surviving outside of parks and other protected areas, careful strategies are necessary to avoid conflicts whenever possible, or else to minimize their impact to all involved. This newest publication in the Best Practice series offers guidelines for dealing with two particular aspects of human - great ape interaction – their conflicts over resources, and attacks by great apes on humans. These guidelines are meant to give researchers and wildlife managers a framework in which to understand human - great ape conflict, as well as providing a range of options and potential countermeasures to employ. These guidelines are intended not as a simple list of problems and solutions, but as an integrated conceptual structure which has been designed to help wildlife managers address the needs of both great apes and humans wherever they interact. One additional publications currently under development and supported by the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund includes: Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes • Best Practices Guidelines for Tourism with Wild Great Apes. Great Ape Species Action Plans Tutin, C., Stokes, E., Boesch, C., Morgan, D., Sanz, C., Reed, T., Blom, A., Walsh, P., Blake, S., Kormos, R. 2005. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Chimpanzees and Gorillas in Western Equatorial Africa. Washington DC: Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International. Available in French and English Oates, J., Sunderland-Groves, J., Bergl, R., Dunn, A., Nicholas, A., Takang, E., Omeni, F., Imong, I., Fotso, R., Nkembi, L. and Williamson, L. 2007. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of the Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli). IUCN/SSC Primate Specialist Group and Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. Available in French and English Kormos, R. & Boesch, C. 2003. Regional Action Plan for the Conservation of Chimpanzees in West Africa. Washington DC: Center for Applied Biodiversity Science at Conservation International. Available in French and English In development: Action Plan for the Conservation of the Nigeria/Cameroon chimpanzee Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 11 --List of Sources for Potential Matching and Leveraged Funds There is a paucity of funders supporting single species conservation. Surprisingly, this is also the case for charismatic species such as great apes, even though most wildlife conservation donors connect to nature via some identity with certain species; despite the fact that single species are universally employed in conservation fundraising and conservation awareness campaigns. Non-governmental organizations have been rather successful in raising funds for single species conservation from a wide variety of donors including members, major individual donors, foundations, corporations and various bilateral and multilateral governmental agencies. In the governmental realm, the USFWS Great Ape Conservation Fund (along with its fellow cohort of other species funds within the Wildlife Without Borders program) represents a unique bilateral funding effort that has no comparable international governmental funding entity in the world. The Global Environmental Facility of the World Bank and United Nations has endeavored in this realm through multi-lateral support for biodiversity. Single species funding is often implicitly embedded within many governmental funding efforts such as USAID’s CARPE landscape effort. That much said, single species funding programs are rare. Given the limited playing field, the USFWS’s GACF is well positioned to play a leadership role not only in advancing Great Ape conservation on the ground through its own targeted grants but also by leveraging and attracting other resources to the issue. USFWS investments serve to affirm field conservation activities that few donors have the capacity to validate and thus decrease the level of risk involved for donors unfamiliar with the geography or conservation context. The opportunity for the USFWS to leverage resources and elevate the opportunity for great ape conservation is enormous and relatively untapped. The evaluation team highly recommends the USFWS to expend some its resources to engage the broader great ape and international conservation funding community to enhance scarce resources for great ape conservation. This recommendation is equally applicable to USFWS’s other species funds for its own programmatic goals. USFWS should endeavor to convene a strategic donor meeting annually and to develop partnerships with other donors to leverage resources. At this point in time, the leveraging function is left to individual grantseekers and while this is extremely valuable for project level implementation and should remain a criterion for proposal review, there is an another separate leveraging opportunity that could be deployed from the overall USFWS programmatic level that is lacking. In essence, funding can attract other funding. In service to this fund raising strategy, the USFWS should engage some of the following donors in an annual Great Ape donor summit. The list below is not exhaustive as there are many funders the team could not research in depth given the broad scope of this evaluation. The list is not intended to confer some exclusivity -- only that USFWS should engage with funders that are incorporated as strict grantmakers versus those that are grantseekers which re-grant funds raised from donors as conflict of interest issues often arise in such circumstances. Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Potential Foundations: 1. Arcus Foundation 2. John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation 3. Glaser Progressive Foundation 4. Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation 5. David and Lucille Packard Foundation 6. Marisla Foundation 7. Howard G. Buffett Foundation 8. Turner Foundation/UN Foundation 9. Disney Conservation Foundation 10. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 11. Global Green Grants Fund 12. Richard and Rhoda Goldman Fund 13. Liz Claiborne Art Ortenburg Conservation Fund 14. National Geographic Society 15. Rockefeller Philanthropic Associates 16. Alexander Abraham Foundation 17. Animal Welfare Trust 18. Future for Nature 19. Whitley Fund for Nature 20. Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation 21. John Aspinall Foundation Some Governmental Efforts: 1. USAID 2. Global Environmental Facility 3. Congo Basin Forest Fund 4. UNEP GRASP (Great Ape Survival Project) 5. UNESCO 6. Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund 7. International Conservation Caucus Foundation Evaluation of CARPE Funding Transfer to the Great Ape Conservation Fund - Volume 2: Annexes Annex 12 Supplementary Evaluation Products o Contributions toward a Strategy for Great Ape Conservation in Africa o Guidelines for an Improved Communication Strategy for the Great Ape Conservation Fund o USAID Biodiversity Seminar Series PowerPoint Presentation