USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
EVALUATION OF BUSAID/BANGLADESH
ENVIRONMENT PROG RAM
June 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc.
EVALUATION OF USAID/BANGLADESH
ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
Submitted by:
Weidemann Associates, Inc.
In cooperation with:
Nathan Associates, Inc.
Submitted to:
USAID
Contract No.:
AEG-1-00-04-00010-00 Task 03
Period of Performance:
April-June 2006
DISCLAIMER
The author's views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for
International Development or the United States Government.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..............................................................................................................................................................4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................................................12
1. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................................................13
2. USAID STRATEGY AND PROGRAM HISTORY .......................................................................................................13
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ........................................................................................................................14
4. METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................................14
4.1 EVALUATION FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................................................15
4.2 EVALUATION OF PROJECT OUTCOMES .....................................................................................................15
5. FINDINGS: MACH ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
	5.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................16
	5.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................................16
5.3 PROJECT PHASING AND COSTS ...................................................................................................................17
5.4 RELEVANCE ......................................................................................................................................................17
5.5 EFFICACY .......................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.6 EFFICIENCY ......................................................................................................................................................18
6. FINDINGS: NSP .............................................................................................................................................................18
6.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ....................................................................................................................................18
	6.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................................. 19
6.3 PROJECT COSTS ...............................................................................................................................................21
6.4 RELEVANCE ......................................................................................................................................................21
6.5 EFFICACY .......................................................................................................................................................... 22
6.6 EFFICIENCY ......................................................................................................................................................23
7. IMPLICATIONS OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES ...........................................................................................................23
7.1 IMPACT OF CO-MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................................... 23
7.2 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ...............................................................................................................................24
7.3 ECONOMIC BENEFITS ..................................................................................................................................... 24
7.4 SOCIAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................................. 25
7.5 INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS ........................................................................................................................26
7.6 INSTITUTIONAL IMPACTS ............................................................................................................................. 26
7.7 EFFECTIVENESS OF MONITORING AND EVALUATION ..........................................................................26
8. SUSTAINABILITY OF PROGRAM OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................27
8.1 MACH ................................................................................................................................................................. 27
8.2 NSP ...................................................................................................................................................................... 28
9. POSSIBLE FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS ............................................................................................................................30
9.1 MACH .................................................................................................................................................................30
9.2 NSP ......................................................................................................................................................................31
10. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL STRATEGY ...............................................................31
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADB Asian Development Bank
AIG Alternative Income Generation
BCAS Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies
CODEC Community Development Center, Chittagong
CNRS Center for Natural Resource Studies
DFID Department for International Development, of the United Kingdom
DoE Department of Environment, of the MoEF
DoF Department of Fisheries, of the MoFL
ECNEC Executive Committee of the National Economic Council
FD Forest Department, of the MoEF
FFP Fourth Fisheries Project (of the World Bank)
FRUG Federation of Resource Users' Groups
GEF Global Environment Facility
ICFP Inland Capture Fisheries Policy
IRG International Resources Group
ISMP Infrastructure Support to MACH Project
LGC Local Government Committee
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MACH Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry
MoEF Ministry of Environment and Forests
MoFL Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
NACOM Nature Conservation Management
NGO Non-Government Organization
NSP Nishorgo Support Project
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
PA Protected Area
RDRS Rangpur Dinajpur Rural Service
RMO Resources Management Organization
RUG Resource Users' Group
S06 Strategic Objective 6
USAID United States Agency for International Development
UFC Upazila Fisheries Committee
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer (administrative head of an upazila)
UP Union Parishad (elected local government, below the upazila level)
Upazila Sub-District (formerly thana)
WB World Bank
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The evaluation team would like to express its appreciation to the Cognizant Technical Officer,
Azharul Mazumder, to Alia Islam, and others at USAID/Bangladesh for the excellent
arrangements made for its visit to Bangladesh, including the field visits to all project sites and the
follow-up discussions in Bangkok. We would also like to thank Anne Williams, Office Director,
Economic Growth, Food and Environment, for her wise counsel and forjoining most key
meetings. We are also grateful to the Mission Director, Gene V. George, Deputy Mission
Director, Beth Paige and SO I I Team Leader, Todd Sorenson for their thorough briefing and de￾briefing of the team.
The Project teams - Winrock/BCAS/CNRS/Caritas and IRG/CODEC/NACOM/RDRS - went to
extraordinary lengths to facilitate the team's work by the provision of documents and other
information, and by arranging and participating in the field visits. The help of IRG in providing
office space was especially appreciated.
Finally, we would like to acknowledge the contribution of our Team Assistant mi Dhaka, Md.
Shahriar Mahmud, and to Sharon Williams of Weidemann Associates, Inc. who skillfully edited
and formatted this report.
Peter W. Whitford
Brent Tegler
Md. Khairul Alam
Md. Anwarul Islam
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4
Raise Plus- Limited Soope of Work
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
USAID/ Bangladesh initiated the Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community
Husbandry (MACH) activity in 1998 to help promote the conservation and sustainable
management of critical floodplain and wetland habitats. In 2002, Strategic Objective for
Environment (SO6) was set out as a means of building on ongoing interventions and expanding to
terrestrial ecosystems, particularly the protected upland forest areas. S06 has an overall goal of
strengthening the efforts of the government of Bangladesh and the NGOs in environmental and
natural resources management.
Adoption of S06 led USAID to support a second phase of MACH and to initiate a new program,
originally called Co-management of Tropical Forest Resources in Bangladesh but later changed
to Nishorgo Support Project (NSP)', which began in June 2003. The overall objective of NSP
is to take the pressure off targeted Protected Areas (PAs) so as to safeguard and restore their role
as important habitat for tropical forest biodiversity and ensure that they continue to provide
critical environmental services, in particular, watershed protection. NSP was designed to build on
the experience of MACH, especially in the management area.
Objectives of the Evaluation. The Statement of Work under the Task Order authorizing the
evaluation states that the main objective is "to conduct a thorough evaluation of the ongoing
Environment Program in order to help USAID/ Bangladesh in setting the course of its program
implementation under the Mission's new strategic options. Specific objectives are to: evaluate the
overall technical performance of the ongoing programs; suggest potential variations on
interventions to improve the ongoing programs; and, recommend realistic strategic as well as
programmatic options to help realign the programs to meet the requirements of the new Mission
strategy as well as new developments in the environment sector in Bangladesh."
Methodology. The evaluation had the following phases: document review and interviews with
key USAID and contractor representatives in the Washington D.C. area; field work in
Bangladesh, including interviews with USAID staff, other donor representatives, and contractor
staff, visits to all project sites and report drafting; follow-up meetings with the USAID/ Regional
Development Mission and others in Bangkok; and, finalization of the report and final de-briefing
with USAID in Dhaka and Washington. During the field work, particular emphasis was placed
on meetings with project beneficiaries at the village level - several hundred people - to verify
reported project achievements, discuss unresolved problems, understand the capabilities of the
co-management organizations, and assess the sustainability of project innovations.
The team used an evaluation framework developed by the World Bank, which measures project
or program outcomes along three axes:
• Relevance - the extent to which the project addresses key sector priorities and is
consistent with USAID and government sector strategies.
• Efficacy - the extent to which project objectives have been achieved (or show promise of
being achieved), using quantitative or qualitative measures as appropriate.
• Efficiency - the extent to which benefits exceeded costs (where quantitative measures are
available) or resources were used cost-effectively
i Nishorgo means "beautiful nature" in Bangla.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 5
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
Project outcomes or impacts were evaluated according to the following measures:
• Co-Management - the value added by the co-management model pioneered in MACH
and adapted for NSP over processes used in the past.
• Environmental/ Biodiversity - the project's impact on the conservation or restoration of
targeted aquatic, riparian or forest ecosystems.
• Economic - the impact of project activities (including alternative income promotion) on
the livelihood and income of local people
• Social - the impact of the project on community organizations and empowerment, the
role of women and the status of ethnic minorities.
• Infrastructure - the relevance of project infrastructure to project objectives and the
quality of work implemented.
• Institutional - the effectiveness of the project in strengthening institutions at the
national, local government and community levels, including the role of NGOs.
Findings: MACH. Project MACH aims to maintain and recover selected natural flood plain
ecosystems and associated fisheries, as well as increasing biodiversity, providing alternative
sources of income for poor fishing families, testing the co-management model and extending
project innovations more widely in the country.
As a pilot project, MACH has operated at three sites and has two core elements - co-management
and supporting infrastructure - and three supporting components - alternative income generation
(AIG), biodiversity enhancements and an outreach program. Under co-management (CM),
MACH has established 42 Resource Management Organizations (RMOs), with 16 directly
involved in wetland management, to manage specific water bodies. Each RMO consists of a
number of fishermen/ beneficiaries, as well as local leaders and women members. After the
RMO is well established and has developed a management plan, it is allowed to take over the
lease for the water body, previously held by private parties. Management plans typically include
no fishing zones or sanctuaries, restrictions on fishing in the spawning season, bans on non￾sustainable fishing gear and practices, and reintroduction of locally lost species. RMO
management plans often call for supporting infrastructure, such as the re-excavation of
floodplain lakes or channels and placement of fish aggregation devices, which provide food and
shelter for fish and deter poaching.
As the management plans typically restrict fishing during the "hungry season", the project has
recognized the need for AIG. This is done by formation of Resource User Groups (RUGs),
institution of group savings, training of RUG members in an activity of their choice, and
provision of micro-credit, for economic activities. Micro-credit is channeled through Federations
of Resource User Groups (FRUGs) to the RUGs. Biodiversity enhancements comprise two
major elements: wetland and riparian reforestation; and, support for eco-tourism. In order to
extend its impact to other areas of Bangladesh, MACH has developed an outreach program with
the Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP), and has provided funding for infrastructure at nine sites where
resource management was sufficiently strong. MACH has established Local Government
Committees (LGCs) at the sub-district level, comprising local government officials, elected
officials, and the chairs of the RMOs and FRUGs. Cooperation with FFP has allowed MACH
experience to be reflected in the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy, prepared by the Department of
Fisheries (DoF) and now adopted by the government.
Relevance: MACH is highly consistent with both USAID and government policies and strategies
for natural resources management. The CM model is working well and appears to have distinct
advantages over previous approaches in the sector.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 6
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
Efficacy: Nearly all targets have been achieved and some exceeded. Wetland productivity has
been substantially enhanced - for example, fish production increased by 140% and consumption
by 52% - and a good start has been made on extending project innovations to other areas, through
the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy.
Efficiency: The evaluation team made a crude but conservative estimate of economic efficiency,
which gave a benefit-cost ration of 2.4. This shows clearly that the project interventions were
well justified. Any follow-on project could probably be implemented at lower per ha costs and
thus show even better returns.
Findings: NSP. NSP aims to collaboratively develop CM Agreements between the Forest
Department (FD) and local stakeholders, leading to measurable improvements in forest and
resource conservation in selected PAs and their buffer zones. Five PAs are presently covered and
a sixth is to be selected. CM Councils and CM Committees have been formed (or are in process
of formation) for each PA, with representation from the FD, community leaders, forest users and
women. They will be expected to revise previous management plans for the PAs and later
implement them, deter illegal use of PA resources (through community patrolling and
cooperation with the FD), support AIG activities, and manage half of revenues collected from PA
visitors for visitor facilities, interpretive materials, and habitat restoration. Government funding
for NSP has recently been released and is supporting infrastructure, such as trails, signs and
visitor centers.
Discussion is ongoing as to how to meet the challenge of mitigating the potential negative
economic impact of NSP on the 270,000 people who depend to a greater or lesser extent on PA
resources, for fuelwood, sticks, poles etc. Forest User Groups (FUGs) have been established and
a Landscape Development Fund will soon be making small grants. It is proposed to link with
established micro-credit NGOs to fund AIG activities. The project is also making efforts to
encourage tourism to the PAs and to bring in the private sector.
Relevance: NSP is closely aligned with Government and USAID biodiversity conservation
policies and strategies. With a population of 140 million in a territory of 144,000 km2,
Bangladesh has one of the lowest ratios of protected area per capita in the world. Conversely, the
remaining remnants of natural and other forest are especially precious, particularly as they still
support valuable habitats and are beginning to be appreciated by a rising middle class. At the
same time, the project has recognized the necessity of shielding a very vulnerable surrounding
population from the impacts of denial of access to the PAs.
Efficacy: As the project is only at mid-point, it is too early to tell definitively whether it will
achieve its objectives. While there is reasonable likelihood that the CM institutions will be
functioning, FUGs and other AIG mechanisms will be in place, tourism expanded and generating
revenue locally and that funds for infrastructure will be spent, it is not yet clear that this will be
enough to ensure that there will be "measurable improvement in forest and resource
conservation" in the PAs and buffer zones.
Efficiency: While quantitative measures of economic efficiency are not generally applicable to
biodiversity conservation activities, the evaluation team is satisfied that project costs are
comparable to similar Global Environmental Facility (GEF) projects and that funds are being
used cost-effectively.
Implications of Program Outcomes. Co-Management. The principle of CM -management of
resources by the users, reinforced with local elected officials, local leaders, and women - is
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 7
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
working well in MACH and a similar model shows promise of working well in NSP, though
several more years of project support will be needed before the CM bodies become self￾sustaining. The CM approach appears to have increased the ability of the user groups to
withstand pressure from previous leaseholders and other powerful people to appropriate the
benefits of the program. The evaluation team found no examples of elite benefit capture in the
main MACH program2.
The NSP PAs are larger than the MACH wetlands and their resource management issues tend to
be more complex. The MACH resources users are also the beneficiaries of project interventions,
whereas NSP faces a particular challenge in mitigating impacts on the surrounding population of
denied access to PA resources.
Biodiversity Impacts. MACH has clearly demonstrated the value of sanctuaries and associated
infrastructure in conserving fish stocks during the dry season and in maintaining a richer diversity
of species. The riparian plantations have been locally important in providing bird and animal
habitats but their impact on siltation of water bodies is likely to be quite limited. Biodiversity and
economic benefits at the Kaliakoir site are threatened by uncontrolled effluent discharges from
numerous dyeing works nearby, resulting in fish kills. It is still too early to see biodiversity
benefits in NSP. The NSP project team has understandably put further development of the
biodiversity management plans on hold until the CM Councils and Committees are more firmly
established, various means of AIG have been tested and funding is in place for habitat restoration.
Economic Impacts. Fish production in the MACH pilot sites is already 140% above the 1999
baseline. AIG has also been effective in raising incomes of RUG members by about 46%. Credit
recovery rates are a very satisfactory 96%. With hindsight, the evaluation team questions
whether it was necessary to build a project micro-credit system rather than to contract with
existing NGOs to extend their programs. For NSP, the first economic benefits are beginning to
be seen, as AIG activities get started. While these can potentially be scaled up, especially
through agreements with established NGOs, the team doubts whether micro-credit alone can
compensate for the economic costs of denying access to the protected areas. The landscape
development fund will be a useful supplement but a more strategic and quantified approach is
needed. The team suggests that strategies be developed for replacing resources like fuelwood.
NSP has appropriately placed considerable emphasis on stimulating eco-tourism by preparing
publicity materials and, in the near future, providing visitor facilities. The recent decision to
allow fees to be charged to visitors and for half of such fees to be retained by the CM Councils is
a very positive development. NSP's efforts to engage the support of the private sector are
beginning to pay off.
Social Impacts. There is clear evidence that the benefits of MACH are reaching the poorest and
that CM has equipped the poor to resist pressure from the powerful. However, this is more
problematical for riparian plantations where landowners typically get a large share of the timber
production benefits. An outstanding achievement of the project has been the empowerment of
women. The project has operated in conservative rural areas, where women have traditionally
had few rights and little power over their lives or livelihoods. By insisting that a proportion of
positions in RMOs and FRUGs be filled by women, and by setting up RUGs for women, the
project has forced the pace of social change. Social structures in and around the NSP sites are
more complex than in the floodplains. In these hilly, border areas, ethnic and religious minorities
are significant. Some of the forest villages are now inside the PAs. Other villages have illegally
encroached on forest land. At one site, refugees from Myanmar are a further complication.
2 However, riparian plantations could be criticized on this score.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 8
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
Although NSP has done good preliminary work on surveying and mapping the various groups,
much more needs to be done, to understand fully the present situation and to develop strategies
for each site.
Institutional Impacts. The success of both projects in building CM institutions has been
described. MACH staff played a key role in the development of the Inland Capture Fisheries
Strategy - a keystone document for the future development of the sub-sector. The overall impact
of MACH on the DoF, however, has been less than would have been desirable, as a result of a
decision at the outset to manage all project funds through the contractor team. NSP could have
similar success in CM, provided project support can be continued for a sufficient number of years
and can overcome the hurdles of size and social complexity. NSP has a greater focus than
MACH on effecting change in a government agency, by supporting the initiatives in the FD to
place PA management in the hands of a specialized subdivision. A particular challenge is that FD
staff do not have specialized training in PA and biodiversity management nor is there any obvious
source within Bangladesh where they can get it.
Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation. MACH has developed a powerful system of
monitoring and evaluation (M&E), based on key performance indicators related to the project
objectives. However, more work will be needed to boil down the database into simpler formats
for other users, at the local level. The evaluation team's major concern is the sustainability of the
M&E system after the project closes. It will be essential to develop a simplified system that can
be continued at the local level. The NSP M&E system is much less well advanced and data on
use of PA resources by local people is particularly scant. Project and FD staff need more training
in M&E.
Sustainability of Program Outcomes. MACH. Assuming completion of planned project
activities before the project closing date of October 2006, the view of the evaluation team is that
MACH's considerable achievements will be largely sustainable, provided the Government
remains committed to CM and to other elements of the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy. Having
said that, it is important to note that, without further support, some RMOs, RUGs and FRUGs
might not survive but most of these could probably be brought to self-sufficiency with continued
week-to-week project support. Secondly, the team notes that considerable works remain to be
completed with the 416b funds (approximately $1.3 million equivalent). While the project will
continue to show substantial benefits even if these works are deferred, it would clearly be in the
interest of all parties to find a mechanism to allow them to be completed. Thirdly, the design of
MACH was such that capacity building of the DoF was limited and it would be highly desirable
to find a way to sensitize and orient the local fisheries officers to the co-management model and
to their role in supporting the fishers.
For these reasons, the evaluation team proposes that USAID consider a short extension of MACH
II by 8 to 12 months - to ensure greater sustainability of MACH achievements and to allow
remaining 416b works to be completed. During the proposed extension, the focus would be on:
new initiatives to strengthen the DoF; continued support to the Local Government Committees;
intensive support to the lagging RMOs and FRUGs, with the objective of bringing these groups to
a self-sufficient stage at project's end; completion of all outstanding civil works; continued
outreach to FFP and other sites; carrying out an action plan for pollution reduction at Kaliakoir;
initiation of a simplified monitoring and evaluation system; and, identification of priority areas
for a possible expansion phase. It appears that the remaining project funds would be sufficient to
carry out this program.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 9
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
NSP. NSP has resulted in many significant positive changes in its first three years but there are
concerns regarding the ability of the project to ensure these changes become sustainable within
the remaining two years of the project. Sustainability may be assessed in terms of achieving
long-term protection of biodiversity within PAs and a long-term improvement in the livelihoods
of the population within the landscape zone. Four factors have been considered: the time required
to establish a positive and effective working relationship between the FD and the local population
in the CM of PAs; resource use within the PAs must change to enhance biodiversity conservation
but without negatively impacting the local population; Forest Reserves have a complex pattern of
encroachment and clear boundaries must be set; and, the newly formed CM Committees require a
significant amount of capacity building to become effective managers of the PAs.
There is also the question of the sustainability of AIG activities. NSP has found that there is a
strong dependency of a large poor and ultra poor population on resources from PAs. Under the
NSP, a very small proportion of the population within the landscape zone of PAs will be reached
by AIG, there will remain many people that require AIG training and support for this project to be
considered sustainable.
The evaluation team considers the co-management approach to PA management sound and, given
sufficient time and resources, the issues noted above can be addressed. It is the opinion of the
evaluation team that a second project will be needed to complete the work that the NSP has
started and to establish PAs that are self-sustaining.
Possible Follow-up Actions. MACH. Given the very positive experience of MACH and the
continuing importance of wetlands conservation from biodiversity and poverty alleviation points
of view, the case for a follow-up project or program seems quite clear. The team suggests that
any expansion phase follow the model of MACH, with the following adaptations: emphasis on
replication rather than demonstration; a strong element of capacity building for DoF; close
integration of the CM and civil works elements of the project; biodiversity enhancements split off
as a separate project; and, AIG activities still a necessary part of the package but achieved
through agreements with suitable major NGOs. Because of its demonstration nature, MACH has
been relatively cost and staff intensive and consideration should be given to streamlining the
model to see if costs can be reduced without significant loss of project quality. The evaluation
team recommends strongly against an immediate replication of MACH to the whole of
Bangladesh, given the high rate of failure in the past for similar rapid expansions. Many options
are available for geographic expansion but the team suggests the following: in-filling of gaps in
the three pilot areas; stepping out to areas adjacent to the pilot sites; and, adopting one or more
new regions. An alternative would be to focus on a complete watershed, through a watershed
management approach.
NSP. The chance of achieving full sustainability after the present project is completed in 2008
appears slim. A clear lesson from MACH is that building CM institutions takes considerable time
- 4 to 6 years in the opinion of the evaluation team. NSP co-management must establish a
working relationship between the FD and local stakeholders and address the varied issues of PA
management such as illegal felling, encroachment, current resource use, restoration, wildlife
management, and tourism.
An additional challenge for NSP is the necessity for finding viable compensatory mechanisms
(AIG) for the many people whose livelihoods will be adversely affected by restricting access to
resources from PAs. Although that process has started, a lot of learning by doing is still needed,
including mechanisms like providing alternative sources of fuelwood and other forest products
for the local poor; initiatives that are not yet in the project. Both these challenges argue for a
Evaluation of LISAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 10
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
second project to complete the work that has started and to establish PAs that are self-sustaining.
Such a project could also be the vehicle for extending the CM model to other protected areas,
including non-forest areas.
Recommendations for Future Environmental Strategy. Pressure on natural resources in
Bangladesh remains intense. Almost every square meter of the country's territory is used for one
human purpose or another and areas of undisturbed nature are very few. In its 2002 "Strategic
Plan for Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources, FY2002 -2008",
USAID/ Bangladesh argued for a reinforced USAID role in natural resources management, with
special emphasis on floodplain wetlands and protected forest areas. It noted that other donors
were addressing other natural resource and environmental issues. The team's review of available
documents, observations of conditions in the field and interviews with knowledgeable informants
suggest that the two priorities selected in 2002 -floodplain wetlands and forest protected areas -
should remain USAID's top environmental priorities for the immediate future. Suggestions for
follow-up actions to the two ongoing projects are given above.
The CM model has been shown convincingly to work in the floodplain fisheries sector and shows
promise of achieving the same result in forest PAs, provided in the latter case that well-targeted
support can be continued beyond 2008. The time may now be ripe for Bangladesh to generalize
this experience into a Protected Areas System Strategy. Given USAID's lead role in this subject
over the past several years, it would be logical for the agency to support the government in
developing such a strategy, some elements of which are already in place. Additional work,
however, is needed to articulate the roles of the FD, DoF and Department of the Environment in
future biodiversity protection and to lay out the steps needed to ensure consistent approaches for
forest and wetland protected areas, and possible future additions such as coastal and marine
sanctuaries. A possible outcome would be a single government agency to manage protected
areas; the framework most commonly seen in other countries is a national parks agency.
By supporting the development of a protected areas system strategy, USAID would be able to
identify the critical challenges that call for its support at the project level over the medium term.
While it would be premature to forecast the scope of future projects resulting from adoption of a
Protected Areas System Strategy, one might envisage further support of the NSP type for some or
all of the remaining 14 forest protected areas, plus possibly new protected areas for wetlands,
coasts and/or marine sanctuaries. However, this approach would entail a massive capacity
building effort. This is all the more reason to stay the course on NSP, to provide a firm basis for
future expansion.
Another project type that may fit USAID strategic objectives could be a program for carbon
sequestration through plantations of various kinds, including riparian. Such a project would
present excellent prospects for a public-private partnership, in which US corporations may see
advantages in leasing land for tree planting from the FD or private owners in return for carbon
credits or offsetting carbon footprints.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 11
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
USAID/Bangladesh Environment Project
Findings MACH NSP
Principle Findings:
Relevance Highly satisfactory Highly satisfactory
Efficacy Very satisfactory Some good early indications, but some changes needed to
ensure full success
Efficiency Very satisfactory - B/C ratio of 2.4 No quantitative measure available; cost-effectiveness
satisfactory
Detailed Findings:
Co-Management Very satisfactory Promising but continued efforts needed beyond end of
project
Biodiversity Very satisfactory Too early to tell but expected benefits remain feasible
Economic Very satisfactory Promising start in alternative income generation, eco￾tourism and private sector support but a lot remains to be
done
Social Highly satisfactory Strategic approach needed to avoid negative impacts
Institutional Satisfactory at the local level but Satisfactory initial work to build capacity of Forest
impact on Department of Fisheries Department but much remains to be done, especially
less than desirable training in rotected area management
Monitoring and Highly satisfactory but system now Attention needed to system design and staff training
Evaluation needs to be simplified
Sustainability
Largely sustainable as it stands but
additional support to weaker co￾management bodies and to
Department of Fisheries
strengthening could improve
sustainability even further
Time is needed to build effective co-management bodies
and to resolve other issues like alternatives for resource
users, sustainability at project end in 2008 appears unlikely
1.
2.
1.
Recommended Follow￾up Actions
3.
1.
2
Recommendations for .
3 USAID's Future .
4
Environmental
Strategy
.
Extension of MACH II by 8
to 12 months
Design of a replication
phase, in cooperation with
other donors
USAID funding of priority
areas within replication
phase
In remaining project period, continued attention to
co-management and strengthening the Forest
Department and greater attention to alternative
income generation, alternatives for resource users,
and park boundaries
Design a follow-up project to ensure sustainability
of NSP innovations and possibly extend them to
other areas
2.
Continue to give priority to floodplain wetlands and forest protected areas
Support development by the Bangladesh Government of a Protected Areas System Strategy
Based on the results of 2., select priority activities for future USAID support
Consider the potential of a carbon sequestration project through public- private
partnerships
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 12
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
1. Background
Given its geographic setting at the confluence of three major rivers - the Ganges, Brahmaputra
and Meghna - Bangladesh is rich in natural resources, especially soils and water. Historically,
this has led to "agricultural involution" - more and more intensive use of the very productive
delta land to support a steadily growing population, now 140 million people in a country of only
144,000 km2. This process has put extreme pressure on other resources, such as wetlands and
fisheries, forests and wildlife. The 50% of the population classified as poor rely heavily on the
use of natural resources and are the first to be affected when those resources are diminished or
degraded.
Wetlands cover about half the country and are a major source of fish protein. However, their
productivity has declined markedly and consequently, per capita fish consumption is declining
and prices are rising. Reasons include: the leaseholder system, which encourages short-term
over-exploitation; siltation of nursery and breeding areas; obstructions to fish migration from
roads and other development; expansion of cropland into wetlands and more intensive use of dry
season water for irrigation; water pollution; and, overfishing and use of destructive fishing
practices.
Forest cover has declined by more than 50% since 1970 and, outside the Sundarbans, "natural"
forests (mostly altered to some degree) cover less than 300 km2. Bangladesh has less than 0.02
ha of forest land per person, the lowest ratio in the world. The remaining forest remnants are
under intense pressure for timber production, gathering of fuelwood, land clearing for agriculture,
and encroachment by settlements. Nevertheless, some valuable habitats remain (supporting
tigers, elephants, gibbons and many other species) and the government has established 19 forest
protected areas (PAs)3 to date. However, relatively little has been done yet to safeguard these
areas, to educate the public on their biological richness, or to provide alternative livelihoods to
approximately one million people who presently use resources within the PAs.
2. USAID Strategy and Program History4
Building on earlier experience in disaster relief and the Flood Action Plan, USAID/ Bangladesh
initiated the Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry (MACH)
activity in 1998 to help promote the conservation and sustainable management of critical
floodplain and wetland habitats aimed at improving the food security of the natural resources
dependent population. This was followed in 2000 by the use of debt for nature funds under the
U.S. Tropical Forest Conservation Act (1998) to establish the Arannayk Foundation (Bangladesh
Tropical Forest Conservation Foundation), which awards grants on a competitive basis for
smaller-scale forest conservation activities.
These initiatives were given a policy framework as a Strategic Objective for Environment (S06),
as a means of building on ongoing interventions and expanding to terrestrial ecosystems,
3 Known variously as National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries, Game Reserves etc.
4 See USAID/ Bangladesh, "Strategic Plan for Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical
Forest Resources - FY 2002-2008", 2002, for full details.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 13
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
particularly the protected upland forest areas. S06 has an overall goal of strengthening the efforts
of the Government of Bangladesh and the NGOs in environmental and natural resources
management. The five themes of S06 include:
• Implementation of effective community based resources management mechanisms
• Restoration of selected habitats and ecosystems
• Implementation of selected policies
• Increased public awareness of key issues
• Improved institutional capacity
Adoption of S06 led USAID to support a second phase of MACH and to initiate a new program,
originally called Co-management of Tropical Forest Resources in Bangladesh but later changed
to Nishorgo Support Project (NSP)5, which began in June 2003. The overall objective of NSP
is to take the pressure off targeted PAs so as to safeguard and restore their role as important
habitat for tropical forest biodiversity and ensure that they continue to provide critical
environmental services, in particular, watershed protection. NSP was designed to build on the
experience of MACH, especially in the management area.
3. Objectives of the Evaluation
The Statement of Work under the Task Order authorizing the evaluation is shown in Attachment
D. It states that the main objective is "to conduct a thorough evaluation of the ongoing
Environment Program in order to help USAID/ Bangladesh in setting the course of its program
implementation under the Mission's new strategic options. Specific objectives are to:
1. Evaluate the overall technical performance of the ongoing programs.
2. Suggest potential variations on interventions to improve the ongoing programs.
3. Recommend realistic strategic as well as programmatic options to help realign the
programs to meet the requirements of the new Mission strategy as well as new
developments in the environment sector in Bangladesh."
4. Methodology
In accordance with its Statement of Work and the Final Work Plan approved by USAID, the
evaluation had the following phases:
1. Document review and interviews with key USAID and contractor representatives in the
Washington, D.C. area.
2. Field work in Bangladesh, including interviews with USAID staff, other donor
representatives, and contractor staff, visits to all project sites and report drafting.
3. Follow-up meetings with the USAID/ Regional Development Mission and with relevant
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) in Bangkok potentially able to offer training in
biodiversity management.
4. Finalization of the report and final de-briefing with USAID/Bangladesh and USAID in
Washington.
During the field work, particular emphasis was placed on meetings with project beneficiaries at
the village level, to verify reported project achievements, discuss unresolved problems,
understand the capabilities of the co-management organizations, and assess the sustainability of
5 Nishorgo means "beautiful nature" in Bangla.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 14
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
project innovations. In all, several hundred project beneficiaries and other rural people were met,
including members of co-management organizations and resource user groups, as well as local
elected and government officials and NGO field staff.
Meetings with donor representatives aimed to elucidate their overall interest in natural resources
management, their views on MACH and NSP, and their plans for future assistance.
Key documents consulted are listed in Appendix E, key persons met in Appendix F, a full list of
places visited in Appendix G and key maps in Appendix I. The Powerpoint presentation used in
phases 3 and 4 is reproduced in Appendix I.
4.1 Evaluation Framework
The team used an evaluation framework developed by the Independent Evaluation Group of the
World Bank and increasingly adopted by the European Union and others, which measures project
or program outcomes along three axes:
• Relevance - the extent to which the project as designed, and as implemented, addresses
key sector priorities and is consistent with USAID and government sector strategies.
• Efficacy - the extent to which project objectives have been achieved (or show promise of
being achieved), using quantitative or qualitative measures as appropriate.
• Efficiency - the extent to which benefits exceeded costs (where quantitative measures are
available) or resources were used cost-effectively
4.2 Evaluation of Project Outcomes
Project outcomes or impacts were evaluated according to the following measures:
• Co-Management - the value added by the co-management model pioneered in MACH
and adapted for NSP over processes used in the past
• Environmental/ Biodiversity - the project's impact on the conservation or restoration of
targeted aquatic, riparian or forest ecosystems, including any negative or unintended
impacts.
• Economic - the impact of project activities (including alternative income promotion) on
the livelihood and income of local people and other economic actors, including any
negative or unintended impacts.
• Social - the impact of the project on community organizations and empowerment, the
role of women and the status of ethnic minorities, including any negative or unintended
impacts.
• Infrastructure - the relevance of project infrastructure to project objectives and the
quality of work implemented
• Institutional - the effectiveness of the project in strengthening institutions at the
national, local government and community levels, including the roles of NGOs.
Sections 5 and 6 below summarize the principal findings of the evaluation with respect to MACH
and NSP respectively. Detailed findings can be found in Appendices A and B. Section 7 then
presents the expected outcomes of the projects according to the measures just listed, in a way that
facilitates comparison of the two project experiences. The likely sustainability of the
achievements of the two projects after external support is completed is assessed in Section 8,
followed by some recommendations on ways to expand the impact of project innovations to a
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 15
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
wider area - replication. Recommendations on appropriate follow-on activities in wetlands and
protected areas are made in Section 9, while the final section responds to the third objective of the
evaluation and explores possible options for future USAID strategy in the environment sector in
Bangladesh.
5. Findings: MACH
5.1 Project Objectives
Project MACH aims to maintain and recover selected natural flood plain ecosystems and
associated fisheries, as well as increasing biodiversity, providing alternative sources of income
for poor fishing families, testing the co-management model and extending project innovations
more widely in the country.
5.2 Project Description
As a pilot project, MACH has operated at three sites representing differing physical and social
conditions (see map in Appendix I). The MACH model has two core elements - co-management
and supporting infrastructure - and three supporting components - alternative income generation
(AIG), biodiversity enhancements and an outreach program. Under co-management, MACH has
established 42 Resource Management Organizations (RMOs), including 16 directly involved in
wetland management, to manage specific water bodies in the pilot project areas. Each RMO
consists of a number of fishermen/beneficiaries, as well as local leaders and women members.
After the RMO is well established and has developed a management plan, it is allowed to take
over the lease for the water body, previously held by private parties. Management plans typically
include no harvesting zones or sanctuaries, restrictions on fishing in the spawning season and
bans on non-sustainable fishing gear and practices, and, in some cases, reintroduction of locally
lost species.
RMO management plans often call for supporting infrastructure, such as the re-excavation of
floodplain lakes or channels, usually by manual labor, as well as meeting sheds. The project has
found that the effectiveness of sanctuaries can be increased at low cost with fish aggregation
devices, such as concrete pipes and hexapods, which provide food and shelter for fish and deter
poaching.
As the management plans typically restrict fishing during the "hungry season", the project has
recognized the need for AIG. This is done with techniques pioneered in Bangladesh - formation
of Resource User Groups (RUGS), institution of group savings, training of RUG members in an
activity of their choice, and provision of micro-credit, for activities ranging from livestock
raising, and tree nurseries to purchase of land and irrigation equipment. Micro-credit is now
channeled through recently formed Federations of Resource User Groups (FRUGs) to the RUGs.
Biodiversity enhancements comprise two major elements: wetland and riparian reforestation
and, a recently added activity, support for eco-tourism. At one site (Hail Haor), a major sanctuary
has been established and equipped with an observation tower, as well as nesting boxes and
platforms, to attract bird life. The project has also attempted to reduce the siltation problem by
riparian reforestation along some of the streams, which feed the wetland areas. The mixture of
species used also provides habitat for birds and mammals.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 16
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
In order to extend its impact to other areas of Bangladesh, MACH has developed an outreach
program with the Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP) (funded by the World Bank, DFID and GEF), to
identify sites where resource management was sufficiently strong6 but where funding for
infrastructure was lacking. In nine such cases, MACH has provided funding for re-excavation,
fish aggregation devices, and meeting sheds.
Cooperation with FFP has allowed MACH experience to be reflected in the Inland Capture
Fisheries Strategy, prepared under FFP and now adopted by the government. An action plan is
being developed to disseminate the Strategy into all Department of Fisheries (DoF) programs.
At the national level, the project is guided by a National Steering Committee, which meets
annually, and a Results Package Team/ Project Management Unit, which meets monthly. MACH
has established Local Government Committees at the sub-district (upazila) level, comprising
representatives of the DoF and other government agencies, elected officials, and the chairs of the
RMOs and FRUGs.
5.3 Project Phasing and Costs
The project has had two phases: MACH I, from October 1998 to December 2001, and MACH II,
from November 2003 to October 2006. The total cost of MACH I was $ 6.5 million, which was
fully expended, while the budget for MACH II is $3.1 million, to which should be added the
ISMP7 total of Tk. 346 million (currently equivalent to $4.9 million) for both phases I and II,
totaling the project budget of about $15.0 million over 8 years. Unspent funds at the closing date
are expected to total about $0.4 million plus Tk. 90 million (about $1.3 million), for a total $1.7
million.
5.4 Relevance
In its objectives, MACH was highly consistent with both USAID and government policies and
strategies for natural resources management. The project, in turn, has greatly influenced the
government's Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy. The co-management model is working well and
appears to have distinct advantages over previous approaches in the sector. With hindsight,
however, it appears that MACH may have gone too far in limiting DoF's role in project
execution, for example, in managing the local currency activities, and has thus limited capacity
building for DoF replication of MACH achievements.
The solution of reinforcing fishing family beneficiary groups (RMOs, FRUGs) with local elected
officials and local opinion leaders appears to have increased the ability of the groups to withstand
pressure from previous leaseholders and other powerful people to appropriate the benefits of the
program. The evaluation team found no examples of elite benefit capture in the main MACH
program8.
6 The FFP uses a management model of Fisheries Sub-Committees at the village level, combined to
form Fishery Management Committees at the wetland level. These groups lack the reinforcement with
local leaders, which characterizes the MACH co-management model.
Investment Support to the MACH Project, government local currency funds, derived from the US
PL 416(b) program.
8 However, riparian plantations could be criticized on this score.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 17
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
The implementation approach adopted was appropriate for the pilot project nature of MACH but
the intensity of financial and staff resource use does raise some questions for replicability.
Nevertheless, the project correctly recognized that creation and sustaining of beneficiary
organizations would require frequent face-to-face contact from project staff with considerable
training in rural development and social awareness. Thus the combination of a major consulting
firm, with considerable experience in the technical aspects of the project, with three prominent
NGOs, with excellent organizational skills, has proved very effective.
5.5 Efficacy
Table A.1 in Appendix A compares project targets with actual achievements and shows that
MACH has essentially achieved its objectives. Nearly all targets have been achieved and some
exceeded. Wetland productivity has been substantially increased with biodiversity enhanced and
a good start has been made on extending project innovations to other areas, most notably through
the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy. Elite capture of benefits has been avoided and women
have been empowered. More details on impacts are provided in the following Section.
In the 25,000 ha (wet season area) covered by the project, fish production has increased by 140%
as a result of the project. Fish consumption in the project areas (the major source of protein) has
increased by 52%, compared to a national average that has been declining. That also translates to
a significant impact on rural poverty. Since project inception, 28*fish species and 47 plant species
have become re-established in the pilot project areas. However, it should be kept in mind that the
project covers less than 1% of the total floodplains of the country and the total number of direct
project beneficiaries is only 5,500. A major challenge remains to expand the MACH model to a
much larger area (see Section 9.2).
5.6 Efficiency
As MACH has been a demonstration project, with testing of innovations and learning by doing as
integral elements, it was not subjected to any tests of economic efficiency (benefit-cost analysis)
at the outset, though some analysis is planned by the project team prior to project closure. In the
limited time available, the evaluation team has made a very crude estimate which simply takes the
total project cost of $14.5 million over the total wetland area of 25,000 ha ($580/ha) and
compares it with a stream of benefits - incremental fish production - which rises to an average
between the three sites of 232 kg/ha in year 8 and is evaluated at an average price of $1/kg.
Because AIG costs are included and no account is taken of AIG benefits, nor of the substantial
biodiversity enhancement benefits, this should be quite conservative. Nevertheless, it leads to a
Benefit-Cost ratio of 2.4 or a Net Present Value of $592/ha at an opportunity cost of capital of
12%. This shows clearly that the project interventions were well justified from an economic
efficiency point of view. Any follow-on project could probably be implemented at lower per ha
costs and thus show even better returns.
6. Findings: NSP
6.1 Project Objectives
The NSP aims to collaboratively develop Co-Management (CM) Agreements between the Forest
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 18
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
Department (FD) and local stakeholders leading to measurable improvements in forest and
resource conservation in selected Protected Areas (PAs) and within the surrounding "landscape"
(watersheds, parks, forested buffer zones, wetlands, agricultural areas and plantations).
Project duration for the NSP is June 2003 to May 2008. A complete description of project
activities organized under the following five components, with cross-reference to USAID
Strategic Objective 6.0 Intermediate Results is provided in Appendix B.
Component No. 1: Development of a Co-Management Planning and Implementation
Model
Component No. 2: Interventions and Investments for Improved Ecosystem Management
Component No. 3: The Enabling Policy Environment for Co-Management Enhanced
Component No. 4: Laying the Foundation for a Conservation Constituency in
Bangladesh
Component No. 5: Ensuring Institutionalization of Co-Management
6.2 Project Description
Recognizing the perilous situation of natural forests in the country, the Forest Department (FD)
has established a series of protected forest areas (distinct from gazetted forest reserves). As of
2004, the total area of Bangladesh's Protected Area (PA) system (including relatively small
proposed areas) is approximately 243,723 ha. Approximately 84,000 hectares of the total PA
system are relatively intact upland forests in the northeast and along the ridges of the eastern hills
(the Chittagong Hill Tracts, or CHT). The remainder of the PA system is found in the lowland
coastal areas, primarily within the internationally-recognized Sundarbans.
Bangladesh now has among the smallest areas of protected and intact forest in the world and
Bangladesh's forests continue to come under relentless human pressure as its population grows.
And yet, the citizens of Bangladesh clamor more than ever for places of natural beauty to which
they can escape. The result is an ever increasing number of species threatened with local
extinctions; in 2002 Earth Trends Country Profiles listed 68 threatened species. The PA system, if
well designed and managed, is intended to provide long-term protection of the majority of the
country's biodiversity.
The NSP has been introduced to develop a co-management model for improved management of
forest resources at six pilot PAs. According to the contract, the selection of the fifth and sixth
PAs was scheduled for the beginning of the fourth year. However, the NSP selected a fifth site at
the beginning of contract implementation and intends to select a sixth site in the fourth year. The
five pilot PA sites (see map in Appendix 1) currently being implemented are:
1. Lawachara National Park;
2. Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary;
3. Satchari National Park;
4. Teknaf Game Reserve; and
5. Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 19
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
For each PA or major portion thereof, a CM Council is to be established. This is a large body of
50 to 60 persons broadly representing the local community - local officials, local elites, resource
owners, FD representatives, law enforcement agencies, ethnic communities, NGOs, and civil
society. Chaired by the District Forest Officer, the Council is expected to meet six-monthly, to
review overall progress, support awareness building, coordinate the actions of stakeholders and
resolve disputes (if needed). A smaller body of 15 to 20 members, the CM Committee, is elected
from the membership of the Council in a structured way that ensures representation of all the
major stakeholder groups, including women. The Council is chaired by an Assistant Conservator
of Forests, to be attached to the new FD Nature Conservation and Wildlife Circle (though this is
still in transition), who is effectively the manager of the PA. The Committee meets bi-monthly
and approves action plans, undertakes public awareness and tourism promotion, takes action on
encroachments and illegal felling and promotes alternative income generation.
A Steering Committee was formed with the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests in
the chair, to oversee all activities of the NSP. A Project Concept Paper was prepared following a
decision of the Steering Committee and approved by the Executive Committee of the National
Economic Council (ECNEC), the competent authority of the Government of Bangladesh, on 28t'
April 2005. A Development Project Proposal (DPP) was then prepared, which led to the
preparation of a Project Pro-forma (PP) and that was finalized only on 18th October 2005.
According to the PP, the government's support to NSP through the FD runs from July 2004 to
June 2009.
The following six objectives are identified in the PP:
1. Develop a functional model for formalized collaboration in the management of PAs.
2. Create alternative income generation opportunities for key local stakeholders
associated with pilot co-managed PAs.
3. Develop policies conducive to improved PA management and build constituencies to
further these policy goals.
4. Strengthen the institutional systems and capacity of the FD and key stakeholders so
that improvements in co-management under the Project can be made permanent.
5. Build or reinforce the infrastructure within PAs that will enable better management
and provision of visitor services at co-managed sites.
6. Design and implement a program of habitat management and restoration for pilot
PAs.
As the USAID Contractor, since June 2003, the International Resources Group (IRG) has been
providing technical support in designing a co-management model acceptable to FD and other
stakeholders, and testing its reliability in field situations in partnership with the FD. Two sub￾contractors, namely Community Development Center (CODEC) and Rangpur Dinajpur Rural
Services (RDRS), assist IRG in the field. Nature Conservation Management (NACOM), a third
sub-contractor to IRG, collects data, conducts surveys and performs evaluation and monitoring.
It should be noted that the release of government budget funds for use by the FD under NSP
occurred only in April 2006 and that the PP runs until June 2009, whereas IRG's contract ends
more than one year earlier in May 2008. The delayed release of budget funds will make it
difficult to complete all project components as outlined in the PP.
During the first three years of the project, considerable progress has been made, and the
evaluation team would like to recognize IRG's success in instituting the co-management model
within the FD and within the communities of the five PAs. Notable is the early success of having
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 20
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
the FD declare its own protected area program "Nishorgo", the name under which the USAID
project now operates. To date, much of the project work has focused on sensitizing stakeholders,
including the FD, to the concepts of biodiversity conservation, co-management, and eco-tourism
through a variety of training exercises, workshops, study tours and meetings. The results of these
efforts is evidenced in the FD "Vision 2010" paper, the formation of multi-stakeholder CM
Councils and Committees, working hand-in-hand with FD staff and the formation of forest user
groups. The evaluation team also recognizes the NSP work completed "on the ground", including
the erection of PA signage, the identification of trails, NSP site office construction, public
information materials, baseline monitoring, AIG demonstration activities and forest patrols that
have reduced the occurrence of illegal felling.
With the recent formation of CM Committees9 (March/April 2006) the NSP's co-management of
PAs appears to be making a transition from what may be characterized as an "establishment
phase" to an "implementation phase". The concepts of co-management have been conveyed, the
institutional structures are in place and the actual work of managing PAs under a co-management
model is beginning.
6.3 Project Costs
The total contract amount is US$ 6.525 million from USAID, US$1.0 million GoB (Government
of Bangladesh contribution in cash and kind) and local currency funds of US$ 2.5M RPA
(Reimbursable Project Aid, from USAID through the PL-416(b) generated local currency) is
available as project funds. The contractor IRG oversees the USA JD funds, and the FD is
responsible for the GoB and RPA funds10. For the US$ funds, a satisfactory 53% had been
obligated and 44% spent by March 31, 2006. However, owing to late approval of the PP, only
6% of the taka funds had been spent by January 31, 2006, and it is unlikely that all of these funds
will be disbursed before the end of contract for NSP, leaving the work for which these funds were
intended incomplete.
6.4 Relevance
The present management of tropical forests in Bangladesh has led to their de facto treatment as
"open access" resources with a consequent degradation of the resource base, a loss of biodiversity
and declining productivity of needed forest resources. Currently Bangladesh has one of the lowest
ratios of PA (ha) versus population. The NSP is resulting in a renewed recognition of the value
of protecting tropical forests. At a national level the NSP is protecting areas valued by the
general population of Bangladesh (and globally) for their inherent biological heritage. At the
local level, the development of CM Councils and Committees is creating greater trust between the
government and local stakeholders in their ability to achieve sustainable management of
important natural resources in ways that benefit everyone.
A large poor and ultra poor population is present in areas around the NSP pilot sites. The goal of
improving the livelihoods of this population through AIG activities, wise management of forest
resources within buffer zones and the potential direct and indirect benefits that may be derived
from increased tourism if realized will be an achievement on a par with the protection of
biodiversity within PAs.
9 Most of the CM Councils were established some months earlier but the Committees are the real
working arm of the system. 10 This is a major departure from MACH, where the contractor handles all funds.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 21
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
6.5 Efficacy
During the three years since its inception, the NSP has been able to initiate remarkable social
change by involving the FD and a variety of stakeholders in co-management of PAs, in distinct
contrast to the adversarial (even violent) confrontations of the past. The formation of CM
Councils and Committees has empowered the local people and established important social￾environmental linkages. This has developed a sense of ownership of the resources by community
members and created social awareness among a wider cross-section of people in Bangladesh
through a variety of promotion mechanisms utilized by the NSP (e.g. competition to select the
"Nishorgo" name, architectural competition for Lawachara visitor center, and private sector
contributions for publishing brochures).
Empowerment and sense of ownership have encouraged community members to organize
community patrolling which, in turn, has resulted in a dramatic reduction of illegal logging in
some areas. Visits of stakeholders and FD staff to PAs in West Bengal have created greater
understanding of the potential success of co-management and fostered the greater
communication, respect and friendship between the FD and local stakeholders necessary for the
co-management model to work.
The NSP has formed Forest User Groups (FUGs) among the local poor/ultra poor population
living within the landscape zone to convey an understanding of the co-management model. AIG
training and grants are also provided to key local stakeholders of low-income households in
FUGs. To date, 90 FUGs have been formed around five sites, each group with 15-20 members,
and more than half of the members are women. Inputs such as nursery seedlings and livestock
have been provided to some of the groups". The inclusion of women in FUGs and a variety of
AIG activities may be viewed as providing a degree of empowerment, leading to greater gender
equalization in the project area. The involvement of women within areas that are predominantly
Muslim is a breakthrough, given the traditional conservative nature of these communities.
CM Councils and Committees with a cross-section of people, including landless poor, local elites,
former illegal loggers, timber traders, FD staff, Union Parishad members, and Upazila staff, etc.
in a common forum have been formed and are now beginning to focus their attention both on the
protection of biodiversity within PAs and on the needs of the poor/ultra poor populations living
within the landscape zone. The NSP has also made a special effort to engage young members of
the local population (youth groups, scouts) in NRM activities such as the monitoring of birds as
indicator species. The NSP has also formed links to ethnic minorities living inside the PAs to
ensure these traditional forest villagers have a voice in co-management.
The government has agreed that half of the revenue generated from visitors to PAs will be
retained locally, shared among the community members and re-invested in PA management,
according to priorities determined through co-management.
All of these accomplishments suggest the NSP is effective in its efforts to protect biodiversity and
improve the livelihoods of the people of Bangladesh within the co-management framework for
PAs and associated landscapes. There remain, however, questions in regard to sustainability as
discussed in Section 8.
II However, in contrast to MACH, NSP has not to date provided micro-credit to the FUGs.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 22
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
6.6 Efficiency
To date, no assessment of cost-effectiveness has been made by NSP. While it is too early in the
project to measure economic benefits, an effort should be made to obtain the necessary baseline
information that will permit an assessment of cost-effectiveness when information on positive
benefits is available. This will require an assessment of past and future benefits derived from
PAs, income levels of the population within the landscape zone, AIG activities, tourism, PA
revenue sharing, etc.
7. Implications of Program Outcomes
In this section, the expected positive and negative impacts of both projects at their respective
times of closing are assessed, using the following dimensions:
• Impact of Co-Management
• Biodiversity Impacts
• Economic Impacts
• Social Impacts
• Infrastructure Impacts
• Institutional Impacts
• Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation
This section is also used to draw out similarities and important differences between the projects.
7.1 Impact of Co-Management
The principle of co-management - management of resources by the users, reinforced with local
elected officials, local leaders, and women - is working well in MACH and a similar model
shows promise of working well in NSP, though several more years of project support will be
needed for the latter before the CM Councils and Committees become self-sustaining (the same
can be said for the MACH RMOs created in the last two years). However, there are important
differences between the projects that will affect how the co-management strategy is implemented.
In the first place, NSP protected areas are much larger than the individual MACH wetlands and
their resource management issues tend to be more complex. For this reason, some NSP sites have
more than one CM Council. Second, the MACH resource users - the fishers - are also the
beneficiaries of project interventions, through the management plans, and those benefits may be
substantial and received rather quickly, within a year or two, though some negative impacts need
to be compensated through AIG. In NSP, the present resource users will lose their access to the
resources of the PAs and may not benefit directly from biodiversity conservation, though the
project planners expect them to benefit indirectly from eco-tourism development, AIG activities
already started, and additional efforts recommended below. Such benefits will grow more slowly
than in MACH, for example, five to ten years for fuelwood plantations in the buffer or sustainable
use zones of the landscape using social forestry models. Third, the MACH co-management
model excludes, to a large extent, the DoF at the RMO level (though it does play an important
role at the LGC level), while the NSP CM Councils include FD representatives, as chairs. This
was nearly inevitable, given the FD role as "owner" of the PA but, in the view of the evaluation
team, also represents a step forward in trying to include all the key stakeholders in the co￾management bodies, thus facilitating the institutionalization of co-management within FD.
The well established RUGs under MACH appear able to withstand pressures from powerful
interest groups and thus capture of benefits by the elite, though some rearguard battles with
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 23
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
former leaseholders are still going on. The MACH outreach program has focused on
infrastructure, rather than extending the full co-management model to additional sites.
7.2 Biodiversity Impacts
MACH has clearly demonstrated the value of sanctuaries and associated infrastructure in
conserving fish stocks during the dry season and in maintaining a richer diversity of species. The
83 ha sanctuary at Hail Haor has been notably successful in attracting waterfowl, eagles and other
wildlife and now has considerable potential from an eco-tourism point of view. The riparian
plantations have been locally important in providing bird and animal habitats but their impact on
siltation of water bodies is likely to be quite limited. A more comprehensive approach to
watershed management was understandably beyond the scope of MACH and would have required
the cooperation of the FD and the tea estates, which control much of the upland areas.
Biodiversity and economic benefits at the Kaliakoir site in Turag-Bangshi (see Box) are
threatened by uncontrolled effluent discharges from 166 dyeing works in that vicinity, resulting in
low values of dissolved oxygen and high values of alkalinity and consequently fish kills. Few
factories have any type of treatment plant and these are only partly functional. Although MACH
has been working with the plants to demonstrate and document no cost/low cost methods of
improving effluent quality, this has not been accompanied by vigorous enforcement action by the
Department of Environment.
It is still too early to expect to see significant biodiversity benefits in NSP; in some sites there is
data to* suggest illegal logging has decreased, contributing to biodiversity protection, while in at
least one other site there has been ecological damage, as illegal loggers rushed to remove valuable
timber before the co-management system became effective. The NSP project team has
understandably put further development of the PA management plans on hold until the CM
Councils and Committees are more firmly established, various means of AIG have been tested
and funding is in place for things like habitat restoration. Clearly, a large task remains, given the
highly degraded state of most of the sites, and full biodiversity benefits will only be seen in 50
years or more. However, it does appear that, for most areas, strict protection will be sufficient to
allow the natural forest to regenerate12.
7.3 Economic Benefits
As a result of the resource management plans described above, fish production in the MACH
pilot sites is already 140% above the 1999 baseline. AIG has also been effective in raising
incomes of RUG members by about 46%. Credit recovery rates are very satisfactory (96%).
With hindsight, the evaluation team questions whether it was necessary to build a micro-credit
system within the project, rather than to contract with existing NGOs to extend their programs in
the pilot areas.
For NSP, the first economic benefits are beginning to be seen, as AIG activities get started.
While these can potentially be scaled up, especially through agreements with established NGOs,
some doubt remains as to whether micro-credit alone can compensate for the economic costs of
denying access to the protected areas. The landscape development fund will be a useful
supplement but a more strategic and quantified approach is needed. The evaluation team suggests
that explicit strategies be developed for replacing resources like fuelwood and sticks for betel leaf
12 The exception may be areas where woody plants have been replaced by sun grass (Imperata
cylindrica).
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 24
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
plantations that are of particular importance to the poor. Social forestry of the type well
understood in Bangladesh may also have an important role.
The NSP team has appropriately placed considerable emphasis on stimulating eco-tourism by
preparing publicity materials and, in the near future, providing visitor facilities. The
government's recent move towards the decision to allow fees to be charged to visitors and for half
of such fees to be retained by the CM Councils is a very positive development. The team's
efforts to engage the support of the private sector are beginning to pay off; such partnerships
could eventually be very powerful. The current architectural competition for the design of a
Visitor Center at Lawachara National Park is important, not only to achieve a state-of-the-art
design but also to inform several hundred members of the urban elite about the park and its
conservation. These are the kind of people whose support and activism will be vital if
Bangladesh's PAs are to have any chance of survival.
7.4 Social Impacts
There is clear evidence that the benefits of MACH are reaching the poorest and that co￾management has equipped the poor to resist pressure from the powerfu113. However, this is more
problematical for riparian plantations where landowners typically get a large share (in one case,
almost all) of the timber production benefits. The AIG activities have understandably gone
beyond fishers to include other poor villagers, although the extent of this is not clear.
The empowerment of women has been an outstanding achievement of the project. The project
has operated in conservative rural areas, where women have traditionally had few rights and little
power over their lives or livelihoods. By insisting that a proportion of positions in RMOs and
FRUGs be filled by women, and by setting up RUGs for women, the project has forced the pace
of social change. At several sites, the team encountered women members who were willing to
speak forthrightly about their concerns and their role in the project - even interrupting the men.
MACH appears to have provided equal access to Hindus and Muslims in areas where both live.
Social structures in and around the NSP sites are more complex than in the floodplains. In these
hilly, border areas, ethnic and religious minorities are significant. Some of these people live in
"forest villages", established decades ago by the FD; villagers were given land in exchange for
their labor on FD activities. Some of the forest villages are now inside the PAs. Other villages
have illegally encroached on FD land or are practicing slash and burn agriculture within PAs. At
the Teknaf site, refugees from Myanmar are a further complication. Although NSP has done
good preliminary work on surveying and mapping the various groups, much more needs to be
done, to understand fully the present situation and to develop strategies for each set of
circumstances, in order that the project does not have a detrimental impact on any ethnic group.
While the CM model should provide sufficient safeguards against elite capture of benefits, as it
has in MACH, there may be a greater challenge in NSP because of the larger populations and
more complex social structures involved.
13 As one proud beneficiary told the evaluation team: "Before, we were nothing but now our dignity
has increased so that we can shake hands with all kinds of people. This could not have happened without
MACH".
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 25
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
7.5 Infrastructure Impacts
The supporting infrastructure in MACH has proven to be essential in achieving full project
benefits. It is therefore of great concern that government approval of the modest ISMP took two
years and, consequently, about 40% of the re-excavation works will not be completed by the
closing date.
As the infrastructure parts of NSP are only just beginning, it is too early to comment on their
impact. NSP is also suffering from the glacial speed of government approval processes.
7.6 Institutional Impacts
The success of the project in building co-management institutions has been described earlier.
Project staff played a key role in the development of the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy under
the FFP - a keystone document for the future development of the sub-sector, which is now being
followed up by an action plan.
The overall impact of MACH on the DoF, however, has been less than would have been
desirable, as a result of a decision at the outset to manage all project funds, including those for
infrastructure, outreach etc. through the MACH contractor team. While the project has certainly
influenced DoF officers at the sub-district level to move beyond the traditional role of enforcing
government regulations to a more pro-active stance concerned with assisting fishermen's groups
to increase production, this process needs to be carried much further, through training programs,
exchange of experience between sites and the like, which MACH has done to a certain extent.
NSP appears likely to have similar success in co-management, provided project support can be
continued for a sufficient number of years and can overcome the hurdles of size and social
complexity just discussed. NSP has a greater focus than MACH on effecting change in a
government agency - the FD. NSP is supporting the initiatives in the FD to place PA
management in the hands of a specialized subdivision - the Nature Conservation and Wildlife
Circle - and has carried out a detailed assessment to that end. However, institutional changes of
this magnitude will take considerable time to become effective. A particular challenge is that FD
staff do not have specialized training in PA and biodiversity management nor is there any obvious
source within Bangladesh where they can get it.
7.7 Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation
MACH I and II have developed a powerful system of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), based
on key performance indicators related to the project objectives (Table A. 1 in Appendix A). Good
time series data on these indicators are available in electronic and printed forms and these should
be of considerable value to project planners and researchers. However, more work will be needed
to boil down the project results into simpler formats for other users, at the local level. The
evaluation has noted a few problem areas with the M&E system, such as incompatible data from
income surveys and the lack of evaluation of training programs.
The evaluation team's major concern is the sustainability of the M&E system after the project
closes. It will be essential to develop a simplified system that can be continued at the local level.
The NSP M&E program provides a limited amount of information on social, economic and
ecological measures related to co-management of PAs. The most meaningful data collected to
date is on structural diversity of forests using indicator bird species. It appears that little or no
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 26
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
information is available on forest users living within NSP's "landscape zone" and their changing
patterns of resource use (e.g. fuelwood, poles, wildlife, timber, bamboo, rattan, and other
products coming out of PAs) or their socio-economic well-being.
In addition, the success of the NSP relies on an understanding, acceptance and support of PA
management, biodiversity conservation, and co-management concepts. Given the complexity
and, in some cases, the novelty of these concepts, a good deal of training is required for NSP
staff, FD and other government staff and for the public at large, particularly local forest users.
Currently, the M&E program for the NSP does not endeavor to test the effectiveness of NSP in
achieving an understanding and acceptance of co-management of PAs.
8. Sustainability of Program Outcomes
8.1 MACH
Assuming completion of the project activities now planned before the project closing date of
October 2006, the view of the evaluation team is that MACH's considerable achievements will be
largely sustainable for the immediate future. Those RMOs and FRUGs which have been
established for a reasonably long period appear capable of managing the fishery resources and
AIG activities respectively and able to resist pressure from powerful interest groups. With
continued vigilance on loan repayment, the FRUGs (and their constituent RUGS) should be able
to sustain themselves financially for the indefinite future. With the LGCs (in future, UFCs)
becoming increasingly active and able to administer the endowment funds14, there will be
continuing support to the RMOs and FRUGs, thus enhancing their sustainability. All of this
presupposes that the Government remains committed to the principle of co-management and to
other elements of the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy.
Having said that, it is important to note that, without further support, some elements of the
MACH program might not survive more than a year or so beyond the closing date.
Approximately 25% of the RMOs, RUGs and FRUGs, especially those more recently established,
are institutionally and financially more fragile than the majority but most of these could probably
be brought to self-sufficiency with intensive week-to-week support that the project has been
providing.
Secondly, the team also notes that considerable re-excavation and other works remain to be
completed with the 416b funds (approximately $1.3 million equivalent). While the project will
continue to show substantial benefits even if these works are deferred, it would clearly be in the
interest of all parties, especially the poor fishing communities, to find a mechanism to allow these
works to be completed.
Thirdly, the evaluation has already discussed how the design of MACH was such that capacity
building of the DoF, particularly at the sub-district level, was limited. DoF clearly has a major
role to play in ensuring that RMOs and FRUGs are supported and sustained and it would be
highly desirable to find a way to sensitize and orient the UFOs to the co -management model and
to their role in supporting the fishers. Moreover, it is essential that the DoF develop internal co￾management capacities to ensure effective implementation of the Inland Capture Fisheries
Strategy (ICFS).
14 By limiting UFC access to the interest on such endowment funds, the project is creating a valuable
tool to assure sustainability.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 27
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
For these reasons, the evaluation team proposes that USAID consider a short extension of MACH
II by 8 to 12 months - to ensure greater sustainability of MACH achievements and to allow
remaining ISMP/ 416b works to be completed. For the latter to be effective, the extended closing
date should be at least June 2007, the end of the construction season. During the proposed
extension, the focus would be on:
• New initiatives to strengthen the DoF, through policy development, manpower
planning, training, study tours, and technical support to the ICFS action plan process
• Continued support to the LGCs/UFCs, including completion of the network and
guidance 'on the use of endowment funds
• Intensive support to the lagging RMOs and FRUGs in the following way: the RMOs
and FRUGs would be divided into two roughly equal groups according to an
assessment of their present capacity; for the stronger group, the project would
withdraw all week-to-week support but would monitor performance twice during the
extension period15 (project staff would also be able to respond to any emergency
needs from the stronger group); for the weaker group, the project would continue to
provide intensive hands-on support, as well as monitoring, with the objective of
bringing these groups to a self-sufficient stage at project's end
• Completion of all outstanding civil works
• Continued outreach to FFP and other sites, as funding permits
• Carrying out an action plan for pollution reduction at Kaliakoir
• Completing thejatka fisher livelihood support program
• Initiation of a simplified monitoring and evaluation system and training of UFOs and
others in its use
• Identification of priority areas for a possible expansion phase
It appears that the remaining funds in the MACH budget and the ISMP would be sufficient for the
above program, once appropriate reallocations are made.
8.2 NSP
Sustainable development projects are those that result in positive change that continues to provide
benefits long after the development project is completed; for NSP, this means beyond May 2008.
The NSP has resulted in many significant positive changes within its first three years, however
there are concerns regarding the ability of the project to ensure these and other ongoing changes
become sustainable within the remaining two years of the project. In the context of the NSP,
sustainability may be assessed in terms of achieving long-term protection of biodiversity within
PAs and a sustained increase in the livelihoods of the population within the landscape zone.
Four factors have been considered in assessing the sustainability of the NSP's co-management
model for PAs (these are described in more detail in Appendix B):
1. Based on the time required to establish sustainable co-management organizations in
MACH (more than 5 years) and given the history of an adversarial relationship between
the FD and local populations, it is anticipated the NSP will require several more years
beyond the end of contract (May 2008) to establish positive and effective working
15 This would provide a powerful test of the statement above that these RMOs and FRUGs have
reached self-sufficiency.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 28
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
relationships between the FD and the local population that may be considered sustainable
in the co-management of PAs.
2. There is long and complicated history of the use of resources from Forest Reserves,
including the NSP PAs and buffer zones. In order for the NSP to be considered
sustainable, traditional forest resource use must change to protect biodiversity and it must
change in ways that does not negatively impact the local population. It is clear that
solving the complex issues associated with traditional resource use within PAs will
extend many years beyond the NSP. Nonetheless the NSP has not yet planned or
demonstrated a sustainable mechanism to ensure alternative sources for forest resources
(outside PAs) will be made available to traditional users.
3. Forest Reserves have a complex problem of encroachment and unclear boundaries" that
must be addressed to clearly delineate the Forest Reserve, the PA and the Buffer Zone
boundaries from forest villages, surrounding villages, commercial development, and
agricultural lands that have developed within Forest Reserves over time. Sustainable
protection of biodiversity within PAs will require the issues of encroachment be resolved,
albeit over a number of years. The NSP has not yet addressed encroachment in any
substantial manner (wisely so, as it is a sensitive issue requiring good communication
between all stakeholders and innovative solutions that do not create hardship for the
poor). It is not likely that many issues of encroachment will be resolved within the
remaining two years of the project. Sustainability cannot therefore be determined until
there is good evidence that an effective mechanism is in place dealing with issues of
encroachment.
4. The newly formed CM Councils and Committees require a significant amount of capacity
building based on the many challenging tasks before them and the variety of skills
required to effectively manage PAs in a manner that will both protect biodiversity while
also providing benefits for the local population. What is at issue in regard to
sustainability is a concern that the CM Councils and Committees will not have received
sufficient training and support over the life of the NSP to deal effectively (i.e.
sustainably) with the complex issues of PA management.
There is also the question of the sustainability of AIG activities. The NSP has reported that there
is a strong dependency of a large poor and ultra poor population on resources from PAs. Under
the NSP, a very small proportion of the population within the landscape zone of PAs will be
reached by AIG, there will remain many people that require AIG training and support for this
project to be considered sustainable. Of note is the fact that there is the potential for ongoing
AIG activities provided by the CM Committees utilizing funds available from tourism revenues,
however the capacity of the CM Committees to deliver AIG activities and the level of finances
available from PA revenues remains unknown and requires therefore ongoing project support
before some level of sustainability will exist.
The evaluation team considers the co-management approach to PA management sound and, given
sufficient time and resources, the issues noted above can be addressed to support sustainability.
It is the opinion of the evaluation team that a second project will be needed to complete the
work that the NSP has started and to establish protected areas that are self-sustaining.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 29
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
9. Possible Follow-up Actions
9.1 MACH
The evaluation team notes that, with the completion of the FFP in June 2006 and MACH in
October 2006, there is presently no committed donor funding for floodplain fisheries beyond this
year. Given the very positive experience of MACH and the continuing importance of wetlands
from biodiversity and poverty alleviation points of view, the case for a follow-up project or
program seems quite clear.
The team suggests that any expansion phase follow the model of MACH, with the following
adaptations:
• Emphasis on replication rather than demonstration
• Assuming that a larger project would be managed primarily by the DoF, a strong
element of capacity building for DoF
• Close integration of the co-management and civil works elements of the project in a
single Project Proforma
• According to donor preferences, biodiversity enhancements might be split off as a
separate, but closely coordinated, parallel project
• AIG activities should be considered as a necessary part of the package but might be
achieved through agreements with suitable major NGOs, rather than a project-run
activity, provided such services were closely oriented to the target groups
'Because of its demonstration nature, MACH has been relatively cost and staff intensive per
beneficiary or per hectare and consideration should be given to streamlining the model to see if
costs can be reduced without significant loss of project quality. However, experience in
Bangladesh (for example, FFP) and elsewhere shows that lower cost approaches are not as
successful. Given the likely robust economic returns of even the high cost MACH model, the
evaluation suggests that streamlining be approached cautiously. Specifically, it is suggested that
field services through NGOs remain at the MACH level and that economies of scale be sought
mainly at the project management level.
The evaluation team recommends strongly against an immediate replication of MACH to the
whole of Bangladesh, given the high rate of failure in the past for similar rapid expansions. The
emphasis should be on maintaining the quality and benefit level of the program. Many options
are available for geographic expansion but the team suggests the following priorities:
• In-filling of gaps in the three pilot areas, for example, two or three more RMOs
could be formed in Hail Haor
• Stepping out to areas adjacent to the pilot sites, for example, other haors in
Sylhet Division
• Adopting one or more new regions, for example, building on the outreach
experience in Northwest Bangladesh
An alternative approach would be to focus on a complete watershed - for example, the Upper
Meghna, which could be combined with a watershed management approach, including sediment
control.
The size and duration of the expansion phase will depend heavily on donor preferences and
constraints. For example, there could be value in dividing the work into two steps: a transition
phase of one to two years followed by a full-scale project. In the transition phase, the capacity of
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 30
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
the DoF could be developed, project areas selected, initial surveys and baseline data collection
accomplished, some RMOs established and the detailed design of the full-scale project
completed.
9.2 NSP
For NSP, as set out in Appendix B, the chance of achieving full sustainability after the present
project is completed in 2008 appears slim. A clear lesson from MACH is that building co￾management institutions takes considerable time - 4 to 6 years in the opinion of the evaluation
team. NSP co-management must establish a working relationship between the FD and local
stakeholders and, as the knowledge and experience of the CM Committee increases, address the
varied issues of PA management such as illegal felling, encroachment, current resource use,
restoration, wildlife management, and tourism.
An additional challenge for NSP is the necessity for finding viable compensatory mechanisms
(AIG) for the many people whose livelihoods will be adversely affected by restricting access to
resources from PAs on which they have come to depend. Although that process has started, a lot
of learning by doing is still needed, including mechanisms like providing alternative sources of
fuelwood and other forest products for the local poor; initiatives that are not yet in the project.
Both these challenges argue for a second project to complete the work that has started and to
establish protected areas that are self-sustaining. Such a project could also be the vehicle for
extending the co-management model to other protected areas, including those not in forest areas.
While it is too early to be very definite about the size, scope or duration of a NSP II, it would
likely be comparable to the current project. Every effort should be made to secure local currency
funding from the outset.
10. Recommendations for Future Environmental Strategy16
Pressure on natural resources in Bangladesh remains intense. Almost every square meter of the
country's territory is used for one human purpose or another and areas of undisturbed nature are
very few. The 50% of the population classified as poor depend heavily on natural resources for
their daily survival and are the first to be affected by the diminution or degradation of those
resources.
In its 2002 "Strategic Plan for Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest
Resources, FY2002 - 2008", USAID/ Bangladesh argued for a reinforced USAID role in natural
resources management, with special emphasis on floodplain wetlands and protected forest areas.
It noted that other donors were addressing other natural resource and environmental issues.
With the short time available to the evaluation team, its review of options for future USAID
involvement was necessarily limited in scope and far from exhaustive. Nevertheless, a review of
available documents, observations of conditions in the field and interviews with knowledgeable
informants, suggest that the two priorities selected in 2002 -floodplain wetlands and forest
protected areas - should remain USAID's top environmental priorities for the immediate future.
Suggestions for follow-up actions to the two ongoing projects are given in the previous Section.
This would be consistent with USAID/Bangladesh's Strategic Statement for FY 2006 - 2010,
which includes under SO 11 (More Effective and Responsive Democratic Institutions and
Practices) a Program Component 7: Improve Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and
16 A more detailed treatment is given in Appendix C.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 31
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
Biodiversity Conservation. This program component emphasizes transparency and
accountability, through community-based management, with broad based local participation.
The co-management model has been shown convincingly to work in the floodplain fisheries
sector and shows promise of achieving the same result in forest protected areas, provided in the
latter case that well-targeted support can be continued beyond 2008. The time may now be ripe
for Bangladesh to generalize this experience into a Protected Areas System Strategy. Given
USAID's lead role in this subject over the past several years, it would be logical for the agency to
support the government in developing such a strategy. The Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan
of 2005 would provide one foundation for the proposed work. Another key ingredient would be
the 2004 assessment of the FD's capacity to manage protected areas prepared under NSP17. This
analysis includes a detailed action plan for institutional changes and capacity building activities.
Additional work, however, is needed to articulate the roles of the Forest Department, Department
of Fisheries and Department of Environment in future biodiversity protection and to lay out the
steps needed to ensure consistent approaches for forest and wetland protected areas, and possible
future additions such as coastal and marine sanctuaries. A possible outcome would be a single
government agency to manage protected areas; the framework most commonly seen in other
countries is a national parks agency.
By supporting the development of a protected areas system strategy, USAID would be able to
identify the critical challenges that call for its support at the project level over the medium term.
While it would be premature to forecast the scope of future projects resulting from adoption of a
Protected Areas System Strategy, one might envisage further support of the NSP type -
combining co-management with alternative income generation - for some or all of the remaining
14 forest protected areas, plus possibly new protected areas for wetlands, coasts and/or marine
sanctuaries. However, this approach would entail a massive capacity building effort, given the
problems noted in Appendix B in developing a management cadre for the NSP sites alone. This
is all the more reason to stay the course on NSP, to provide a firm basis for future expansion.
Another project type which may fit USAID strategic objectives could be a program for carbon
sequestration through plantations of various kinds (excluding fuelwood, obviously) - long￾rotation timber, wetlands, mangroves, or riparian. The last may represent a more fruitful
opportunity (compared to, say, roadside plantations, which have been the target of many other
projects), as relatively little appears to have been done up to now, apart from MACH. While such
a project would probably involve the "mainstream" of the FD,, which might be seen as a barrier, it
would also present excellent prospects for a public-private partnership, in which US corporations
may see advantages in leasing land for tree planting within the many degraded areas of existing
Forest Reserves from the FD or from private owners in return for carbon credits or offsetting
carbon footprints.
17 "Assessment of the Forest Department's Institutional Organization and Capacity to Manage the
Protected Areas System of Bangladesh", NSP, August 2004.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 32
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
INDUSTRIAL POLLUTION IN KALIAKOR
In the year 2000, during MACH I, the presence of dye factories in the vicinity of the Mokesh Beel in Gazipur District was recognized as
potential threat to aquatic ecosystem health. At that time, there were thought to be 20 to 25 factories operating in the region, three of
which were known to be operating partially functional effluent treatment plants. After six years of study, much more is known about the
problem but the number of dye industries has dramatically increased to at least 166, with the majority continuing to operate without
functioning treatment plants, despite legal requirements for pollution control.
The Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) (part of the MACH project team), together with additional funding and technical
support from the Stockholm Environment Institute, the University of Leeds in England, the United Kingdom's Department for
International Development (DFID) and Europe Aid, have undertaken research and monitoring to better define the problem and to develop
solutions for reducing pollution. Bangladesh needs industrial development, but it needs responsible industries that do not create negative
environmental impacts that may outweigh the positive economic and social benefits.
Community based environmental monitoring organized by MACH shows extremely low dissolved oxygen (DO) levels (0 ppm measured
during the visit by the evaluation team) and extremely high pH levels (pH 10.0 measured during the visit by the evaluation team) in
drainage ditches used by dye factories for effluent discharge. These conditions worsen downstream where the effluent from multiple dye
factory outlets concentrates in natural drainage khals and beels. At a point approximately 4 km downstream from the source of the
effluent, water entering the Turag River from the Mokesh Beel wetland continues to show low DO levels (2.3 ppm) and high pH levels (p
9.2).
The heavily polluted waterways are biologically dead, they no longer support fish and they are affecting human health as evidenced by
increased skin disease and reduced agricultural production in surrounding areas. Fish kills have been reported within the Turag River,
including within a MACH sanctuary located upstream from the point where pollution enters the river, during periods of reversed flow.
As this situation worsens, the incentive to create and protect fish sanctuaries will lessen. In addition, the Turag River is one of the last
refuges of the Gangetic Dolphin, an endangered species in Bangladesh.
Over the past six years, the MACH team has worked with the dyeing industry to better define the problem and to begin to develop
solutions. Cloth dyeing and effluent treatment are complex chemical engineering process. MACH has determined that much of the
problem has to do with a lack of technical know-how, for example:
• there is variability in the quality of the dyes used that is not recognized, leading to the use of inappropriate quantities, improper
dye mixing and process temperatures;
the dye process is not carefully controlled in terms of timing, temperature, and chemical conditions unique to each batch; and
the chemical composition of effluent entering the treatment plant process is not monitored to determine the appropriate level of
treatment needed.
MACH research has shown that more careful control of the dyeing and wastewater treatment processes can significantly reduce pollution,
while at the same time improving the quality of the dyed cloth and reducing the cost of production.
Working with the Department of the Environment (DoE) and the dyeing industry, MACH and its partners have produced a number of
documents to assist the dyeing industry in meeting its obligations under current Bangladesh legislation:
• Environmental Clearance Certificate Process;
• Management of Textile Dyeing Sludge;
Alternative Production and Cost Savings in Winch-Dyeing; and
Choosing an Effluent Treatment Plant.
Much work remains to be done to extend and disseminate the knowledge gained by MACH. It has been suggested that one of the preferre
solutions would be the construction of a single treatment plant that could serve a cluster of dye industries. This approach would reduce th
cost burden for individual businesses, while ensuring effluent is treated in the most appropriate manner. Catalytic support from outside
donors, effective law enforcement by the DoE and greater accountability from the polluting industry could create the synergy needed to
change the current situation of increasing destruction of productive fisheries and agricultural lands and the appearance of human health
problems which may be directly related to water pollution. Technology transfer of cost effective, high quality dye processing must also b
seen as an important part of resolving the pollution problem. The DoE, as the regulating agency, requires capacity building and needs to
negotiate a time-bound compliance plan, through signed agreements with the dyeing industries, to lower their discharges in steps to meet
legal limits over a defined period of time of perhaps five years.
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 33
Raise Plus- Limited Scope of Work
USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX A - MANAGEMENT • AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH
COMMUNITY HUSBANDRY (MACH)
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report ^
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH COMMUNITY
HUSBANDRY (MACH) ................................................................................................................ 3
1. Project Objectives and Performance Indicators ................................................................. 3
1.1 Project Objectives ...................................................................................................... 3
1.2 Performance Indicators .............................................................................................. 4
1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation System ........................................................................... 4
Table A.1 Intermediate Results and Associated Indicators ................................................. 5
2. Project Design .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Institutional Structure/ Community Participation ..................................................... 8
2.4 Project Cost and Financing Plan ............................................................................... 9
Table A.2: MACH-11 Project Cost (US$) ............................................................................. 10
Table A.3: ISMP Project Cost (Taka `000) ......................................................................... 10
3. Implementation history ................................................................................................. 11
4. Relevance of Objectives and Design ............................................................................ 11
5. Achievement of Objectives/Efficacy ............................................................................ 12
6. Project Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 12
7. Expected Project Impacts .............................................................................................. 13
7.1 Impact of Co-Management ...................................................................................... 13
7.2 Biodiversity Impacts ................................................................................................. 14
7.3 Economic Impacts ..................................................................................................... 14
7.4 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................... 15
7.5 Infrastructure Impacts ............................................................................................... 16
7.6 Institutional Impacts .................................................................................................. 16
7.7 Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................ 16
8. Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results ........................................................... 16
8.1 Sustainability ............................................................................................................ 16
8.2 Replicability ............................................................................................................. 18
9. Recommendations for Follow-up Actions ........................................................................ 19
10. Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................ 19
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
2
3
APPENDIX A: MANAGEMENT OF AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS THROUGH COMMUNITY
HUSBANDRY (MACH)
1. Project Objectives and Performance Indicators
1.1 Project Objectives
The floodplains of Bangladesh are home to hundreds of species of fish, plants and other wildlife. These
floodplains serve as a source of income and a critical supply of nutrition for millions of Bangladesh's
poorest rural households. Nowadays, anthropogenic activities such as over-fishing, dewatering, leasing of
water bodies for limited periods (jalmahals), inappropriate fishing gear, etc. are degrading the natural
resources of these wetlands. Recognizing these facts, the Government of Bangladesh and the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID) have jointly developed a co-management program
with the resource users called Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry
(MACH)'.
The project has had two phases: MACH I, from October 1998 to July 2003 (extended at a no additional
cost basis up to October 2003), and MACH II, from November 2003 to end-October 2006. The MACH
objectives have been restated in various ways over the long life of the project following an adaptive
management principle. However, the evaluation team found the following to be the most useful:
MACHI Objectives2:
• To raise awareness (of communities and local government) about the importance of natural flood
plain and food as well as income security for the people of Bangladesh.
• To maintain and recover selected natural flood plain ecosystems and associated fisheries
• To identify activities to generate alternative income that result in a reduction of pressure from
fishing and agriculture in the floodplain fisheries.
MACH II Objectives3:
• To develop fully the community based Resource Management Organizations (RMOs), related
institutions and beneficiary groups and ensure their sustainability
• To consolidate and intensify wetland rehabilitation activities so that their impact can be fully
assessed
• To develop further the constituency for co-management of natural resources through an expanded
outreach/public education effort
• To `roll out' the MACH co-management approach to the wider government and donor
communities
Winrock International and its three partners, the Bangladesh Center for Advanced Studies (BCAS), the
Centre for Natural Resource Studies (CNRS) and CARITAS Bangladesh, are implementing the project.
MACH Project Profile, August 2001
MACH II Briefing Packet for USAID Evaluation Team- Part 1: Achievement, Influence and Future
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
1.2 Performance Indicators
The performance indicators for MACH I are set out in the document referenced in footnote 3. MACH II
is covered by USAID's Strategic Objective 6: Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical
Forest Resources, which has the following performance indicators:
• Indicator 6a: Extent to which best practices from USAID-funded projects are used elsewhere
• Indicator 6b: Increased production of natural resources in targeted areas
• Indicator 6c: Increased biodiversity in targeted areas
These indicators are further elaborated into a set of Intermediate Results and associated indicators see
Table A. 1). The evaluation team considers that the main indicators are very appropriate for this kind of
project. Indicator 6a reflects the demonstration nature of the project, while Indicators 6b and 6c represent
the economic and biodiversity objectives for intervening in floodplain fisheries. However, some of the
sub-indicators focus more on outputs rather than outcomes (see Section 5) and those on institutional
capacity have proven hard to quantify.
1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation System
A basic monitoring system was established under MACH I, and expanded and elaborated under MACH
II. The result is a quite comprehensive and robust system. For example, fish catches are measured (not
just reported from recall) every 10 days throughout the year from 23 sites. Annual surveys are made of
the incomes of floodplain users dependent on fishing/ aquatic resources, using a sample of nearly 900.
The effectiveness of the public awareness campaigns has been measured. Monitoring results are reported
semi-annually and an end-of-project evaluation report is under preparation.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4
Table A.1 Intermediate Results and Associated Indicators
SO 6: Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources
• Indicator 6a: Extent to which best practices from USAID-funded projects are
used elsewhere
• Indicator 6b: Increased production of natural resources in targeted areas
• Indicator 6c: Increased biodiversity in targeted areas.
Indicator 6.1a: Area of floodplain where sustainable
management is implemented.
Indicator 6.2a: Aquatic habitats converted from
seasonal to perennial in targeted areas
Indicator 6.2c: Riparian habitat improved in targeted
areas
IR 6.2.1: Innovations and Best Practices Adopted Indicator 6.2.la: Number of sanctuaries established
Indicator 6.2.lb: Number if wetland/riparian trees
successfully established
IR 6.2.2: Alternative Incomes Realized for Target Indicator 6.2.2a: Average annual increase of RUG
Groups member supplemental income
Indicator 6.2.2b: Number of RUG fishers having
reduced effort
Indicator 6.2.2c: Total number of new AIG loans
IR 6.3: Select Policies Implemented that Support Indicator 6.3a: Leases of water bodies to community
IRs 1 & 2 resource management groups granted in target areas.
Indicator 6.3b: Number of communities adopting the
following key regulations in target areas:
• Restrictions on the use of inappropriate fishing
methods and gear
• Restrictions on the fishing season and harvesting
of fish fry
• Restrictions on the areas of fishing
IR 6.4: Public Awareness of Key Issues Increased Indicator 6.4a: Number of individuals reached by the
4 Cumulative for MACH I and II, unless indicated otherwise.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 5
Intermediate Results
IR 6.1: Effective Community Based Resource
Management Mechanisms Implemented
IR 6.2: Select Habitats and Ecosystems Improved
Indicators Unit Target Output Outcome4
ha 16,500 20,921
ha 500 448
km 80 116+
32 ha
# 9 14
# 200,000 272,328
% 50 46
hrs 2,500 3,398
# 3,000 2,670
# 8 12
# 88 117
# 70,000 184,389
Intermediate Results Indicators Unit Target Output Outcome
public awareness activities
Indicator 6.4b: Percentage increase in awareness of
wetland resource issues from baseline (% households
aware of issues)
IR 6.5: Improved Institutional Capacity Indicator 6.5a: Number of local government meetings
where resource management issues discussed
Indicator 6.5b: Official circulars for UDCC agenda
item and permission for RMO members to attend UP
meetings as needed
Indicator 6.5c: UWRMC formed with charters/GOB
circulars in place linking local government to
resource management organizations
Indicator 6.5d: Trust Fund established for Institution
% 30 74
# 100 206
# 1 1
# 3 0
# 4 Partly
Source: MACH II Briefing Packet for USAID Evaluation Team - Part 2: Performance Monitoring. This document should be referred to for important caveats,
qualifications and explanations.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 6
2. Project Design
2.1 Project Description
Project Sites
In order to test the applicability of the co-management model under differing physical and social
conditions, MACH has focused on three pilot areas representing three major floodplain wetland
ecosystem types, two from its inception: Hail Haor in Moulavi Bazaar District in the Northeast; and,
Turag-Bangshi in Gazipur District. In 2000, a third area was added: Kangsha-Mailiji in Sherpur District.
Co-Management
MACH has supported local communities in forming their own organizations for overall management of
the physical and biological components of selected wetland ecosystems. Project staff have facilitated the
formation of 42 Resource Management Organizations (RMOs), including 16 involved in wetland
management, to manage a wetland system or a major part thereof. Typically, the RMO manages a lease
orjalmahal from the Ministry of Land. A majority of RMO members are local fishers (see also Section
7.4J. When an RMO has developed a management plan for its area, it is able to assume the leasehold for
a period of ten years, with the potential for five-year extensions, if management is satisfactory.
Management plans incorporate the indigenous knowledge of the local people on fish behavior and
sustainable management practices, such as designating sanctuaries, where no harvesting is allowed and
which provide a refuge for fish over the winter, stopping fishing during the spawning season,
reintroduction of locally lost or threatened fish species, and prohibiting destructive fishing gear and
practices, such as dewatering, which excessively or completely deplete the stock.
Supporting Infrastructure
The project has found that the effectiveness of sanctuaries can be increased at low cost with fish
aggregation devices, such as concrete pipes and hexapods, which provide food and shelter for fish and
deter poaching. Floodplain fisheries typically occupy a large contiguous area of water in the wet season,
which shrinks to a number of floodplain lakes (beels) and channels (khals) in the dry season. A
combination of natural causes and mismanagement of land upstream of the floodplains has led to rapid
sedimentation of the lakes and channels, restricting the habitat for overwintering of the fish. The project
has therefore provided funds for the re-excavation of some water bodies, usually by manual labor, with a
simple dredge used in some problem areas. Meeting sheds for RMOs are also provided.
Funding for supporting infrastructure is mainly provided under a parallel program called Investment
Support to MACH Project (ISMP), with local currency funds provided by the government and derived
from monetized food commodity aid under the US PL 416(b) program.
Alternative Income Generation (AIG)
As RMO management plans typically restrict fishing during the "hungry season", the project has
recognized the need to develop alternative sources of income for the fishers and their equally poor
neighbors. This is done with techniques pioneered in Bangladesh - formation of Resource User Groups
(RUGs), institution of group savings, training of RUG members in an activity of their choice, and
provision of micro-credit [(initially limited to Tk 5,000 ($71)] per member but increasing for subsequent
loans). Activities supported vary widely but include: chicken and other livestock raising, tree nurseries,
vegetable growing, irrigation pumps, land purchase and petty trading. Micro-credit is now being
channeled through Federations of Resource User Groups (FRUGs) to the RUGs.
Biodiversity Enhancements
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 7
The RMO management plans are of course the main vehicle for sustaining and enhancing biodiversity in
the floodplains but the project has sought to enhance this with some targeted programs. At the Hail Haor
site, a major sanctuary has been established which is now used by migratory birds and other wildlife. The
project has provided an observation tower, nesting platforms and boxes, restoration of wetland forests and
interpretive materials for visitors.
The project has also attempted to reduce the siltation problem by demonstrating riparian reforestation
along a few of the streams that feed the wetland areas. The mixture of species used also provides corridor
habitat for birds and mammals. At several sites in Hail Haor, the project has demonstrated contour
cultivation of pineapples on steep slopes, instead of the up and down pattern traditionally used.
Outreach Program
In order to extend the impact of MACH to other areas of Bangladesh, the project has worked with the
Fourth Fisheries Project (funded by the World Bank, DFID and GEF) to identify sites where resource
management was sufficiently strong' but where funding for infrastructure was lacking. In nine such
cases, MACH has provided funding for re-excavation, fish aggregation devices, seedlings for
reforestation and meeting sheds.
The project has used a variety of other means to disseminate the co-management model and other project
innovations, including tours for groups ranging from senior government officials to field staff, cross￾fertilization of other donor programs and dissemination through the strong NGO network in Bangladesh.
2.3 Institutional Structure/ Community Participation
National Level
A National Steering Committee provides guidance and advice to MACH. It is chaired by the Secretary,
Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock, with the Joint Secretary (Administration), Ministry of Land, as vice￾chair. Other concerned departments, USAID and the Grantee are also represented. Key agency
representatives, USAID and the Grantee also form a Results Package Team/ Project Management
Unit, which meets monthly to monitor and facilitate project execution.
Upazila (Sub-District) Level - Local Government Committee (LGC)
The LGCs act as a partner to MACH, reviewing program activities and offering recommendations and
assistance when required. Based on a Memorandum of Understanding between the Bangladesh and US
Governments, the Committees were developed by Union and Upazila officials in participatory meetings.
At these meetings, the committees agreed to terms of references and membership. LGCs are chaired by
the respective Upazila Nirbahi Officers (UNOs). Members include concerned Union Parishad (UP)
Chairpersons, upazila officials (engineering, agriculture, livestock, social welfare, etc.), RMO and FRUG
chairpersons, and other stakeholders as necessary, with the Upazila Fisheries Officer as Member
Secretary. Four LGCs have been formed and a fifth is planned.
Following the adoption of the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy (ICFS), the LGCs are in the process of
being converted to Upazila Fisheries Committees (UFCs), with minor changes in powers and
membership.
'
The FFP uses a management model of Fisheries Sub-Committees at the village level, combined to form
Fishery Management Committees at the wetland level. These groups lack the reinforcement with local leaders
which characterizes the MACH co-management model.
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 8
Resource Management Organization (RMO)
The central theme of MACH is local management of resources. The key to project success is seen as the
formation and successful operation of RMOs with local community stakeholders (fishermen, marginal
farmers, women and other resource collectors - often illiterate), reinforced with local leaders, such as
Union Parishad members, teachers, doctors, or small businessmen. This collaboration is seen as essential
if the RMO is to be able to articulate a credible management plan and stand up to powerful interest
groups, such as former leaseholders or elected local government representatives or government officials.
Sixteen wetland RMOs are in operation.
Resource User Group (RUG)
MACH introduces savings, micro-credit and skill development training for poor fishers and other wetland
resource users through a small group approach. A typical Resource User Group (RUG) has 20 to 30
members and meets weekly to collect savings from each member, plan activities and exert pressure on
any members in arrears on their loans. Separate groups for men and women are organized by facilitators
of the same gender. To date 167 men's and 81 women's RUGs have been formed, with a total of 5,104
members.
Federation of Resource User Groups (FRUG)
To provide legal standing to the RUGs and to act as a point of entry for a revolving fund, a Federation of
Resource User Groups (FRUG) has been established as a legal entity registered as a membership-based
social welfare organization. Each FRUG is Union based, with some having RUGs from adjacent Unions,
and 13 have been established. Following the co-management model, a FRUG consists of three
representatives (including one woman) from each RUG plus local leaders. There is generally some
overlap with RMO membership. A revolving loan fund of about Tk 2 million is being provided to each
FRUG as it shows its capacity to manage such funds. The individual RUG member loans are approved
by the RUG and then by the FRUG and then disbursed to RUG members for AIG activities. Office
bearers in the FRUGs, as in the RUGs and RMOs, are elected by the members.
2.4 Project Cost and Financing Plan
Winrock International, the Grantee, has the sole responsibility for funds to operate MACH II programs.
The funds are administered according to the terms and conditions set forth in the 22 CFR 226, entitled
`Administration of Assistance Awards to US Non-governmental Organizations'. Winrock and its
Partners are subject to standard USAID financial controls that include annual USAID financial audits.
The total cost of MACH I was $ 6.5 million, which was fully expended, while the budget for MACH II is
$3.1 million, to which should be added the ISMP total of Tk 346 million (currently equivalent to $4.9
million) for a phase II total of $8.0 million. Unspent funds at the closing date are expected to total about
$0.4 million plus Tk 90 million (about $1.3 million), for a total $1.7 million, or 21 % of the phase II
funding6. Reasons for this substantial underrun include devaluation of the Taka (resulting in about a
12.5% gain in taka equivalent), the late approval of the Project Proforma for ISMP and unusually wet
seasons in 2004 and 2005, which limited ISMP construction.
The costs of MACH II and ISMP are summarized in Tables A.2 and A.3 below.
6 As 2006 construction is still going on, estimates for October 2006 expenditures remain somewhat
uncertain.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 9
Table A.2: MACH-II Project Cost (US$)
Item
Budget
Oct 2003 -
Oct 2006
Expected
Expenditures
to October
2006
Expected
Balance
% of
Budget
Spent
Salaries and Fringe Benefits $647,853 $647,143 $710 100
Short-Term Specialist $ 19,281 0 $ 19281 0
Travel Per Diem $ 46,708 $46,708 0 100
Allowances $226,958 $166,152 $ 60,806 73
Procurement $ 78,258 $37,258 $41,010 48
Program Activities $ 23,000 $22,239 $ 761 97
Other Direct Cost $374,488 $372,091 $ 2,397 99
SUB-TOTAL $1,416,556 $1,291,591 $124,965 91
Sub- Contracts $1,105,589 $926,487 $179,102 84
Indirect Costs $577,218 $490,316 $86,902 85
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS S3,099,363 $2,708,394 5390,967 87
Table A.3: ISMP Project Cost (Taka `0007)
Item
Budget
June 2002
October
2006
Expected Expenditures to
October 2006
Expected
Balance
of budget
spent
Staff salaries and
allowance
20,000 16,259 3,741 81
Procurement 6,218 5,479 739 88
Project activities
Re-excavation - khal 28,000 21,670 6,330 77
Re-excavation - beef 30,000 15,710 14,290 52
Reforestation 22,000 17,435 4,565 79
Infrastructure 10,100 6,782 3,317 67
Sanctuary
establishment
22,200 18,887 3,312 85
Credit program 10,000 10,000 0 100
Endowment 40,000 36,000 4,000 90
Jatka fishing 20,000 20,000 0 100
Water pollution
control
12,000 10,034 1,966 84
Training 20,000 14,809 5,791 74
7
The current exchange rate is approximately US$1.00 = Tk. 70 but the rate at the time ISMP was approved
is not known.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 10
Budget
,Tune 2002
Expected Expenditures to Expected % of budget
Item October October 2006 Balance spent
2006
Communication 8,000 4,269 3,731 53
Follow-up 7,500 7,500 0 100
Outreach 25,982 5,105 20.876 20
Other direct cost 14,500 13,872 628 96
SUB-TOTAL 297,100 223,811 73,288 75
Consultants 27,500 16,058 11,442 58
Indirect costs 21,000 15,525 5,475 74
TOTAL DIRECT
COSTS 345,000 255,395 90,205 74
3. Implementation history
An agreement to implement MACH was signed in May 1998, with a completion date of July 2003.
Winrock and its partners were selected in July 1998 and work began in late-September of that year. The
Project Steering Committee selected the program sites in March 1999. Field activities at the Hail Haor
and Turag-Bangshi sites began in April 1999. In July 2000, the MACH program was amended adding an
additional work site, Kangsha-Malijhee.
A mid-term review in November-December 2001 recommended that MACH be extended for three
additional years and an agreement to this effect was signed on October 16, 2003. The two phases were
bridged with a no-cost extension from July to October 2003
From its inception, MACH planned to access additional funds to execute supporting infrastructure and
discussions began in 1999 with a number of potential funding sources and it was determined that the US
PL 416(b) program would be the most appropriate source. USAID agreed, in principle, in July 2000.
Originally, it was understood that these local currency funds could be released through a simple
agreement between the government and USAID, allowing works to start in the 2001 construction season.
However, the government decided that this funding, now called Investment Support to the MACH Project
(ISMP) would need to go through the complete government approval process. After several false starts,
these funds were finally released in April 2003.
4. Relevance of Objectives and Design
As a key element of USAID/ Bangladesh's 1998-2007 Mission Strategic Plan (Poverty Reduced through
Sustainable Economic Growth), MACH was designed to support the environmental strategic objective of
that Plan (SO6). That Strategic Objective is further spelled out in the USAID/ Bangladesh Strategic Plan
for Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources, FY 2002 - 2008. MACH is
also strongly supportive of other USAID objectives in Bangladesh, especially in governance,
democratization, poverty alleviation and the empowerment of women (SOs 11, 12, 14 in the new USAID/
Bangladesh Strategic Statement FY 2006 - 2010). MACH also implements key elements of the
Government of Bangladesh's 2005 National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, especially Strategy 10
- Ensure wise use of wetland resources. MACH is consistent with the Government's 1998 National
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 11
Fisheries Policy. MACH results have greatly influenced the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy of the
Department of Fisheries (DoF), which was recently approved by the Government.
The internal design of MACH was well thought out and took account of previous experience in
Bangladesh and elsewhere. In particular, the concept of co-management built on past experience, by
avoiding a top down, DoF led approach, on the one hand, or relying on user groups composed only of
poor fishermen on the other. With hindsight, it appears that MACH may have gone too far in limiting the
role of DoF in project execution, for example, in managing the local currency activities, and may have
thus limited capacity building for DoF's replication of MACH achievements (see the fourth of the MACH
II objectives and Indicator 6a).
The solution of reinforcing fishing family beneficiary groups (RMOs, FRUGs) with Union Parishad
members, local opinion leaders etc appears to have increased the ability of the groups to withstand
pressure from previous leaseholders and other powerful people to appropriate the benefits of the program.
MACH was considerably enhanced when local funding became available (albeit after two years' delay)
for physical infrastructure in support of the RMOs' management plans. These core elements are
supported by Alternative Income Generation (AIG) activities and by biodiversity enhancements. These
four elements constitute a coherent, comprehensive and mutually supportive package.
The implementation approach adopted was appropriate for the pilot project nature of MACH but the
intensity of resource use does raise some questions for replicability (see Section. 8). Nevertheless, the
project correctly recognized that creation and sustaining of beneficiary organizations would require
frequent face-to-face contact from project staff with considerable training in rural development and social
awareness. Thus the combination of a major US consulting firm, with considerable experience in the
technical aspects of the project, with three prominent NGOs, with excellent organizational skills, has
proved very effective. In order to ensure transparency and to expedite project execution, MACH
(including its local currency affiliate - ISMP) was designed for execution by the contractor consortium,
with a limited role for the government (mainly in the Steering Committee, the monthly Project
Management Unit meetings, and in the Local Government Committees). This may have created some
problems for replicability.
5. Achievement of Objectives/Efficacy
As MACH II is only six months from completion, it is possible to forecast its final outputs and outcomes
- available information from project reports is summarized in Table A.l. A distinction is made between
Outputs (achievement of physical and institutional targets) and Outcomes (achievement of project
objectives, in terms of changes to biodiversity parameters, fisheries management or beneficiary incomes).
Results show that the project has essentially achieved its objectives. Most targets have been achieved and
some exceeded. Wetland productivity and biodiversity have been substantially enhanced (see Section 7)
and a good start has been made on extending project innovations to other areas, most notably through the
Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy of the DoF.
6. Project Efficiency
As MACH has been a demonstration project, with testing of innovations and learning by doing as integral
elements, it was not subjected to any tests of economic efficiency (benefit-cost analysis) at the outset,
though some analysis is planned by the project team prior to project closure. To do such an analysis
accurately would require disaggregating project costs, to set aside those related to testing of innovations
or those, such as riparian plantations, where benefits are not quantifiable, and also to differentiate costs
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 12
associated with fish management from those due to AIG. In the limited time available, the evaluation
team has made a very crude estimate which simply takes the total project cost of $14.5 million over the
total wetland area of 25,000 ha ($580/ha) and compares it with a stream of benefits - incremental fish
production - which rises to an average between the three sites of 232 kg/ha in year 8 and is evaluated at an
average price of $1/ kg. Because AIG costs are included and no account is taken of AIG benefits, nor of
the substantial biodiversity enhancement benefits, this should be quite conservative. Nevertheless, it
leads to a Benefit-Cost ratio of 2.4 or a Net Present Value of $592/ha at an opportunity cost of capital of
12%. This shows clearly that the project interventions were well justified from an economic efficiency
point of view. Any follow-on project could probably be implemented at lower per ha costs and thus show
even better returns.
The evaluation team recommends that the project team prepare a more refined and detailed benefit-cost
analysis of MACH before the closing date.
7. Expected Project Impacts
In this section, the expected positive and negative impacts of the MACH Project at the time of closing
- October 2006 - are assessed, using the following dimensions:
• Impact of Co-Management
• Biodiversity Impacts
• Economic Impacts
• Social Impacts
• Infrastructure Impacts
• Institutional Impacts
• Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation
7.1 Impact of Co-Management
The MACH experience has confirmed the value added by co-management (Section 2. 1) over either the
top-down approach used in the past or reliance on user groups composed only of the poor, as used with
partial success in the Fourth Fisheries Project (FFP). The inclusion in the RMOs and FRUGs of Union
Parishad members, better educated people, such as teachers and paramedics, and even small businessmen,
appears to have improved the clout of the organizations without leading to elite capture of benefits. The
formation of Local Government Committees (LGCs) has extended the access of the RMOs and FRUGs to
government services at the upazila level. The project organizations now control valuable resources -
RMOs: leases, project infrastructure, members savings; FRUGs: revolving funds, and savings; LGCs
(soon): endowment funds - which has enhanced their standing in the community. Nevertheless, some
RMOs are still fighting rearguard battles with powerful former leaseholders - through the courts in one
case.
Despite the evident progress made, the evaluation team could see that RMOs established for less than two
years will find it difficult to sustain themselves after the project ends. Some RMOs still have difficulty in
enforcing their adopted practices, such as bans on certain types of fishing gear, on all fishers in the
community. The Outreach Program, which extends MACH support to nine FFP sites, has focused on
additional infrastructure rather than extending the co-management concept to the FFP user organizations.
An LGC is needed for Moulavi Bazaar Sadar Upazila and work remains for the project to replace LGCs
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 13
with Upazila Fisheries Committees (UFCs), with access to endowment funds8. Opportunities could be
explored for RMOs to manage common resources other than fish.
7.2 Biodiversity Impacts
Through the project, RMOs have become convinced of the value of sanctuaries to conserve fish stocks in
the dry season and to maintain a richer diversity of species. Accordingly, 14 sanctuaries have been
established in the pilot areas, including a major one of 83 ha at Hail Haor, during MACH H. Although
only in operation for a year, the Hail Haor sanctuary has attracted at least 7,000 waterfowl and other bird
species and its value is being enhanced by wetland reforestation, nesting boxes, eagle nesting platforms
and an observation tower. Further action is needed to gain possession of about 40 ha of alienated land in
the middle of the sanctuary and also to publicize its existence to potential eco-tourists, through, for
example, a recently produced video. For sanctuaries in general, some monitoring of dissolved oxygen in
winter may be needed to guard against oxygen depletion from overstocking.
The MACH team has recognized that the sustainability of floodplain fisheries is threatened by siltation of
water bodies, caused by erosion of adjoining upland soils. It has therefore added elements of watershed
management, especially riparian reforestation along some tributary streams. However, in the absence of a
comprehensive watershed management strategy and a monitoring system for erosion and sedimentation, it
is questionable whether these plantings have had much impact on siltation, though they have been
valuable as a contribution to tree species diversity, wildlife habitats and production of forest products (see
also Section 7.4 on their social impacts). A full watershed management approach would have required
the cooperation of the Forest Department (FD) and the tea estates, which control most of the uplands, and
was understandably beyond the scope of MACH.
The project has also demonstrated convincingly that pineapple cultivation along the contours not only
conserves the soil but also increases production. However, this knowledge might better be conveyed by
the Agricultural Extension Service, which should discourage any kind of row crop on these steep and
erodible soils.
However, at the Kaliakoir site, project benefits are threatened by water pollution from the proliferating
dyeing works in the vicinity. See box at the end of the main report.
Finally, the MACH areas now have a rich body of experience and an excellent database, which should be
made available to researchers in the natural sciences (see Section 7.7).
7.3 Economic Impacts
Careful monitoring of fish production has shown a steady increase in catches and diversity of species. In
2005, fish production was 140% above the 1999 baseline. This clearly showed that the combination of
co-management, with re-excavation and improved fish management practices was productive for three
contrasting flood plain situations.
Alternative Income Generation (AIG), through project-administered micro-credit, initiated with an
injection of capital (revolving fund) from MACH, is also showing promising results, in terms of increased
income for RUG members. Despite some measurement problems, this increase appears to be of the order
of 46% (without accounting for project derived income from re-excavation etc.), showing the validity of
the targeted micro-credit approach for this situation where the target group can be clearly identified.
Credit recovery rates for the project as a whole are said to average 96%, which is consistent with
8 By limiting UFC access to the interest on such endowment funds, the project is creating a valuable tool to
assure sustainability.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 14
evaluation team observations from a sampling of FRUGs (90 to 98%), which compares well with best
practice in Bangladesh. However, the arms-length relationship adopted towards other micro-credit NGOs
- RUG members may not belong to other micro-credit groups - may not always be in the best interest of
the target group. Given that the project model is relatively expensive per beneficiary, an alternative of
formal linkages with established micro-credit NGOs (which did not exist in the MACH sites at the time
MACH started) might be preferable in any replication phase. It would also be useful to broaden the
monitoring approach to cover income changes for project villages, that is, including fishing families,
RUG members (an overlapping but distinct group) and non-beneficiaries.
7.4 Social Impacts
Despite considerable probing and discussions with approximately half of the RMOs and FRUGs, the
evaluation team was not able to identify any instances of benefit capture by elite groups, in respect of the
fish management innovations and the micro-credit system. This is in contrast to the Fourth Fisheries
Project, where a significant leakage of project benefits to the non-poor was reported9.
However, the same was not true of those riparian reforestations not managed by RMOs but by ad hoc
Plantation Committees. In these cases, all plantation establishment costs and first year maintenance are
paid by the project and landowners generally receive 70% of timber benefits. In one case (Maroshi
Charlands), the committee was dominated by non-poor landowners, who thus captured essentially all
benefits. The evaluation team suggests that, in any replication phase for such plantations, the project
supply inputs only, with poor committee members supplying the labor in return for a majority of the
benefits.
The project has been notably successful in improving the social standing of the poor fishermen,
traditionally near the bottom of the social ladder. As one proud beneficiary told the evaluation team,
"Before, we were nothing but now our dignity has increased so that we can shake hands with all kinds of
people. This could not have happened without MACH".
The AIG activities have understandably gone beyond fishers to include other poor villagers, although the
extent of this is not clear. The criterion of owning less than "50 decimals" (0.5 acre) of land in order to
qualify for RUG micro-credit or training appear to have been generally observed.
One aspect of the project that has not been rigorously monitored or evaluated is the efficacy of the
numerous training programs provided - whether the content of training programs was relevant to the
participants and suitable for their educational level, and the extent to which knowledge imparted was
retained. This could have been achieved through a small set of tracer studies. Such evaluation would
have been particularly important for the long-term training, which includes sewing for women and
industrial trades for men, where costs are relatively high and places few.
An outstanding achievement of the project has been the empowerment of women. The project has
operated in conservative rural areas, where women have traditionally had few rights and little power over
their lives or livelihoods. By insisting that a proportion of positions in RMOs and FRUGs be filled by
women, and by setting up RUGs for women, the project has forced the pace of social change. At several
sites, the team encountered women members who were willing to speak forthrightly about their concerns
and their role in the project - even interrupting the men.
MACH appears to have provided equal access to Hindus and Muslims in areas where both live.
9 "Key Lessons and Learning from Inland Open-Water Fisheries", FFP Report No. 4, Department of
Fisheries, Bangladesh (undated).
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 15
7.5 Infrastructure Impacts
Field observations confirm that infrastructural improvements, such as re-excavation of channels and
floodplain lakes (beels), dykes and culverts, and meeting sheds, are essential to achieving the economic
benefits just cited. It is therefore extremely disappointing to note that the Byzantine procedures of the
Government of Bangladesh (approval of the Project Proforma) delayed this activity by two years,
contributing to the result that about 40% of the allocated funds for re-excavation will not be spent by the
closing date. (see also Section 2.4). This problem will need to be speedily resolved if the full benefits of
the project are to be realized.
Now that considerable experience has been gained in the re-excavation and other works and their effects
on fish management, it should be possible to introduce a simple form of benefit-cost analysis for future
works of this kind, which could also be used in setting priorities.
7.6 Institutional Impacts
The success of the project in building co-management institutions has been described earlier. Project staff
played a key role in the development of the Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy by the DoF- a keystone
document for the future development of the sub-sector, which is now being followed up by an action plan.
The impact of MACH on the DoF, however, has been less than would have been desirable, as a result of a
decision at the outset to manage all project funds, including those for infrastructure, outreach etc. through
the MACH contractor team. While the project has certainly influenced DOF officers at the upazila level
to move beyond the traditional role of enforcing government regulations to a more pro-active stance
concerned with assisting fishermen's groups to increase production, this process needs to be carried much
further, through training programs, exchange of experience between sites and the like. The DoF also
.needs to post officers to all upazilas, to allow MACH successes to be replicated.
7.7 Effectiveness of Monitoring and Evaluation
MACH I and II have developed a powerful system of monitoring and evaluation (M&E), based on key
performance indicators related to the project objectives (see Table A.1). Good time series data on these
indicators are available in electronic and printed forms and these should be of considerable value to
project planners and researchers. However, more work will be needed to boil down the project results
into simpler formats for other users, such as UNOs, UFOs and RMOs.
Earlier discussion has noted a few problem areas with the M&E system, such as incompatible data from
income surveys and the lack of evaluation of training programs. The evaluation team's major concern is
the sustainability of the M&E system after the project closes. It will be essential to develop a simplified
system that can be continued at the local level - RMOs guided by UFOs - for variables such as total
catch, species diversity, use of sanctuaries and improved fishing practices, and the benefits of
infrastructural improvements. Other variables, such as household incomes, may be too complex for such
a system.
8. Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results
8.1 Sustainability
With completion of the project activities now planned before the project closing date of October 2006, the
view of the evaluation team is that MACH's considerable achievements will be largely sustainable for
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 16
the immediate future. Those RMOs and FRUGs which have been established for a reasonably long
period appear capable of managing the fishery resources and AIG activities respectively and able to resist
pressure from powerful interest groups. With continued vigilance on loan repayment, the FRUGs (and
their constituent RUGs) should be able to sustain themselves financially for the indefinite future. With
the LGCs (in future, UFCs) becoming increasingly active and able to administer the endowment funds,
there will be continuing support to the RMOs and FRUGs, thus enhancing their sustainability. All of this
presupposes that the Government remains committed to the principle of co-management and to other
elements of its Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy.
Having said that, it is important to note that, without further support, some elements of the MACH
program might not survive more than a year or so beyond the closing date. Perhaps 25% of the RMOs,
RUGs and FRUGs, especially those more recently established, are institutionally and financially more
fragile than the majority but most of these could probably be brought to self-sufficiency with intensive
week-to-week support that the project has been providing.
Secondly, the team also notes that considerable re-excavation and other works remain to be completed
with the 416b funds (approximately $1.3 million equivalent). While the project will continue to show
substantial benefits even if these works are deferred, it would clearly be in the interest of all parties,
especially the poor fishing communities, to find a mechanism to allow these works to be completed.
Thirdly, the evaluation has already discussed how the design of MACH was such that capacity building of
the DoF, particularly at the upazila level, was limited. DoF clearly has a major role to play in ensuring
that RMOs and FRUGs are supported and sustained and it would be highly desirable to find a way to
sensitize and orient the UFOs to the co-management model and their role in supporting the fishers.
For these reasons, the evaluation team proposes that USAID consider a short extension of MACH II by 8
to 12 months - to ensure greater sustainability of MACH achievements and to allow remaining ISMP/
416b works to be completed. For the latter to be effective, the extended closing date should be at least
June 2007, the end of the construction season. During the proposed extension, the focus would be on:
• New initiatives to strengthen the DoF, through policy development, manpower planning,
training, study tours, and technical support to the ICFS action plan process
• Continued support to the LGCs/UFCs, including completion of the network and guidance on
the use of endowment funds
• Intensive support to the lagging RMOs and FRUGs in the following way: the RMOs and
FRUGs would be divided into two roughly equal groups according to an assessment of their
present capacity; for the stronger group, the project would withdraw all week-to-week
support but would monitor performance twice during the extension period10 (project staff
would also be able to respond to any emergency needs from the stronger group); for the
weaker group, the project would continue to provide intensive hands on support, as well as
monitoring, with the objective of bringing these groups to a self-sufficient stage at project's
end
• Completion of all outstanding civil works
• Continued outreach to FFP and other sites, as funding permits
• Carrying out an action plan for pollution reduction at Kaliakoir
• Completing thejatka fisher livelihood support program
10 This would provide a powerful test of the statement above that these RMOs and FRUGs have reached self￾sufficiency.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 17
• Initiation of a simplified monitoring and evaluation system and training of UFOs and others
in its use
• Identification of priority areas for a possible expansion phase
It appears that the remaining funds in the MACH budget and the ISMP would be sufficient for the
above program, once appropriate reallocations are made.
8.2 Replicability
The evaluation team notes that, with the completion of the FFP in June 2006 and MACH in October
2006, there is presently no committed donor funding for floodplain fisheries beyond this year. Given the
very positive experience of MACH and the continuing importance of wetlands from biodiversity and
poverty alleviation points of view, the case for a follow-up project or program seems quite clear.
The team suggests that any expansion phase follow the model of MACH, with the following adaptations:
• Emphasis on replication rather than demonstration
• Assuming that a larger project would be managed by the DoF, a strong element of capacity
building for DoF
• Close integration of the co-management and civil works elements of the project in a single
Project Proforma
• According to donor preferences, biodiversity enhancements might be split off as a separate, but
closely coordinated, parallel project
• AIG activities should be considered as a necessary part of the package but might be achieved
through agreements with suitable major NGOs, rather than a project-run activity, provided such
services were clearly oriented to the target groups and promoted the conservation objectives of
MACH
Because of its demonstration nature, MACH has been relatively high cost and staff intensive per
beneficiary or per hectare and consideration should be given to streamlining the model to see if costs can
be reduced without significant loss of project quality. However, experience in Bangladesh (for example,
FFP) and elsewhere shows that lower cost approaches have a high failure rate. Given the likely robust
economic returns of even the high cost MACH model, the evaluation suggests that streamlining be
approached cautiously. Specifically, it is suggested that field services through NGOs remain at the
MACH level and that economies of scale be sought mainly at the project management level. For
example, MACH has increased the availability and capability of local specialists and thus the need for
expatriate consulting services (per unit of area) may be less than even the modest MACH level.
The evaluation team recommends strongly against an immediate replication of MACH to the whole of
Bangladesh, given the high rate of failure in the past for similar rapid expansions. The emphasis should
be on maintaining the quality and benefit level of the program. Many options are available for geographic
expansion but the team suggests the following priorities:
• In-filling of gaps in the three pilot areas, for example, two or three more RMOs could be
formed in Hail Haor
• Stepping out to areas adjacent to the pilot sites, for example, other haors in Sylhet Division
• Adopting one or more new regions, for example, building on the outreach experience in
Northwest Bangladesh
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 18
An alternative approach would be to focus on a complete watershed - for example, the upper Meghna,
which could be combined with a watershed management approach, including sediment management.
The size and duration of the expansion phase will depend heavily on donor preferences and constraints.
For example, there could be value in dividing the work into two steps: a transition phase of one to two
years followed by a full-scale project. In the transition phase, the capacity of the DOF could be
developed, project areas selected, initial surveys and baseline data collection accomplished, some RMOs
established and the detailed design of the full-scale project completed.
Given that the basic science and sociology of the MACH model is now well understood, the expansion
phase might lend itself to an instrument like the World Bank's adaptable program lending, where a
medium-term program of say 10 years' duration is divided into a number of phases, each with a set of
milestones to be achieved before the next tranche of funding is released.
	Recommendations for Follow 9. -up Actions
The evaluation team finds that MACH has shown clear benefits in its three areas of operation, that these
benefits will be largely sustainable even without an extension of MACH II, but that the assurance of
sustainability could be further enhanced through a short extension of 8 to 12 months. It also concludes
that there is a strong case for a follow-up project or program, finds that Government of Bangladesh
support for such a program is solid, and recommends to USAID that the agency play a catalytic role in
mobilizing support for such a program.
The recent Co-Management Week will have provided an opportunity to showcase the achievements of
MACH and to determine the interest and preferences of the Government and the principal donors for
subsequent involvement.
	Lessons Learned 10.
1. Restoration of wetlands in Bangladesh, both to restore biodiversity and to improve the livelihoods of
the many poor people who depend on them, is very feasible. Moreover, it can lead to attractive
economic rates of return.
2. Co-management has been found to be highly effective in balancing the interests of the various
stakeholders in wetland natural resources. However, it is a slow and staff intensive process and no
"quick fixes" are available if sustainability is to be ensured.
3. A pilot project implemented outside the normal government structure can assure transparency and
expedite implementation. However, the consequent limited impact on government capacity can
impede replication
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 19
USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
STATES
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 1
APPENDIX B: TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction............................................................................................................................... 3
1. Nishorgo support project Objectives and Performance Indicators ..................................... 6
1.1 Project Objectives .................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Performance Indicators and Monitoring and Evaluation System ............................ 6
2. Project Design .................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Project Description .................................................................................................. 7
2.2 Revisions to Project Design ..................................................................................... 7
2.3 Project Costs and Financing Plan ............................................................................ 9
2.4 Institutional Structure /Community Participation .................................................... 9
Evaluation Team Comments on Infrastructure/Community Participation ............. 11
3. Implementation History ..................................................................................................... 12
4. Relevance of Objectives and Design ................................................................................ 12
5. Achievement of Objectives .............................................................................................. 13
6. Cost-Effectiveness ............................................................................................................ 14
7. Expected Project Impacts ................................................................................................. 14
7.1 Environmental Impacts .......................................................................................... 14
7.2 Economic Impacts .................................................................................................. 15
7.3 Social Impacts ........................................................................................................ 16
8. Effectiveness of NSP Monitoring and Evaluation ............................................................ 17
8.1 Core Indicators for Biological and Social Monitoring ........................................... 17
Comments on NSP "Core Biological and Social Indicators" ................................. 17
9. Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for USAID SO 6 ................................................... 18
COMMENTS ON NSP "PERFORMANCE MONITORING" ............................................ 18
9.1 Work Plan Monitoring ........................................................................................... 19
COMMENTS ON NSP "WORK PLAN MONITORING" ................................................ 19
10. Summary Comments on NSP M&E ................................................................................. 20
11. Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results .......................................................... 20
11.1 Sustainability .......................................................................................................... 20
11.2 Replicability ............................................................................................................ 22
12. Recommendations for Follow-up Actions ........................................................................ 24
Annex 1: Illustrative Description Of NSP Activities ................................................ 26
Annex 2: Progress Against USAID PMP .................................................................. 31
Annex 3: Formation, Membership & Functions of the CM Council and Committee 37
Annex 4: NSP Achievements ..................................
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
Introduction
Excerpts from the following two documents provide insight into the current status of tropical forest
resources and biodiversity protection in Bangladesh.
• Co-Management of Forest Resources in Bangladesh, Strategic Objective 6
(USAID/Bangladesh Environment Team, 2002); and
• USAID/Bangladesh and Assessment of the Forest Department's Institutional Organization
and Capacity to Manage the Protected Area System of Bangladesh (Nishorgo Support
Project, 2004)
Reliable, up-to-date statistics on the quantity and quality of tropical forest cover in Bangladesh are hard to
come by and contradictory figures are the norm rather than the exception. Recent order of magnitude data
suggests that there are about 2.6 million hectares (covering 18 % of the total land surface) in the country.
They include: state forest land of 2.2 million hectares composed of 1.3 million hectares of natural forests
and plantations (there are extensive plantation areas on reserved forest land, particularly in the hilly
regions of the country) under the jurisdiction of the Forest Department and about 0.9 million hectares of
unclassified state forest administered by the Ministry of Lands. The remainder of the forest cover is in
private hands, notably including the very successful homestead plantations common across the flood plain
areas of the country and small tracts of natural forest and plantations on estate lands. With the exception
of some of the most inaccessible areas whose actual status is not well known (e.g. in the Chittagong Hill
Tracts, CHT), all of the remaining natural forests are reportedly under constant pressure, have been
significantly degraded and fragmented, thereby threatening their value as habitat for biodiversity
conservation and in the provision of vital environmental services.
Recognizing the perilous situation of natural forests in the country, the Forest Department has established
a series of protected forest areas (distinct from gazetted forest reserves). As of 2004, the total area of
Bangladesh's Protected Area (PA) system (including relatively small, proposed areas) is approximately
243,723 ha (Table 1). Approximately 84,000 ha of the total PA system are relatively intact upland
forests in the northeast and along the ridges of the eastern hills (CHT). The remainder of the PA system is
found in the lowland coastal areas, primarily within the internationally-recognized Sundarbans.
Bangladesh's forests come under relentless human pressure as its population grows. As a result,
Bangladesh now has among the smallest areas of protected and intact forest in the world. And yet,
citizens clamor more than ever for places of natural beauty to which they can escape. A glance at the
visitor statistics makes it clear: the Botanical Garden in Dhaka receives nearly a million visitors per year
while Bhawal National Park averages about 400,000 visitors. Even small Sitakunda Eco-Park near
Chittagong received 50,000 in a single day recently.
Bangladesh now has among the smallest areas of protected and intact forest in the world and Bangladesh's
forests continue to come under relentless human pressure as its population grows. And yet, the citizens of
Bangladesh clamor more than ever for places of natural beauty to which they can escape. The result is an
every increasing number of species threatened with local extinctions; in 2002 Earth Trends Country
Profiles listed 68 threatened species. The PA system, if well designed and managed, is intended to
provide long-term protection of the majority of the country's biodiversity.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
Higher Plants
Total known species (number), 1992-2002 5,000
Number of threatened species, 2002 12
Mammals
Total known species (number), 1992-2002 125
Number of threatened species, 2002 23
Breeding Birds
Total known species (number), 1992-2002 166
Number of threatened species, 2002 23
Reptiles
Number of Total Known Species, 1992-2003 112
Number of threatened species, 2002 20
Amphibians
Number of Total Known Species, 1992-2003 23
Number of threatened species, 2002 ?
Fish
Number of Total Known Species, 1992-2003 81
Number of threatened species, 1992-2002 ?
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4
Table 1. Summary Information on Protected Areas in Bangladesh, July 2004
Year of Notification
Area
ha
31227
36970
	^Yearof
establishment in
^, parcllthcsis)
1996
.., 1996
Name of the Protected Area DeclaTed Status
Wildlife Sanctuary
	WildlifeSanctuary
Wildlife Sanctuary
Wildlife Sanctuary
Wildlife Sanctuary
Wildlife Sanctuary,
Wildlife Sanctuary
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Park
National Part:
National Park
National Park
71502 1996
7761 '1986
42087 1983
1795 1981/1'996'
40 1981
5022 1982
8436 1982
1729 1980
28 2001
16352 2001
5464 1999
1250 1996
Sundarbans East
' Sundarbans South
Sundarbans West
='Chunati
Pablakhali
°Rema-Kalen<ua
Char Kukri Mukri
13ha val
Madhupur
10. Himchari
11. Ramsagar
12. Nijhunr Dweep
13. Kaptai
Lawachara
I\ledhakachchapia
Satchari
2004
TOTAL AREA (incl.
pro cased
Mirpur
Modhu Tila
l hadim Naaar
Eeo Park 100 1999
Nationiil Park 679 2006
245,536
Eco-Park
Bot.Garden 84 (961) 1
1983
1(1 9-`)9)
(2003)
(2000)
(2000)
Game Reserve
Dulahazara
Bashkhali
Safari Park
MadIiabkunda
Eco-Park
Eco-Park
21. Sitakunda Botanical Garden & 403
= Five NSP-supported
pilot PAs
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 5
1. Nishorgo Support Project Objectives and Performance Indicators
1.1 Project Objectives
The Nishorgo Support Project (NSP) aims to collaboratively develop Co-Management (CM) Agreements
between the Forest Department (FD) and local stakeholders leading to measurable improvements in forest
and resource conservation in selected Protected Areas (PA) and their buffer zones.
A complete description of project activities organized under the following five components with cross￾reference to USAID Strategic Objective 6.0 Intermediate Results is provided in Annex 1.
Component No. 1: Development of a Co-Management Planning and Implementation Model
Component No. 2: Interventions and Investments for Improved Ecosystem Management
Component No. 3: The Enabling Policy Environment for Co-Management Enhanced
Component No. 4: Laying the Foundation for a Conservation Constituency in Bangladesh
Component No. 5: Ensuring Institutionalization of Co-Management
The NSP was initiated in June 2003 when a contract was signed with the project implementing contractor
IRG Inc. and the project is to be completed in May 2008. The project has therefore two years remaining
before completion
IRG provides technical support in designing a CM model acceptable to FD and other stakeholders, and
tests its reliability in field situations in partnership with the FD. The FD Project Proforma (PP) has
identified the following six objectives that will be implemented by the FD:
1. Develop a functional model for formalized collaboration in the management of PAs.
2. Create alternative income generation opportunities for key local stakeholders associated with
pilot co-managed PAs.
3. Develop policies conducive to improved PA management and build constituencies to further
these policy goals.
4. Strengthen the institutional systems and capacity of the FD and key stakeholders so that
improvements in co-management under the Project can be made permanent.
5. Build or reinforce the infrastructure within PAs that will enable better management and
provision of visitor services at co-managed sites.
6. Design and implement a program of habitat management and restoration for pilot Protected
Areas.
Three sub-contractors assist IRG; Community Development Center (CODEC) and Rangpur Dinajpur
Rural Services (RDRS) are involved in field implementation and Nature Conservation Management
(NACOM) works with IRG in the collection of data, conducting surveys and in performance monitoring.
1.2 Performance Indicators and Monitoring and Evaluation System
The NSP employs three dedicated staff for monitoring and evaluation (M&E); one at the Dhaka office
and one at each of the two regional offices (Srimangal and Cox's Bazar). A 3-level M&E program has
been developed by the NSP as follows:
Level 1: Social and Biological Monitoring undertaken with the assistance of community members
where possible to collect information on a small number of easily recognizable indicators
of change in the quality of the natural resource base and the livelihoods of the local
population.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 6
Level 2: Programmatic M&E is conducted by the NSP to provide insight into the project's
progress in relation to the USAID Mission's Strategic Objective 6 Performance
Monitoring Plan (PMP).
Level 3: Work Plan monitoring is conducted by the NSP Dhaka office to assess progress against
annual work plans based on status reports received from the regional offices. The
completion of work plan milestones is scored according to five stages from "work
started" to "completion".
A discussion of the effectiveness of the NSP 3-level monitoring program is provided in Section 8.
2. Project Design
2.1 Project Description
Under the Strategic Objective Grant Agreement (SOAG), the Governments of Bangladesh and the United
States of America jointly committed to improved management of tropical forests and open water
resources in Bangladesh. This SOAG, signed on January 15, 2003, provides a framework agreement for
financial and technical resources for improving Protected Areas management in Bangladesh. Some of the
resources under this SOAG have funded the NSP, a project introduced to develop a CM model for
improved management of forest resources of the country.
Under the NSP, the FD and local stakeholders will assess the existing benefits of the PAs and manage the
PAs through local institutions. A portion of the revenue generated from PAs, including entry fees, will be
retained locally, shared among the community members and re-invested in PA management according to
priorities determined by CM Committees.
The Project is working at five initial pilot sites to begin adapting a PA co-management approach for
Bangladesh. The five initial pilot PA sites are as follows (sites 1-3 are located in the northeast, sites 4-5
are located in the southeast):
1. Lawachara National Park (1,250 ha, established 1996);
2. Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (1,796 ha, established 1996);
3. Satchari National Park (240 ha, established 2005);
4. Teknaf Game Reserve (11,615 ha, established 1983); and
5. Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (7,761 ha, established 1986).
The NSP was designed progressively rather than being laid out in full at the outset. A good deal of time
has thus been spent during the first three years in refining a detailed design of the appropriate co￾management institutional framework, developing a M&E program, facilitating the establishment and
effective functioning of the Steering Committee, CM Councils and Committees and Forest User Groups
(FUGs). Some areas of the NSP are still being designed e.g. AIG program and the landscape
development fund. The selection of a fifth and sixth PA was scheduled for the beginning of the fourth
year as per the contract and proposal.
2.2 Revisions to Project Design
Since project inception NSP has continued to refer to the five components outlined above as an
organizing framework for annual work plans, annual reports and project evaluation. Two recent strategic
documents were provided by the NSP to the evaluation team in Bangladesh, these are:
• Guidelines for Landscape Development Fund (LDF) Grant Program (NSP, March 23rd, 2006);
and
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 7
• The Role of Alternative Income Generation (AIG) Activities in Nishorgo's Strategy for
Conservation of Protected Areas (NSP, May 15', 2006).
These documents reflect an evolution in IRG's strategy in relation to providing support to AIG. The
original strategy for the support of AIG was based on micro-finance provided by CM Committee's and/or
NSP's implementing NGOs. The above documents articulate an AIG support program based on small
grants awarded competitively, in lieu of implementing a micro-finance operation by the project itself.
While the documents do refer to the provision of micro-credit by major NGOs through agreements with
NSP, the NSP team has not yet established formal agreements with the major NGOs, but such dialogue is
an explicit written objective of the Srimongal Co-Management week scheduled for end-May 2006, to
which BRAC, ASA, Grameen and other major microfinance NGOs have been personally invited by the
Mission Director.
The majority of people living in close proximity to the NSP PAs have been classified by the NSP as poor
and ultra-poor. In addition, rural appraisals conducted by NSP have shown that the local population is
highly dependent on the resources present within PAs, such as fuelwood, poles, thatch for housing,
timber, garden plots, etc. and these resources may be for home use or used for sale to generate income
(quantitative data on these resource uses has not yet been collected by the NSP). The continued use of
these PA resources by the local population is inconsistent with the intent of the NSP to protect
biodiversity in PAs. The continued, essentially unregulated and illegal use of resources in the PA by the
local population is likely to pose conflicts, but the NSP is working to determine what uses are consistent
with"biodiversity protection and how to regulate and control access in the interest of effective PA
management, as well as providing a range of alternatives for increasing natural resource productivity and
for developing AIG opportunities outside of the targeted PAs. As per the management plan maps and
land use plans for the five PAs, some "multiple use zones" may be delegated as appropriate for controlled
extraction of resources, such as fuel wood by local populations.
The NSP has a stated aim of improving both biodiversity conservation and livelihoods in Bangladesh.
Consequently, the inherent conflict in cutting off the supply of natural resources to a dependent, local
poor population is intended to be resolved, in part, through NSP's AIG activities. During the first three
years of the project, "demonstration activities" involving training and the purchase of materials required
for AIG (e.g. nursery supplies, cow for cow fattening, etc.) have been completed reaching a very small
proportion of the total resources users present. At the mid-way point of the project (Year 3, Quarter 2
Progress Report November 30'h, 2005) 132 households, or 0.2%, of all households within the landscape
zone (the landscape zone is the area surrounding PAs with a population dependent on the PA's forest
resources) of NSP's five PAs were implementing AIG activities (average 5 persons per household; total
population in landscape zone 271,557). The actual budget expended to date on AIG could not be
determined as funds used for AIG are included under the demonstration fund spent by subcontractors
when providing training, local level capacity building and grants to the members of resource user groups
for AIG enterprises.
It should also be noted that the NSP expects local populations to benefit from the development of
ecotourism and PA management activities that are being supported by the co management model.
Revenue sharing from increased gate receipts from the PAs, provision of ecosystem services from more
effectively protected parks and reserves, and employment and income opportunities developed in
conjunction with increased visitation to the parks will also benefit local communities
The two documents noted above provide the basis for moving forward on AIG activities during the
remaining two years of the project. NSP support to AIG activities is proposed through the following
three mechanisms:
Evaluation of USAIDBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 8
1. Grants to CM Committees - a total of $300,000 is proposed for disbursement through the LDF,
with this budget being disbursed to CM Committees for a variety of activities, some of which
may be related to AIG, through a grant application process overseen by NSP;
2. Demonstration and training - NSP project funds (total value not provided) may also continue to
be used for "demonstration activities" as described above; and
3. Enterprise development support - whereby NSP staff assist in the development and enhancement
of the linkage of producers of goods at the PA level, to regional and national markets. This also
involves engaging the private sector in ecotourism through the development of eco-lodges
located in close proximity to PAs and/or through promoting tour group visits to PAs.
2.3 Project Costs and Financing Plan
Total contract amount is US$ 6.525 million from USAID, US$ 1.0 million GoB (Government of
Bangladesh contribution in cash and kind) local currency funds, US$ 2.5 million RPA [Reimbursable
Project Aid from USAID through the PL-416(b) generated local currency] is available as project funds.
The contractor IRG handles the USAID project fund of US$ 6.525, and the Forest Department is
responsible for the GoB and RPA funds. NSP budget analysis provided by NSP Finance Director (May
08, 2006) is shown in the tables below.
A. As per agreement between USAID and IRG status as of March 31x`,2006
Line item In US$
Total contract amount 6,525,963
Total obligated and available till September 30, 2006 3,450,000
Expensed from inception to March 31,2006 2,850,975
Balance obligation available 599,025
Balance contract budget available (56% remaining) 3,674,988
B. As per PP provision status as of January 31x`, 2006
Allocation in lakh taka Totals in
Item GoB RPA DPA lakh taka
Total PP Provision 589.86 1,475.00 4,144.61 6,209.47
Expenditure (reported till
Janua 2006 - - 1,071.00 343.00
Balance PP budget
available (83% remainin 589.86 1,475.00 3,073.61 5138.47 '
The PP provision is to be used for a variety of training programs both local and overseas for FD staff, for
workshops and NSP promotions such as popular theatre, discussion meetings and rallies, for equipment
including vehicles and officer equipment, for habitat restoration and for construction and works
associated with PAs. With the late approval of the PP provision (April 2006), it is unlikely all of these
funds will be disbursed before the end of contract for the NSP, leaving the work for which these funds
were intended incomplete.
2.4 Institutional Structure /Community Participation
The NSP has the following institutional framework:
• National Steering Committee (NSC)
• NSP IRG Head Office (Dhaka)
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 9
• NSP FD Head Office (Dhaka)
• NSP NGO Regional Offices (RDRS - Srimangal and CODEC - Cox's Bazar)
• NSP FD Site Offices (One at each PA, headed by an Assistant Conservator of Forest -ACF)
• NSP NGO Site Offices (RDRS/CODEC staffed, one or more for each of five PAs)
The NSC's first meeting was in February 2004, and to date there has been a total of four meetings. The
NSC has been effective in promoting and facilitating NSP activities, such as the empowerment of CM
Councils and CM Committees through Government Orders. In addition, the evaluation team attended a
NSC meeting that agreed to proceed with a Government Order approving the retention of 50% of PA
revenues by CM Committees for use in PA management.
Head Offices of IRG and the FD are staffed and operating, as are NSP NGO Regional Offices. NSP FD
and NGO Site Offices are more recently established, some are under establishment and others are planned
for establishment. NSP FD Site Offices are in some cases awaiting the availability of appropriate office
space and/or the appointment of FD staff. NSP NGO Site Offices are for the most part established and
staffed, however a degree of staff turnover has been reported and new staff is being sought. In one case
an NGO Site Office is being relocated and in at least two other cases new offices are being established to
add new resources to the field program.
The foregoing provides insight into the amount of work the NSP has undertaken, and continues to
undertake, as it mobilizes the resources needed to implement a PA co-management program
The institutional framework for the co-management of PAs is as follows:
• FD National/Regional Offices
• Co-Management Council (one or more for each of five PAs)
• Co-Management Committee (one committee derived from each council)
• Forest User Groups (multiple FUGs consisting of male, female, or mixed membership are formed
by NSP NGO staff among the population of the landscape zone of PAs)
A description of the formation, membership and functions of the CM Council and Committee is provided
in Annex 3. The first CM Council meetings for each of the five PAs were held in September 2005 and
four or more meetings have been held by each council in the eight month period from September 2005 to
April 2006. CM Committees have been more recently formed (March/April 2006) and in most cases have
had an inaugural first meeting. In at least one PA (Teknaf Game Reserve) the formation of an additional
third CM Council and Committee is underway.
The CM Committee is the agency that is proposed to be most directly involved in the management of
PAs. The CM Committee is formed by a way of election organized by the CM Council. The ACF serves
as the Chairperson to the CM Committee with elected members providing representation from the
following stakeholder groups:
• Forest User Groups (FUGs);
• Village Headman/Minister;
• Local Government;
• NGOs;
• Other Community Based Organizations (CBOs);
• Local Elite;
• Law-Enforcing Authorities; and
• Representatives from the Government Department
The representation of women on the CM Council or Committee is not specified.
Evaluation of USA 11 /Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 10
The CM Committee has many responsibilities in managing PAs, a brief list is shown below, with a more
complete description provided in Annex 3.
• Preparation of Action Plans;
• Awareness building for PA biodiversity conservation among local population;
• Prevention of illegal logging and encroachment;
• Monitoring of PA resources and protection;
• Undertaking actions to allow natural regeneration of the forest;
• Undertaking plantation and afforestation activities with FD assistance;
• Initiating restoration of degraded lands within PAs;
• Engaging in AIG activities for the local poor/ultra poor population;
• Promoting tourism within PAs;
• Assisting the local poor/ultra poor in access to micro-finance;
• Ensuring good management of CM Committee financial accounts;
• Developing proposals and manage LDF grants, with particular emphasis on social development
for the poor/ultra poor;
• Resolving local issues and conflicts that may arise in association with PAs;
• Maintaining close linkages with other government departments
The above list, while not exhaustive, does provide some understanding of the range and complexity of
management tasks and in turn experience, education and qualifications required by CM Committee
members to manage PAs effectively.
Evaluation Team Comments on Infrastructure/Community Participation
Achieving representation and active participation of the FUGs is necessary to ensure the local poor/ultra
poor have a voice in PA management, particularly in regard to improving the livelihoods of the local
population. Representatives of FUGs from local villages will, by their nature, be inexperienced and
reticent in their participation within the CM Council and Committee, given the fact that these groups
consist largely of members of higher education, greater economic stature and/or social status. CM
Councils have been established for about one year and CM Committees have only recently been formed,
the expectation is that it will take time and effort on the part of the NSP to develop full FUG
representation. The MACH project has shown that good representation and active participation of local
village resource user groups in resource co-management organizations can be achieved with ongoing
project support over a four to six year period.
Currently in Bangladesh there is limited knowledge, experience and capacity within all sectors of
government and among the general pubic to manage PAs. This is reflected in NSP FD staff, CM Council
and Committee members and indeed within the majority of NSP project staff, particularly NGO staff. In
August 2004, NSP prepared a report "Assessment of the Forest Department's Institutional Organization
and Capacity to Manage the Protected Area System of Bangladesh". This report recognizes the limited
capacity of the FD Wildlife and Nature Conservation Circle formed in 2001 and the challenges posed by
implementing the new concepts of "co-management" of PAs.
Training and capacity building in PA management must therefore be important components of the overall
strategy that will contribute to sustainability of the NSP. Some training has been conducted by NSP, such
as:
• Visits from co-management experts from India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia to share experiences
with FD staff;
• One to two week training sessions of NSP NGO field staff;
Evaluation of USA ID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 11
• Site level orientation on co-management concepts given to key stakeholder groups at five project
sites;
• Concepts of PA co-management given to local FD staff and CM Council members at five project
sites; and
• West Bengal study tour attended by some members of local FD Staff and CM Council members.
Further training is required at all levels to reinforce the concepts of co-management, biodiversity
conservation and to provide support to CM Committees as they become more directly involved in
addressing the many issues of PA management. As the NSP does not have much scope to conduct
training, capacity building will need to be supported by some other mechanism or by the FD.
3. Implementation History
Project implementation has proceeded in a manner consistent with GoB protocols. IRG has been fully
engaged from the time of project inception in June 2003 and has meaningfully engaged the FD in
embracing the NSP as evidenced by the completion of the PCP, DPP and PP. Notable is the early success
of having the FD declare its own protected area program "Nishorgo", the name under which the project
operates. It should be noted that the release of GoB funds for use by the FD in the NSP occurred in April
2006 and that the GoB PP runs until June 2009 whereas IRG's contract ends approximately one year
earlier in May 2008. As noted in the project finances section, the timing of the release of GoB funds and
the staggered completion date for the PP versus IRG's contract completion date will make it difficult to
complete all project components as outlined in the PP without an extension of the NSP contract.
During the first three years of the project, considerable progress has been made, and the evaluation team
would like to recognize IRG's success in instituting the co-management model within the FD and within
the communities of the five PAs. To date, much of the project work has focused on sensitizing people to
the concepts of biodiversity conservation, co-management, and ecotourism through a variety of training
exercises, workshops, study tours and meetings. The results of these efforts is evidenced in the FD
Vision 2010 paper, the formation of multi-stakeholder CM Councils and Committees working hand-in￾hand with FD staff and the formation of FUGs. The evaluation team also recognizes the NSP work
completed "on the ground", including the erection of PA signage, the identification of trails, NSP site
office construction, high quality public information materials, baseline monitoring, AIG demonstration
activities and forest patrols that have reduced the occurrence of illegal felling
With the recent formation of CM Committees (March/April 2006) the NSP's co-management of PAs
appears to be making a transition from what may be characterized as an "establishment phase" to an
"implementation phase". The concepts of co-management have been conveyed, the institutional
structures are in place and the actual work of managing PAs under a co-management model is beginning.
The completion of this next phase of the NSP is discussed in more detail in Section 8.
4. Relevance of Objectives and Design
USAID/Bangladesh's current plans and investments in the environment sector are a direct result of
decades of assistance to rural development, family planning, poverty alleviation and food security. These
programs were themselves keys to addressing the crux of Bangladesh's primary environmental dilemma
of catering for the needs of its large population with the limited resources of this small country.
Achievements in these areas, in particular increased agricultural productivity and a reduction in the
population growth rate, have given rise to an opportunity to re-focus the overall program characterized by
the USAID Mission's overall goal of Poverty Reduced through Sustainable Economic Growth.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 12
As part of its programmatic response for realizing this goal, and in light of the three areas of greatest
importance to the sustainability of economic growth in the country, population, food and water,
USAID/Bangladesh has created an explicit environmental Strategic Objective, S06
Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources
The concept of SO 6 is to develop community-based approaches and institutional capabilities for the wise
management, sustainable productivity and conservation of these critical elements (open water and tropical
forests) of the natural resource base of Bangladesh. The present arrangements and institutional framework
for the use of open water and tropical forests have led to their de facto treatment as "open access"
resources; the property of all but the responsibility of none, with a consequent degradation of the resource
base and declining productivity. The Intermediate Results (IR) of SO 6 and the corresponding NSP
components are shown below.
Intermediate Results of SO 6 NSP Components
1. Effective Community-based Resource 1. Development of a Co-management
Management Mechanisms Implemented Planning and Implementation Model
2. Select Habitats and Ecosystems Restored 2. Interventions and Investments for
Improved Ecosystem Management
3. Selected Policies Implemented that Support 3. The Enabling Policy Environment for Co￾the above management Enhanced
4. Public Awareness of Key Issues Increased 4. Laying the Foundation for a Conservation
Constituency in Bangladesh
5. Improved Institutional Capacity 5. Ensuring Institutionalization of Co￾management
The NSP Components identified by IRG and the NSP Objectives as identified in the FD PP directly
support the IRs. The NSP also supports the USAID Mission's overall goal of Poverty Reduced through
Sustainable Economic Growth, through AIG activities that are an integral part of the project and the
longer term goal of achieving sustainable economic growth through tourism development.
5. Achievement of Objectives
A summary of achievements for each project component and corresponding FD PP objective is provided
in Annex 4; these results suggest good progress is being made by the NSP. As discussed above in Section
3.1, the project is in a period of transition from establishment and sensitization ofstakeholders of the PA
co-management framework, to implementation of co-management at each of the five pilot sites.
This next phase will bring new challenges to the NSP in the remaining two years of the project. There is
however good evidence that achievements will continue to be made under the NSP, as a solid foundation
has been made in terms of the support of co-management of PAs by the FD. The CM Councils and CM
Committees appear willing to take on the task of implementing PA management and should receive
support from the NSP to assist them. The NSP has also initiated a number of infrastructure projects such
as trail, office and visitor centre construction that have begun or will begin soon and should therefore be
completed over the next two years. The NSP has already created many FUGs and has conducted
demonstration training activities and has therefore demonstrated its capacity to undertake further AIG
training and support activities.
Many of the tasks described above are however open-ended and could conceivably be carried on for many
more years as activities associated with PA management. The evaluation team has concerns regarding the
likelihood of sustainability of ongoing, long-term achievements by the newly formed CM Committees
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 13
without further support beyond the end of the NSP in May 2008. CM Committees have the difficult task
of creating a balance between meeting needs of biodiversity protection, which means enforcing rules that
keep people out of the forest, with the creation of improved livelihoods through AIG activities and buffer
zone development that provides positive incentives for a population that must reduce its dependence on
resources traditionally derived from PAs. To date the NSP has not clearly articulated a strategy that
outlines how this balance will be achieved, nor how the NSP will assist CM Committees in dealing with
these delicate issues that involve providing "carrots" (i. e. incentives - AIG, tourism, etc.) and "sticks"
(i.e. disincentives - patrolling, law enforcement, etc.). This topic is discussed in greater detail in Section
8.
	Cost-Effectiveness 6.
Assessing the cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation projects is difficult due to an inability to put
a value on intangibles such as protecting hoolock gibbons. Nonetheless, if the NSP succeeds in
establishing a co-management model that leads to the long-term protection of biodiversity in selected PAs
within Bangladesh, there is little doubt the 6.5 million US dollars spent on the NSP would be considered
cost-effective. Another means to assess the cost-effectiveness of the NSP would be to compare other
similar projects, to determine if similar results could be achieved at lower cost. If for example a similar
GEF project had been initiated it is likely the costs would be significantly more.
The cost-effectiveness of the NSP should also be considered in relation to the positive and negative
economic impacts on the population of the PA landscape zone. Negative impacts may arise as the NSP
achieves greater protection of PA biodiversity resulting in a loss of benefits previously available. Positive
benefits may arise from AIG activities support by the NSP and/or the CM Committee and, over the long
term, the NSP hopes to achieve a variety of economic benefits from increased tourism.
To date, no assessment of cost-effectiveness has been made by NSP. While it is somewhat early in the
project to measure economic benefits, an effort should be made to obtain the necessary baseline
information that will permit an assessment of cost-effectiveness when information on benefits is
available. This will require an assessment of past and future benefits derived from PAs, income levels of
the population within the landscape zone, AIG activities, tourism, PA revenue sharing, etc.
	Expected Project Impacts 7.
The NSP will have completed three of its five year contract at the end of May 2006. This section presents
some of the expected impacts of the NSP based on progress made to date and anticipated achievements of
the NSP over the remaining two years.
7.1 Environmental Impacts
It is difficult to forecast the long term environmental impact within the limited time frame that the NSP
has been active. Nonetheless the initiation of the co-management model that has led to community
patrolling has started to bear some results. CM Councils together with the FD have demonstrated a
reduction of illegal felling in the three northern sites. Mechanisms to sustain joint FD and community
patrolling remains, however, unclear within the NSP. In some sites community patrols are paid by the
NSP, in other sites they are given incentives (flashlights, uniforms, etc.). The evaluation team was
informed illegal logging continues to remain an extremely lucrative and potentially attractive activity with
the income available far exceeding other potential income sources. The NSP FD staff has requested
incentives similar to those received by community patrollers to carry out their duties, suggesting the need
for ongoing support to the FD. There is also the question of whether community patrolling will continue
over the long term and how it will be financed?
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 14
Achieving long term environmental benefits through protecting PA biodiversity will require many actions
by the CM Committee beyond sustaining the existing patrolling. First and foremost are the impacts of
fuelwood and pole wood removal and the continued and existing village encroachment and agricultural
activities. The difficulty being for the CM Committee to develop management techniques which deal
with these issues in an effective yet responsible manner such that biodiversity is protected without
significant negative impacts to the population of the landscape zone. In the longer term there are the
many varied issues of PA management and restoration. Positive environmental benefits are expected
such as increased native species diversity, watershed protection and the protection of rare and endangered
species such as the Hoolock Gibbon.
The NSP project has worked with communities to establish baseline values of eight unique birds at each
of the sites. Initial data from the second year of monitoring suggests changes are already occurring in
response to a reduction of human activity associated within PAs. Indicator birds of the lower strata have
increased in Satchari National Park. Tree seedlings raised by members of FUGs will ultimately be
planted out in the landscape zone, as an alternative to forest destruction, by generating a stock of trees in
local area. The introduction and operation of 180 improved stoves at Chunati has demonstrated a useful
approach for reducing pressure for fuel wood from the protected area and will result in improved air
quality through reduced emissions, particularly within households, due to the use of chimneys that vent
smoke outside.
7.2 Economic Impacts
With a stated aim of improving both biodiversity conservation and livelihoods, the NSP is intended to
contribute to sustainable economic growth of the forest dependent poor living within the landscape zone
of PAs. Economic growth may come from AIG activities initiated by the NSP in the short term and AIG
supported by the CM Committees over the long term. It is also expected that there will be a significant
increase in tourism associated with PAs and that this will translate into positive economic impacts.
The NSP has suggested the following 5 categories of economic benefit:
i. household level benefits to people engaged in AIG activities
ii. community level benefits related to AIG promotion and support
iii. individual and HH level benefits associated with improved PA management
iv. community level benefits tied to improved PA management (including ecosystem
services)
v. HH and community benefits associated with increased productivity, sustainable use and
improved management of buffer zones and other sites in the surrounding landscape
The NSP's Enterprise Development study identified 14 priority and secondary tiers of AIG activities.
About 700 FUG members have received training in various AIG activities including nursery raising,
poultry rearing, cattle fattening, pig rearing, fish culture, eco-guiding, etc. Following training, some
members have received inputs for AIG activities through grants. This process of capacity building for
AIG activities is ongoing (see Section 2.2 for proposed changes to project support for AIG). AS AIG
activities start generating income and local level enterprises develop, positive economic impact will help
reduce poverty and it is hoped reduce impacts to PAs. To date a relatively small proportion of the
population of the landscape has been engaged in AIG demonstration training activities and there are no
targets established for AIG over the remaining two years of the project that would permit an assessment
of additional positive economic impact through AIG training and support. Overall it appears the NSP will
have quite a limited positive economic impact for the poor and ultra poor population living within the PA
landscape zone given the size of this population and the level of AIG training and support feasible within
the remaining two years of the project.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 15
Positive economic impacts related to increasing tourism can only be speculated at this point in time.
Nonetheless some quantitative forecasts could and should be made for this and other project components
to assess the effectiveness of AIG activities in providing a positive impact on forest users as one of the
goals established by the NSP. It is recognized that there is an increasing urban elite population with
disposable income that are interested in visiting PAs and a Government Order to share 50% of PA
revenue has recently been in the process of approval. In addition, looking at the economic benefits
generated by PAs within other countries in the region suggest tourism has the potential to generate
income for local populations. The realization of economic benefits for the local poor/ultra poor from
tourism will, however, rely on a number of factors, first and foremost the long term management,
restoration and protection of biodiversity within PAs and secondly substantial capacity building that
engages the local population in tourism and thirdly transparent systems for deciding how financial
benefits will be used to ensure the benefits are distributed equitably.
7.3 Social Impacts
Although the NSP is primarily a PA conservation project, during the three years since its inception it has
been able to initiate remarkable social change by involving the FD and a variety of stakeholders in co￾management of PAs, in contrast to the traditional adversarial relationship, which has on occasion turned
violent. Advocacy for co-management through the formation of CM Councils and CM Committees have
empowered the local people and established social-environmental linkages. This has developed a sense of
ownership of the resources by community members and created social awareness among a wide section of
people in Bangladesh through a variety of promotion mechanisms utilized by the NSP (e.g. competition
of the "Nishorgo" name, architectural competition for Lawachara visitor centre, plus others).
Empowerment and sense of ownership have encouraged community members to organize community
patrolling which in turn has resulted in a dramatic reduction of illegal logging in some areas. Cross-visits
of stakeholders and FD staff to West Bengal have created greater understanding of the potential success
of co-management and these visits have fostered greater communication, respect and friendship between
the FD and local stakeholders necessary for the co-management model to work. Those persons the
evaluation team spoke with that attended the West Bengal program proved to be vocal spokespersons for
the overall participatory approach to PA management.
The approach of the NSP used to convey knowledge of co-management is linked with the formation of
Forest User Groups (FUG) among the local poor/ultra poor population living within the landscape zone.
AIG training and grants are also provided to key local stakeholders of low-income households in FUGs.
To date approximately 90 FUGs have been formed around five sites, each group with between 15-20
members, and more than half of the members are women. The inclusion of women in FUGs and a variety
of AIG activities may be viewed as providing a degree of empowerment leading to greater gender
equalization in the project area. The involvement of women within areas that are predominantly Muslim
is something of a breakthrough given the traditional conservative nature of these communities.
CM Councils and CM Committees are made up of a cross-section people, including landless poor, local
elites, illegal loggers, timber traders, FD staff, Union Parishad members, and Upazila staff, etc. in a
common forum is another important social impact of the NSP that should not be overlooked in terms of
its impact on focusing attention both on the protection of biodiversity within PAs and on the needs of the
poor/ultra poor populations living within the landscape zone. The NSP has also made a special effort to
engage young members of the local population (youth groups, scouts) in NRM activities such as the
monitoring of birds. The NSP is also attempting to engage and educate the urban elite population who
has the power to affect government decision-making that may ultimately be the key to effective long term
protection.
The NSP has also formed links to ethic minorities living inside the PAs to ensure these traditional forest
villages have a voice in co-management. Ethnic minorities, which traditionally have low social status,
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 16
should be given special consideration by the NSP including the development of specific strategies that
address their special needs.
8. Effectiveness of NSP Monitoring and Evaluation
The M&E program developed by the NSP is evaluated below; the M&E program has the following three
levels:
Level 1: Biological and Social Monitoring
Level 2: Programmatic M&E
Level 3: Work Plan Monitoring
8.1 Core Indicators for Biological and Social Monitoring
Core monitoring is intended to provide the basis for long-term monitoring beyond the life of the NSP.
The design and implementation of core monitoring should therefore be done in consultation with the
stakeholders who will ultimately be responsible for long-term data collection, analysis, reporting and
adaptive management based on the results of monitoring. Monitoring systems established during the
Project should also be sufficiently clear and simple that they can be replicated by the Forest Department
after the Project closes.
Biological Monitoring
• Indicator Birds (ground, low, mid, high canopy species)
• Tree Basal Area (prism sweep method; individual trees not measured)
• Photo-monitoring (digital photos at specific points identified by GPS coordinates)
• FD Offence Register (review FD ledger to assess illegal logging)
Social Monitoring
• Management Scorecard (based on Reporting Progress at Protected Area Sites. A Simple site￾level tracking tool developed for the World Bank and WWF)
• Community Scorecard (based on Measuring Success: The Parks in Peril Site Consolidation
Scorecard Manual)
Comments on NSP "Core Biological and Social Indicators"
The evaluation team has determined that the M&E framework for Core Biological Indicators is weak and
that the Core Social Indicators are yet to be implemented. The lead staff person responsible for the M&E
program has limited experience in the development of an M&E program for a project of this scale.
Other specific comments on components of the Core Biological and Social Indicators follows:
• The use of indicator birds inhabiting a variety of structural niches within forests is an excellent
indicator to track the health and recovery of NSP sites. This indicator reflects current thinking in
the use of indicator birds in biological monitoring. The limited preliminary results suggest that
NSP initiatives that have resulted in increased protection of PAs and reduced forest understorey
disturbance may be leading to the recovery of species occupying the lower levels of forest
ecosystems (e.g. ground floor, lower shrub strata)
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 17
• The use of indicator birds easily identifiable by laypersons permits the development of
community based monitoring programs and this is being undertaken by NSP (e.g. training of
Bangladesh Scouts in monitoring birds)
• Tree basal area monitoring provides a long-term measure of ecosystem condition and is a
measure regularly used in forestry to assess the quantity of tree biomass in a forest stand. In NSP
basal area will provide a limited amount of information on illegal logging based on those sites
where measurements are completed. When interviewed the NSP staff member responsible for
M&E stated that attempts by NSP to initiate community based participation in basal area
monitoring have not been successful. The NSP uses the prism method to assess basal; while this
is an accepted method in forestry, it provides limited meaningful information on ecosystem
condition as it does not provide basal area measurements for individual trees to permit an analysis
of the number of trees and amount of biomass within individual basal areas size classes.
• Photo-monitoring has been initiated; as of yet no interpretation of photographs has been
completed and the NSP staff member responsible for M&E was unable to explain any proposed
method for analysis. Project documents suggest photo-monitoring is to be used in the analysis of
understorey regeneration, whereby photos will in a qualitative manner show whether the forest is
re-growing or not. With the rapid growth of forests in Bangladesh, the NSP estimated that visible
changes would/should be visible by project end, and could help in explaining project impact.
• The FD Offence Register is intended to provide information on illegal felling. The quality of this
information may vary, as not all trees illegally felled are recorded. Some quality assurance field
testing has been conducted by NSP and this has shown that an average of 75% of felled trees is
recorded. In the southern sites, the reliability of the Offence Register data is 40-50%, while at
northern sites it is 85-90%.
• The social monitoring scorecards are currently completed but not yet implemented.
• The Management Scorecard has been presented to the FD for comment and implementation, but
as yet little feedback has been received and no data has been collected.
• The Community Scorecard was designed for the CM Councils and CM Committees, so its rollout
has awaited their formation. As a result, no Community Scorecard data has been collected. As
CM Committees have only just been formed or are about to be formed, it is too early to determine
the level of acceptance/implementation of the Community Scorecard. These scorecards have the
potential to provide important feedback on the success of the NSP; as such, every effort should be
made to obtain the first round of monitoring data.
9. Performance Monitoring Plan (PMP) for USAID SO 6
NSP conducts M&E that provides insight into the project's progress in relation to USAID Strategic
Objective 6. These indicators and some preliminary results from the Year 3, Quarter 2 Progress Report
are shown in Annex 2.
COMMENTS ON NSP "PERFORMANCE MONITORING"
Progress against the PMP SO6 was not presented in the first and second year progress report. The NSP
Year 3, Quarter 2 Progress Report (November 2005) has created a table including PMP S06 outcomes,
that establishes units of measure, the end of contract indicators and data for Year 2 is shown as
"actual/baseline" with some achievements to date shown for Year 3. In most cases, no targets have been
established that can be used in an analysis of the degree of current project performance. In the case of
some indicators this is due to the evolving nature of the PMP SO6 outputs. Without a clear definition of
both end of project targets and year-to-year changes for all indicators, it is difficult for performance
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 18
monitoring to contribute to an ongoing analysis of project performance throughout the life of the project.
A final assessment at project end will rely on an assessment of the end-of-contract indicators.
9.1 Work Plan Monitoring
	Annual workplan M&E is conducted in the Dhaka office based on status reports prepared by the regional
and head offices. The completion of work plan milestones is measured according to five stages as
follows:
• "Preliminary" (work started, score 1)
• "Development" (halfway through, score 2)
• "Consolidation" (three-fourths done, score 3)
• "Near Completion " (work finished, score 4)
• "Completion" (report submitted, score 5)
Work plan milestones are grouped under the following five components, which are largely derived from
IRG's contract with USAID:
i. Develop a co-management planning and implementation model
ii. Improve ecosystem management
iii. Enhance the co-management policy environment
iv. Lay the foundation for a conservation constituency
v. Ensure institutionalization of co-management
A sixth area (or component) entitled "Cross-Cutting Project Results" is also assessed. The NSP Second
Annual Report (May 2005) states: "The Cross Cutting activities and results are designed to support
achievement of all the other project components. Field level implementation and management is included
here, as are general management issues."
COMMENTS ON NSP "WORK PLAN MONITORING"
Work plan monitoring is conducted as an enumeration of tasks/milestones completed using the above
mentioned five point scoring system with some discussion provided in the annual report on the "status" of
individual activities under each NSP component. What appears to be lacking is an "adaptive management
feedback loop", whereby the causes for difficulties and/or delays are discussed in the context of refining
the NSP programs.
On a monthly basis, the northern and southern regions submit a monthly work plan and a monthly review
of progress. Each of these are submitted in draft form and discussed with the Chief of Party (COP) and/or
Deputy COP, and modified accordingly. An "AIG Matrix" is updated each month, showing progress
against all AIG targets, and resources allocated therein. The COP prepares and circulates a periodic
(usually bi-weekly) progress report against high priority work plan items, and these are reviewed in
weekly meetings at the Dhaka and regional level. In addition, the NSP team has held semi-annual and
annual planning and monitoring sessions with all staff since the project was begun. In this way, work
plan monitoring allows for extensive adaptive management processes to take place. While the work plan
monitoring is robust, discussions with regional offices and field level site offices did not convey the same
understanding of the context of adaptive management as outlined above.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 19
10. Summary Comments on NSP M&E
The M&E program provides a limited amount of reliable information on social, economic and ecological
measures related to co-management of PAs. The most meaningful data collected to date is on structural
diversity of forests using indicator bird species. Little or no information is presented and/or available on
forest users living within NSP's "landscape zone" related to changing patterns of resource use (e.g.
fuelwood, poles, wildlife, timber, bamboo, rattan, and other NTFPs coming out of PAs) or socio￾economic well-being.
The success of NSP relies on an understanding, acceptance and support of PA management, biodiversity
conservation, and co-management concepts. Given the complexity and, in some cases, the novelty of
these concepts, a good deal of training is required for NSP staff, FD and other government staff and for
the public at large, particularly local forest users. Questioning conducted by the evaluation team revealed
further training is needed at all levels. Currently the M&E program does not endeavor to test the
effectiveness of NSP training programs, and yet NSP should be able to answer questions relevant to NSP,
for example:
• Are NSP project staff and FD staff at all levels conveying the right messages in regard to PA
management?
• Do CM Council/Committee members understand their roles? Do they understand the content of
PA Management Plans? Do they understand the issues for which they will be responsible for
"managing"? Do they have the knowledge and experience to manage PAs?
• Are Forest User Group (FUG) members aware of objectives of NSP? Do they understand the
concepts of PA, buffer zone and Forest Reserve? Do they understand their role in achieving
biodiversity conservation within PAs?
In all cases, M&E information requires analysis against targets and the results of evaluation should be
used in an adaptive management context so that this information may be used to enhance the NSP through
refinement of project activities.
11. Sustainability and Replicability of Project Results
11.1 Sustainability
In the context of the NSP, sustainability may be assessed in terms of long term protection of biodiversity
within PAs and an improvement in the livelihoods of the population within the landscape zone.
Sustainable development projects are those that result in positive change that continues to provide
benefits long after the development project is completed; in terms of the NSP this means beyond May
2008. While there is no doubt that the NSP has resulted in many significant positive changes within its
first three years, there are legitimate concerns regarding the ability of the project to ensure these and other
ongoing changes will become sustainable within the remaining two years of the project.
There are four important factors to consider in assessing the sustainability of the NSP's co-management
model for PAs.
1. Based on the time required to establish sustainable co-management organizations in MACH
(more than 5 years) and based on the history of an adversarial relationship between the FD and
local populations, it is anticipated the NSP will require several more years beyond the end of
contract (May 2008) to establish positive and effective working relationships between the FD and
the local population that may be considered sustainable in the co-management of PAs. The time
required to change the status quo is dependent in part on the history of how things were done in
the past, for example:
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 20
• The FD has a long history of control over the Forest Reserves where PAs are located. The
FD also has a history of abusing its control over forest resources, leading to FD staff deriving
benefits, and FD has tended to have a confrontational relationship with the local public that
want access to forest resources; and
• The public may not respect the FD based on past abuses of authority and in some cases
members of the public may have outstanding charges against them.
2. There is long and complicated history of the use of resources from Forest Reserves, including the
NSP PAs and buffer zones. In order for the NSP to be considered sustainable traditional forest
resource use must change to protect biodiversity and it must change in ways that does not
negatively impact the local population. It is recognized that solving the complex issues
associated with traditional resource use within PAs will extend many years beyond the NSP.
Nonetheless the NSP has not yet demonstrated the initiation of a sustainable mechanism to ensure
alternate sources for forest resources (outside PAs) will be made available to traditional users.
Some examples of the use of resources from Forest Reserves, including NSP PAs and buffer
zones, by the local population are:
• Fuelwood gathered for local household use or income generation through sale in local
markets;
• Fuelwood gathered for commercial use in brickfields, restaurants, hotels, and larger
shipments to urban centres;
• Poles/bamboo collected for household use or for betel leaf enclosures which in turn provides
income generation;
• Removal of trees by local or outside illegal fellers organized by the elite, sometimes with FD
involvement; and
• Other non-timber forest products (NTFPs) for local household use or income generation.
3. Forest Reserves have a complex pattern of encroachment or "boundaries" that must be addressed
to clearly delineate the Forest Reserve, the PA and the Buffer Zone boundaries from forest
villages, surrounding villages, commercial development, and agricultural lands that have
developed within Forest Reserves over time. Sustainable protection of biodiversity within PAs
will require the issues of encroachment be resolved. The NSP has not yet addressed
encroachment in any substantial manner (wisely so as it is a sensitive issue requiring good
communication between all stakeholders and innovative solutions that do not create hardship for
the poor). It is not likely that many issues of encroachment will be resolved within the remaining
two years of the project. Sustainability can not therefore be determined until there is good
evidence that an effective mechanism is in place dealing with issues of encroachment. The
complex pattern of encroachment or "boundaries" for Forest Reserves and in the case of the NSP
PA and buffer zone boundaries include the following:
• Forest (tribal) villages may be permitted but may have expanded beyond permitted lands;
• Encroachment of surrounding villages that are now illegally present, including villages of
refugees from Myanmar;
• Brickfields and other commercial enterprises may be illegally present;
• Encroachment gardens, rice fields and upland gardens from villager living outside PAs may
be created within PAs;
• Areas of sungrass (Imperata cylindrica) are intentionally created through burning and plots
are distributed among local resource users for home use or income generation;
• There may be persons holding quasi-legal title to land within PAs; and
• FD Forest Reserve, FD PA, NSP Buffer Zone boundaries not demarcated on the ground.
4. The newly formed CM Councils and Committees require a significant amount of capacity
building based on the many challenging tasks before them and the variety of skills required to
effectively manage PAs in a manner that will both protect biodiversity while also providing
benefits for the local population. What is at issue in regard to sustainability is a concern that the
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 21
CM Councils and Committees will not have received sufficient training and support over the life
of the NSP to deal effectively (i.e. sustainably) with the complex issues of PA management.
Some of the many challenging tasks and the variety of skills to effectively managing PAs include
the following:
• Managing PAs involves dealing with a complex suite of issues and tasks, requiring skills such
as ecology, engineering, tourism, marketing, social mobilization, etc.;
• Looking to PA management teams elsewhere in the world we see staff with specialized
college/university level training and many years of experience within PAs;
• The PA system within Bangladesh is relatively new and there is limited FD staff with
specialized training and experience in the management of PAs and/or in mechanisms of co￾management of natural resources; and
• The NSP project has limited capacity among its staff and limited time remaining in the
project to provide comprehensive training in PA management to the CM Committees.
Given the appropriate time and resources addressing all the issues raised by the above four points is
possible and the protection of biodiversity and improvement of the livelihoods of local populations can be
secured through the co-management of natural resources. No project is expected to achieve sustainable
results in regard to all of the issues and challenges they encounter. Nonetheless the evaluation team is
concerned that there are insufficient time and resources within the NSP to achieve sustainable
results within a sufficient number of the areas identified above within the remaining two years of
the project contract for the protection of biodiversity and livelihood improvement to be secured by
co-management.
What is not addressed by the above discussion is the sustainability of AIG activities. Section 2.2 provides
an in-depth discussion of the dependency of the local poor/ultra poor population on resources from PAs
and the current approach to AIG by the NSP. Given the limited proportion of the population that will be
reached by AIG under the NSP there will remain many people that will require AIG training and support
for this project to be considered sustainable. There is the potential for ongoing AIG activities provided by
the CM Committees utilizing funds available from tourism revenues, however the capacity of the CM
Committees to provide AIG and the level of finances available remains unknown and cannot therefore
be considered sustainable at this time.
Based on the above assessment of sustainability, recommendations are provided in Section 12.
11.2 Replicability
The ability to replicate the co-management model of natural resource management is in fact a part of what
is occurring within the NSP based on the success of co-management under the MACH project. Both
MACH and the NSP are based on co-management of natural resources: in MACH wetland fisheries
resources (haor, beels, rivers, and canals); in NSP terrestrial based forest PAs (National Park, Wildlife
Sanctuary, Game Reserve). Closer examination reveals there are significant fundamental differences
between the two projects that require particular attention to ensure the successful replication of the co￾management model in the NSP.
A table has been prepared below to assess these differences and to provide an appropriate project
response to address the issues that arise as a result. These are issues that should be considered in the
replication of the co-management model to the PAs under the NSP or to other PAs using this model.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 22
Comparison Table of Factors Affecting the Replicabilityy of the
MACIl
MACH and the NSP Approaches to Co Managcment
NSP NSP Response
Access to resources
Returning wetland resource
base to local resource users,
the fishers, involved the
transfer ofjalmahal leases
from elite to RMO
Taking away the forest
resource base within PAs from
local resource users (buffer
zone areas may be available to
resource users)
At the same time, the NSP co
management is working to
strengthen FD capacity to
work with local communities
to benefit from improved
management of these PA,
through ecotourism, and
sustainable use / AIG in the
surrounding landscape.. So
sustainable use is present in
both cases, although in
different forms.
Proceed with caution so as not
to negatively impact local
resource users by providing
alternate supply of needed
resources.
Need now to move ahead with
LDF, implementation of NSP
across the landscape of
targeted PA, development of
ecotourism and scale up AIG
activities - and pay off can be
as significant or greater than
results seen to date from
MACH.
Role ofIndigenous knowledge (IK)
Rich traditional indigenous
knowledge among fishers
including concepts of
sanctuary areas
Indigenous knowledge related
more towards distribution of
resources and resource use
than towards biodiversity
conservation
Need to explore the role IK
may play in NSP biodiversity
conservation
Need build understanding of
the meaning and value of
biodiversity conservation
Capacity of Co-management Group
	Local population and local
government have both had a
long association with wetland
management, but little
association with each other or
with the Fisheries Department.
As a result, there has been
only minimal history of co￾management discussions or
feedback systems.
Local population, local
government, FD and NSP staff
have limited capacity for PA
management
FD, has had strong and
recognized local presence in
forest management for many
years, and most recently in
form of social forestry
activities (under FSP, etc.).
Need to train NSP staff, CM
Councils/Committees and FD
staff in concepts of PA co￾management
Need to build FD experience
in social forestry, through
implementation within the
surrounding landscape
Outcomes from Natural Resource Management
More fish and a greater variety
of fish for home use and for
income generation
Less fuelwood, poles, timber
and other NTFPs for home use
and income generation from
the core zone. Less land
available for agriculture
Increased protection and more
revenues from the PA as
ecotourism development
becomes feasible and gains
Need more realistic programs
to replace loss of access to
resources in PA, particularly
through buffer zone
management
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 23
Comparison Table of Factors Affecting the Replicahility of the
MACH and the NSP A proaches to Co-Mana enment
MTACFI NSP NSP Rcs onse
support. More attention to
sustainable use and increased
productivity in the buffer
zones
Outcomes from AIG
Successful training of a large Demonstration training has so Need to go beyond
number of individuals in a far reached a limited number demonstration training to
variety of AIG activities. of individuals though showing reach a larger proportion of
Evaluation shows AIG is good signs of sustainability the poor/ultra-poor FUG
sustainable and replication is and replication members
occurring
Ownership of Natural Resources
Relatively straight forward Legally PAs are owned by the Under CM Council structure a
leasing of jalmahals turned FD, however, historical local new and as yet undefined
back to local resource users resources use, agricultural "ownership" concept is being
lands, forest villages, and developed by the NSP
village encroachment has NSP staff must work closely
created a complex issue of with CM Committee to ensure
dependency or perhaps poor/ultra-poor are not
perceived "ownership". negatively impacted by hasty
or insensitive decisions such
as eviction or denial of access
to needed resources without
the provision of alternatives
12. Recommendations for Follow-up Actions
The evaluation team has concluded that within the remaining two years of the NSP there should be a
strategic focus on areas that can reasonably be accomplished before the conclusion of the project and
which will contribute to long-term sustainability of co-management of PAs. Work in these focus areas
may require the NSP to seek additional expertise in PA management and to provide additional training to
NSP staff. There is also a need to improve the knowledge base of the target population, particularly in
regard to current resource use in order to better understand the supply, demand, flows, quantities, and
value of natural resources arising from PAs. Finally, the NSP must strengthen monitoring and evaluation
at all levels to provide baseline information and feedback that will permit an assessment of sustainability
and which will foster adjustment and/or refinement of the co-management approach to PA area
management.
Focus 1: Capacity building of Co-Management Committees to ensure they are able to deal with the
current issues in PA management that is effective and takes into consideration the needs of
all stakeholders
Focus 2: Assist the Co-Management Committees in addressing issues of resource use from PAs,
particularly fuelwood and poles, finding innovative solutions in terms of social forestry
within buffer zones, homestead forests, roadsides and alternative energy supplies
Evaluation of USAIDBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 24
Focus 3: Greater emphasis on a strategic AIG program that is appropriate, reaches as many persons
as possible, and which creates linkages to NGOs and other development initiatives
Focus 4: Continue work on infrastructure building and the development of education and marketing
materials that raise the profile of PAs as genuine tourism destinations
In addition to the four focus areas, the evaluation team is making the following recommendations in
regard to specific issues:
• Ensure the areas identified as "buffer zones" or "interface landscapes" by the NSP (areas of
reserved forest adjacent to PAs) are brought under the statutory authority of the PA managers of
the Forest Department, with collaboration in management decision-making by the CM
Committees.
• According to the PP, the starting date of the project by FD was July 2004, and the completion
date is June 2009. However, based on the release of funds, the actual start date was April 2006,
which following the same timeline would create an expected date of completion of March 2011.
As IRG's contract ends in May 2008, there is a need to consider how technical support can be
extended to the FD over the life of the PP.
• There is a need for the FD to immediately fill all positions of PAs with trained manpower.
• There is a need to define mechanisms of law enforcement by CM Committees.
• Opportunities should be pursued to develop stronger linkages with the Arannayk Foundation to
extend the success of the NSP project.
• The NSP should develop a mechanism to involve tea estate owners in CM Councils and
Committees at northern sites.
• Incorporate an action oriented research program involving the Bangladesh Forest Research
Institute (BFRI) and Universities for the restoration and rehabilitation of ecosystems with
indigenous species.
• The NSP M&E system should be reviewed and strengthened to provide a better record of all
aspects of project performance.
• Explore opportunities to work with the BFRI and or universities to establish a more
comprehensive system of long term monitoring of biodiversity.
• Explore opportunities, using the substantial bamboo resource bases in buffer zones and within the
landscape particularly in the northeast, initiatives for alternative bamboo product development as
a part of enterprise development. Examine other examples of bamboo product development
within other countries of the region particularly Anji County of China.
• Establish mechanisms to link existing service providers or extension services from other
government and specialized non-government organizations.
• Organize more cross visits of stakeholders among the PAs in Bangladesh and other countries in
the region.
• Continue training exercises and cross visits of local level forest officers to encourage the
development of new ideas and attitudes in PA management.
• Continue work on the development of a market information system within the framework of
enterprise development.
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 25
Annex 1: Illustrative Description of NSP Activities
As might be expected, the investments and interventions of the program will be organized in five
principal and complementary components congruent with the five intermediate results and their indicators
for the USAID Strategic Objective (SO). The illustrative description of the activities which follows has
also been developed based on an in-depth analysis of the issues and opportunities for co-management of
protected areas (PA) in Bangladesh which was prepared as part of a working document for this design
effort. It was also based on a thorough review of the most pertinent literature from the environment sector
in Bangladesh. Although first generally comes first, the list of activities is not intended to convey
absolute priorities or sequencing.
Component No. 1- Development of a Co-Management Planning and Implementation Model
The activities under this component will be directly responsive to Intermediate Result 6.1-- Effective
Community Based Resource Management Mechanisms Implemented and its Indicators. Anticipated
illustrative activities include:
n The Forest Department (FD) and its counterparts in the Program Team (Technical Assistance Team
and Partners) agree on a select list of PAs as priority options for a phased approach and obtain the
concurrence of the Program Steering Committee and USAID based on an agreed site selection
criteria.
n Program Team (FD and Technical Assistance staff) carry out reconnaissance surveys on status of
forest and its biodiversity assets and identify zones of influence (buffer zones) for each PA. This will
involve the development of certain planning tools including a forest biodiversity survey instrument
and the definition of a potential zoning code (e.g., ecosystem management zone or core zone, village
use/sustainable use zone, resource rehabilitation zones, adjacent critical watershed areas, buffer
zones, etc.) Updated maps of each targeted PA with important topographical features, infrastructure
and present land-use will be prepared.
n Establishment of a GIS/GPS based mapping and monitoring facility as a key planning and
performance tracking tool. These services could be subcontracted to a local private sector institution.
n Identify adjacent areas that are parts of the watershed between the PA (usually at the top of the
watershed) and the lower riparian/wetlands areas they serve to ensure comprehensive watershed
management planning and actions.
n Program Team led by the NGO specialists begins a Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) process with
the local communities living in or adjacent to the PA to identify their needs and opportunities. These
PRA's will use tools such as community mapping and needs assessment.
n Program Team led by the NGO specialists begins community organization process identifying
resource management committees and potential interest groups. The RMO's will adopt the
methodology used by the MACH Project for this purpose although it may have to be adapted for
terrestrial applications.
n Work with neighboring stakeholders (e.g., Tea Estates, private land owners, the Ministry of Land) to
identify their constraints and opportunities for protecting natural forest areas within their boundaries.
Ensure that Tea Estate workers are informed of the goals of the co-management approach and its
requirements if they are not part of the communities involved in co-management.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 26
n Develop and apply the rules and methodology of sustainable use zoning within the PAs where
necessary to accommodate established and recognized forest villages and their inhabitants. Give
particular emphasis to garnering traditional knowledge about forest-based farmacopia.
n A Draft Co-Management Plan will be prepared with annual operational targets discussed and agreed
with the communities through the intervention of the RMO's for each of the targeted PAs under the
program.
n Study the opportunities for the possible expansion of the PAs into adjacent contiguous areas of
reserve forests and work with the Forest Department to secure their official notification as such.
n Communities and RMO's assess their achievements in light of the annual work plan (monitoring and
evaluation) with the Program Team and perhaps adjust expectations in the out-years.
Component No. 2-Interventions and Investments for Improved Ecosystem Management
The activities under this component will be directly responsive to Intermediate Result 6.2-- Select
Habitats and Ecosystems Restored, and the Sub-IR 's 6.2.1--Innovations and Best Practices Adopted
and 6.2.2--Alternative Incomes Realized for Target Groups and their Indicators. Anticipated
illustrative activities include:
n Ensure that the recognized boundaries of each targeted PA are clearly and permanently marked and
that suitable and prominent signage regarding their special status is placed at key access points. In
cases where the limits may be in dispute, work with the local authorities and community leaders to re￾establish the limits, registering them in the field with a GPS and later plotting them on official maps.
n Program Team prepares habitat restoration manual as a guide to the rehabilitation of areas within the
PA in need of improvement.
n Restoration and watershed management activities get underway with community assistance in
designated forest compartments where they are required for watershed management and biodiversity
conservation purposes.
n Determine the potable water supply circumstances of forest villages and consider development of
safe, piped water in return for their agreement to protect watersheds.
n Forest resource development, agricultural improvement, soil and water conservation activities get
underway in buffer zones, including with private sector interests (Tea Estates) in order to begin to
ensure the sustainability of the watershed.
n Develop a methodology for transparently quantifying human impact on the PAs as a key to gauging
the compensatory measures that may be required to achieve conservation imperatives.
n NGO personnel, perhaps with technical assistance, undertakes feasibility studies for alternative
income and employment generation activities. Companion studies on the micro-economics or
business planning and market access elements are carried out to ensure that participants are fully
likely to benefit from their participation in these activities.
n Program Team develops an annotated action-research oriented issues agenda as the basis for a modest
program of research grants to be contracted with institutions like the BFRI and others, focused on
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 27
forest ecology, natural forest management, biodiversity assessment, watershed management, co￾management and other germane topics.
n Alternative income and employment activities get underway among the target communities. Lead
participants in each of the categories of AIG activities are chosen and their efforts monitored carefully
as an indicator of successful performance for monitoring and evaluation purposes.
n Possible community support and working credit program elements are operationalized (e.g. water
supply, seed supply, etc.).
n Identify keystone forest tree and plant species that might be re -introduced or whose populations need
enhancement within the P.A. Study the methods for their regeneration including the possibility of
direct seeding and the feasibility of planting seedlings.
n Develop a response to possible issues of crop-raiding by animal inhabitants of the PAs.
Component No. 3-The Enabling Policy Environment for Co -Management Enhanced
The activities under this component will be directly responsive to Intermediate Result 6.3- Select
Policies Implemented that Support IR's 1 & 2 and its Indicators. Anticipated illustrative activities
include:
n Regular twice yearly inter-ministerial Program Steering Committee meetings with the Technical
Working Group providing secretariat services (meeting agenda; issues papers and follow-up
actions).
n Program Team assists in the organization of the Local Government Committee and uses this
mechanism to present and explain the co-management approach, its activities and implications to
the local government level decision-makers (Union Parishads and the Upazila Development
Committees).
n Program Team prepares a "white paper" on the local and national policy agenda for co￾management for submission to Steering Committee and as the basis for continuing policy
dialogue about the enabling environment for the promotion of co-management of natural
resources.
n As a result of the decisions of the Program Steering Committee, the Team commissions policy
studies to enhance the quality of the informed debate among the program decision-makers. For
example, one such study might address the macro-economics of biodiversity conservation and co￾management of PAs. Another might address the institutional strategy for integrated natural
resources management and its implications for the ministries concerned.
n Develop a policy and process for a permit and fee structure for day visitors to the P.A.'s. In
selected P.A.'s, there may be future opportunities for limited, low impact camping facilities but
this needs further study and a sound policy established.
n Co-management of tropical forest resources operations manual prepared and vetted by the
Program Steering Committee and all of the participating GOB departments. This draft manual
provides the substance for a national workshop on the topic.
Evaluation of USAIDBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 28
n Mid-term evaluation carried out; lessons learned identified and any reformulation of program
objectives and indicators along with necessary reprogramming of activities, staffing needs or
financial resources considered.
Component No. 4- Laying the Foundation for a Conservation Constituency in Bangladesh
The activities under this component will be directly responsive to Intermediate Result 6.4-- Public
Awareness of Key Issues Raised and its Indicators. Anticipated illustrative activities include:
n Public Awareness Strategy developed by the Program Team perhaps with short-term technical
assistance.
n Invite local authorities on one day visits to the P.A.'s in their areas to explain and demonstrate
program actions and the co-management approach--to include district, upazila and union parishad
authorities and the officers of the security forces (e.g., the BDR detachments) stationed in the area.
n Co-Management Plans presented at national workshop along with approach and specifics of
community involvement.
n Inter-Community study visits encouraged and facilitated, including between upstream communities
and downstream (wetland) communities and local authorities with the cooperation of the MACH
Project.
n Prepare a brief illustrated brochure for each targeted P.A., explaining the forest, its natural
components, biodiversity assets and the co-management approach for sale to visitors (in Bangla and
English).
n A limited number of community members selected and trained as nature guides for PA visitors.
Nature guides successfully completing the training course would be authorized by the Forest
Department to escort visitors. A certificate and perhaps a shirt and cap with suitable insignia could be
provided to them. A fee structure established for these services and a brochure in Bangla and English
prepared for circulation among travel agencies in Bangladesh.
n Environmental education activities identified and promoted to serve recreation and tourism users.
This will include signage in each of the areas as well as the development of a nature walk through the
forest led by trained members of the participating communities. Nature trails may include limited and
rustic structures to accommodate visitors (benches for resting along the way, foot bridges over wet
areas and chharas, a latrine).
n Develop a conservation-oriented training package for local elementary schools and provide teacher
training in its use. Sponsor visits by school children from adjacent areas to the PAs. Seek private
sector (corporate) support for modest funding to finance these visits.
n Work with avid local birdwatching groups to develop an illustrated guide to the birds of the PAs of
Bangladesh. Seek private sector sponsorship for its publication with the proceeds going to
investments within the P.A.'s.
n Regular program of media messages promoted and prepared with Team assistance. One or two high
level governmental study tours to working co-management areas and media coverage of these events
facilitated.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 29
Component No. 5-Towards an Exit Strategy--Ensuring Institutionalization of Co-Management
The activities under this component will be directly responsive to Intermediate Result 6.5-- Improved
Institutional Capacity and its Indicators.. Anticipated illustrative activities include:
n Training needs assessment carried out for Forest Department, other Ministries and NGO staff
involved in the Program and a comprehensive training plan developed.
n Team develops model and methodology for training Local Government staff under a co-management
of tropical forest training program.
n Establish a re-invigorated regime of beat patrols by Forest Department staff (consider the provision of
radio communications) with special reference to monitoring biodiversity assets.
n Assist the Forest Department to develop a rapid response policy and protocol (disaster prevention) for
addressing problem issues like forest fire, illegal logging, flash floods, land invasions, etc.
n Assist the Forest Department authorities in the preparation of staffing position descriptions related to
PAs and co-management.
n Program assists the local environmental and forestry schools (such as the Institute of Forestry and
Environmental Sciences, University of Chittagong) to develop curriculum elements for training in the
Co-Management Approach to Biodiversity Conservation and Natural Resources Management.
n Strengthening of the Wildlife and Nature Conservation Circle, aiming at establishing a PA
Management System as part of its organizational structure.
• Program Team makes a presentation about their achievements to the multi-lateral development banks
(ADB, World Bank) with a view to attracting investment level resources for wide scale replication of
co-management in Bangladesh.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 30
Annex 2: Progress Against USAID PMP
The following table is from the NSP Year 3, Quarter 2 Progress Report, September 1, 2005 to November
30, 2005.
Indicators Unit Year 2 Year 3 Remarks
(actual/baselin (aehievemenf
SO 6 Indicator: No. of 0 0 The "best practice"
6.a Extent to which Occasions referred to
best here is the co￾practices from management
USAID projects approach itself, which
are used elsewhere is expected
to be used elsewhere at
other national parks
and other PAs
beginning in 2007 or
2008.
SO 6 Indicator: Kg/ha/Year 0 24 women owned Increased production
6.b : Increased No. of trees nursery will come from two
production of operations sources: tree
natural resources have produced planting/regeneration
in targeted areas estimated in the buffer and
12,000 saplings. ecotourism.
Ecotourism
conditions being
put in place.
SO 6 Indicator No. of indicator Baseline Next Bird populations has
6.c Maintaining or bird population set in measurement 5/06 already been increased,
increasing species/km2 5/05 for eight and are expected to
biodiversity in indicator bird show measurable
the targeted areas species in all five increases by 2007 or
PAs. latest May, 2008.
IR 6.1 Effective Community Based Resource Management Mechanisms Implemented
Indicator 6.1 b: No. of PAs out 0 5 All five pilot sites are
One third of the of the 16 PAs beginning to operate
Protected Areas existing when under a
(PAs) network NSP started. co-management
operating under a One third would model.
collaborative be 5 or more
management PAs.
model.
Indicator 6.1 .c: Ha of forests, 0 PAs covering Targeted forested area
Number of and ha under 22,664 ha -- is 22,664 ha and
hectares of forest investment plan conditions for landscape is 107662
covered (landscape) investment ha.
by co-anagement being put in Landscape has been
agreements and place defined,
covered by investment has started.
landscape
investment
plans for
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 31
Indicators Unit Year 2 Year 3 Remarks
actuatlbaseli (achievement)
sustainable
resource
management.
Indicator 6.1 d: Ha 0 2 new PAs Most increases will
Existing added during come from buffer
Protected Areas the year, at zones around existing
network Satchari (242 PAs
increased in size ha) and
by 10 Medhakachapi
percent. a -.350 ha)
Indicator 6.1 e: Performance 36 45 Management scores
Management Index; lowest - have improved,
performance 36, highest is principally with
scores improve at 264. posting of senior
pilot protected area officers to PAs
sites. (ACF-level). Coming
years will
see additional
improvements.
Intermediate Result 6.2: Select Habitats and Ecosystems Restored
Indicator 6.2.c: Ha 0 1767 ha The project has
Habitat within successfully
targeted protected initiated protection of
areas improved. LNP (1250
ha), RKWS,SNP (242
ha) and 275 ha of
valuable Garjan
Plantation of TGR. The
protection is given by
the community
surrounding PAs
under the Co￾management
council. Within the
coming months CWS
will be brought under
community patrol.
Indicator 6.2 d: BA/ha 82 The baseline data
Declining indicates total
incidence of basal area of all sample
unsustainable plots in
and illegal use of the five PAs. Year 3
natural data collection is
resources scheduled on Jan￾Feb. Unchanged
figures will
indicate declining
incidence of
illegal use of nature
resources.
Basal area re
measurement is due in
2006.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 32
Indicators Unit Year2 Year3 Remarks
actual/baseli (achievement)
Indicator 6.2.e: % reduction Rate of 36% reduction The baseline data for
The rate of deforestation for occurred at LNP (and
deforestation is LNP is 106 LNP. for others as well)
reversed in trees/month/year. represents last
pilot co-managed two years average data.
PAs. Data
collection for other
PAs ongoing.
Intermediate Result 6.2.1: Innovations and Best Practices opted
Indicator 6.2.1.c: Number of 0 142 Alternative income
Households households. activities are
implementing on a rapid upswing,
improved land-use now that low income
practices and groups formed in year
activities 2 are adopting
within and improved practices.
surrounding
pilot protected
areas
Indicator 6.2.1.d: Ha 0 50 Social forestry
Number agreements from
of Hectares outside FSP have been adapted
of and used
protected areas on NSP sites, bringing
under fuelwood
community plantations on these
management lands to
agreements support NSP goals.
Indicator 6.2.2b: nos 0 8 Major activities
Number amongst these
of income eight now include milk
generating cow
activities, rearing, poultry
introduced by rearing, vegetable
the forestry home gardening, fish
project, and pond
consistent with cultured and nursery
protected development.
areas conservation
being
implemented by
targeted
stakeholders in
targeted
landscapes.
Indicator 6.2.2c: nos 0 Northern sites Impact is yet to be
Number - 76, understood.
of households Southern sites
implementing - 56
alternative
income generation
activities in
targeted
landscapes
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 33
Indicators Unit Year 2 Year 3 Remarks
(actua/baseli (achics^ement)
Intermediate Result 6.3: Select Policies Implemented that Support IRs 1 and 2
Indicator 6.3c: Number of 0 0 Councils have formed
Comanagement protected areas at all sites,
conceptual with and those Councils are
model developed comanagement now
and agreements reviewing draft
implemented in the Constitution for
pilot formalizing their role.
PAs. Constitutions not yet
signed.
Indicator 6.3d: Identified key 0 3 Procedures for
Key operational procedures completion of new
procedures in developed, PA-related
place enabling the approved, and participatory benefit
implementation of implemented. sharing
comanagement agreements have been
of pilot protected adapted for PAs. The
areas. new draft Wildlife Act
has established
procedures for
establishing
comanagement.
Indicator 6.3e: Number of 0 0 No such issues have
Comanagement locally yet arisen,
agenda generated policy with the exeption of the
established and issues addressed Rema Kalenga council
being acted upon. at the national addressing the problem
level. of corrupt practices by
one local Range
Officer and two
Guards, all of whom
were protected by
senior national-level
political forces.
Indicator 6.3.1: Number of 0 35 At each PA, many
Number of communities local groups
communities and and/or resource are now members of
resource management the comanagement
management organizations process, including
groups with signed local CBOs, local
actively comanagement NGOs, local
participating in and/or associations and other
the co- concessionary groupings.
management of contracts.
protected areas.
Intermediate Result 6.4: Public Awareness of Key Issues Increased
Indicator 6.4a: Number 20 15,000/+ Communication &
Number of outreach
individuals activities were many
reached by during the
public awareness period, including
activities Scouts Hike, 1st
Chunati Alternative
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 34
Indicators Unit Year 2 Year 3 Remarks
actual/bascli ► achievement
Energy Fair,
Ntv interview, West
Bengal trip
press conferences
(local level),
local school art
competitions
(southern sites),
people's theatre,
world environment day
rally, and
similar activities.
Indicator 6.4b: Number News Paper = 5; Local News BTV, NTV, Channel I
Increase in TV=2 Paper = 66, & ATN
newspaper, National News Bangla covered news
television, and Paper = 67; on major
radio coverage of TV=7 events and various
biodiversity and NSP activities.
NRM
issues.
Indicator 6.4c: Annual numbers 0 0 FD is now preparing to
Tenfold of paid visitors institute
increase in the and annual entry tracking systems
number of percent increase and a new
paying visitors to of paid visitors. entry fee for all five
target PAs, upon
PAs which we expect a
rapid increase
in paying visitor
numbers.
Indicator 6.4d: Number of 0 0 BELA and others
Increased policy initiatives supporting
capacity of local identified and protection of the
environmental advocated by Lawachara
NGOs, local National Park (used
RMOs (civil organizations. our materials)
society)
capable of
advocating for
priority
conservation
issues.
Intermediate Result 6.5: Improved Institutional Capacity
Indicator 6.5a: Recording of 0 8 This includes mostly
Forest Department administrative appointments of young
skills and changes within and
experience the FD and skilled staff to PAs,
improved to observation of and
promote co- field operations. relocation of non￾management productive staff
of PAs. members. In addition,
oversight
by FD of field
operations has
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 35
Indicators ITnit fear 2 Year 3 Remarks
(actual/baselin "achievement)
improved markedly
with the National
Project Coordinator
(Mr. M.K. ROy) now
appointed as the
CF/Wildlife,
overseeing the
protected areas system.
Indicator 6.5b: Committee 2nd meeting of SC 2nd meeting Steering Committee
High level meeting minutes of SC, including has been briefed on
inter-agency and recording of support to developments,
Government actions taken by public private approved the co￾Steering the Committee. partnerships management councils,
Committee (NPC) perused the proposal of
functioning and benefit sharing of gate
advancing money by councils. But
the cause of has not yet become an
improved PA active and
management and strong voice for
NRM change.
programs
Indicator 6.5c: Virtually no West Bengal
Improved Involvement except trip and other
local government, initial awareness initiatives
CBO and RMO sessions. make large
capabilities to impact on
support integrated local govt and
conservation and CBOs
development
programs.
Indicator 6.5 d: At Cumulative $0 $100k Includes GTZ/PURE
least $1 funds raised. ($25k) plus
million dollars of leveraged support from
additional funds ADB FSP
raised from Project ($75k).
national and
international
donors.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 36
Annex 3: Formation, Membership and Functions of the CM Council and Committee
Protected Area Conservation Co-management Committee: Protected Area Conservation Co￾management Committee is formed by a way of election organized by the Co-management Council
following a structured guideline. The ACF will serve as the Chairperson to the Committee. If the
landscape of the Protected Area is too big, the Co-Management Committee will segment the landscape
into multiple sectors and form an informal action committee in. each sector to undertake actions aimed at
protecting the forest and conserving biodiversity.
Composition of the Protected Area Co-Management Committee: ACF/Range Officer-Convener,
representatives from Forest Villages: Village Headman/Minister, Representatives from NGO-Organized
Federations/Groups, representatives from the Local Government, representatives from NGOs,
representative from CBOs, representatives from Local Elite, representatives from Resource Owning
Group, representatives from Law-Enforcing Authorities, Representatives from the Government
Department
Protected Area Conservation Council: Protected Area Conservation Council is formed by drawing
people from different strata of the community from the total landscape of a particular area. The DFO or
ACF of the Forest Department will serve as the Chairperson of the Council.
Composition of Protected Area Conservation Council: DFO/Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF),
representatives from NGO Organized Federations/Groups, representatives from the Local Government,
representatives from Local Elite: Teachers, Doctors, Social Activists, Journalist, Religious Leaders,
others, representatives from Resource Owning Group: Sawmill Owners, Brickfield Owners, Timber
Traders, Furniture Shop Owners, Large Land owners, Representatives from Bazaar Committees,
Representative from Tea gardens, representatives from the Forest Department: Range Officer/Beat
Officer, representatives from Law Enforcing, authorities: BDR, Police, Ansar/VDP, representatives from
NGOs/CBOs, representatives from Ethnic Communities, representatives from Other Government
Departments: Dept of Agricultural Extension (DAE), Ministry of Health and Family Planning (MOHFP),
Department of Fisheries, Department of Land.
Functions of the Council:
• Review in the half yearly meeting the progress made on the programme of action prepared by the
Co-management Committee, give feedback and necessary advice, if required.
• Assist meaningfully, both individually and collectively, in implementation of the six-month
programme plan.
• Undertake awareness building and motivational campaigns, both individually and collectively,
within the project sites to make people aware of the negative consequences of forest depletion,
and assist the Co-Management Committee in its efforts towards building resistance against forces
involved in destruction of forest resources and biodiversity.
• Assist the Co-Management Committee to take appropriate actions to prevent illegal
encroachment of forest land.
• Identify people who are involved in regular extraction of forest resources, motivate them and
generate public opinion against such action to bring about their behavioral change.
• Identify local resources and promote alternative livelihood options for them to reduce their
dependence on forest.
• Assist the Co-Management Committee in resolving local conflicts, if needed, in advocacy
campaign and networking with other agencies and groups.
Evaluation of USAIDBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 37
• Work wholeheartedly and collectively to make the area safe and attractive to national and
international tourists.
• Assist in creating public opinion at all levels of the society to ensure that the Nishorgo Support
Project achieves its desired objectives.
Protected Area Conservation Co-management Committee: Protected Area Conservation Co￾management Committee is formed by a way of election organized by the Co-management Council
following a structured guideline. The ACF will serve as the Chairperson to the Committee. If the
landscape of the Protected Area is too big, the Co-Management Committee will segment the landscape
into multiple sectors and form an informal action committee in each sector to undertake actions aimed at
protecting the forest and conserving biodiversity.
Composition of the Protected Area Co-Management Committee:ACF/Range Officer-Convener,
representatives from Forest Villages: Village Headman/Minister, Representatives from NGO-Organized
Federations/Groups, representatives from the Local Government, representatives from NGOs,
representative from CBOs, representatives from Local Elite, representatives from Resource Owning
Group, representatives from Law-Enforcing Authorities, Representatives from the Government
Department
Functions of the Co-Management Committee: The Co-Management Committee will perform the
following tasks apart from addressing others that may need its attention:
• The Co-Management Committee shall prepare a six-monthly plan of action for forest protection
and bio-diversity conservation (as per management plan prescription) with the support of the
facilitating NGO, and meet bi-monthly to review the status of the planned activities--
achievements made, problems encountered, and suggest remedial actions.
• Undertake awareness building and motivational campaigns within the project sites using different
communication techniques to make people aware of the negative consequences of forest depletion
and involve schools children, scouts, girls guides to undertake specific actions at the project sites.
• Take appropriate actions to prevent illegal encroachment of forest landand take stern social
actions against the encroachers jointly with the Forest Department. If needed, approach the law
enforcing authorities to prevent such encroachment by the encroachers.
• Divide the forest into sectors, form informal action groups and assign a block to each group with
specific tasks aimed at protecting the forest and conserving the bio-diversity, assist and take
appropriate actions to help them perform their tasks effectively.
• Develop with the help of the facilitating partner NGO monitoring tools and indicators of forest
resource and bio-diversity protection and conservation, and monitor periodically with the help of
community people to see the achievements made in each block. This will generate a sense of
ownership and accountability and will also develop a positive competition among the groups,
which could have positive impact in the long run.
• Motivate brickfield owners and other resource user groups not to assist in illegal extraction of
forest resources and generate strong public opinion against such actions so that they conform to
public demand.
• Undertake actions to allow natural regeneration of the forest, and also undertake plantation
activities, if required, as per the advice and technical support of the forest department.
• Undertake afforestation activities involving community people, organized poor in particular,
along the roadsides, railway tracts, khash land, and other degraded areas with the advice and
support of the Forest Department following the benefit sharing principles of social forestry.
• Identify and assign families, if possible, from amongst organized group members, to raise
nurseries as part of income generating activities. Also identify other alternative resources that
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 38
could be accessed and used for generating income and employment for the poor people of the
community.
• Work wholeheartedly and collectively to make the area safe and attractive to national and
international tourists and work with the FD to ensure proper upkeep of the areas.
• Assist the facilitating NGO in having access to local resources for poor people, and also assist in
ensuring timely repayment of the loan money borrowed by project beneficiaries.
• Develop financial management skills within the structure having a trained accounts person. Open
a bank account to deposit a portion of income from the park and other income that the committee
can generate, and prepare a guideline for use of the accumulated funds for social development of
community people, poor in particular.
• Maintain proper books of accounts have audit done regularly and submit statement of accounts to
the Council at the Annual General Meeting. It is expected that the system will prepare the
committee to operate and manage funds during the post-phase out period.
• Resolve local issues and conflicts that may arise from time to time. Also provide appropriate
information and technologies to community people. Maintain close linkage with other
government departments that have presence at the community level and interact closely with the
community people.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 39
Annex 4: NSP Achievements
Component # 1 & PP Objective #1: Develop a functional model for formalized collaboration in the
management of Protected Areas.
• Social mobilization into co -management structure
o Eight Co-management councils formed in all sites and started functioning.
o Co-management committees formed in all northern three sites.
o The Co-management councils and committees have been approved by the Government.
o Community patrolling groups developed in two northern sites and slowed down illegal
felling.
o Cross visit to West Bengal by Council members have boosted to mobilization.
• Improved and participatory management plans
o Participatory Management Plans for five PAs have been completed and submitted to the FD.
o Simplified Bangla versions prepared for Council members.
• Participatory impact monitoring
o Baseline studies completed for all sites.
o Eight indicator birds identified for impact monitoring.
o A 3-level project monitoring system developed
Level 1 includes a small number of easily recognizable indicators of change to the quality of
the natural resource and to the local population.
Level 2 includes programmatic indicators, such as those included in the Mission PMP.
Level 3 is simply a project impact achievement system. Notable elements and achievements
of this overall monitoring system include the following:
o Guides at sites trained in bird recognition.
Component # 2 & PP Objective #2: Create alternative income generation opportunities for key local
stakeholders in and round Protected Areas.
• At low-income household level
o 157 Forest users groups formed at five sites including 965 women and 863 men.
o Training imparted to 672 persons in various AIG activities.
o Plus FSP forestry beneficiary involved in AIG activities.
o GTZ co-funded energy fair organized at Chunati site and 180 improved stoves in operation in
Chunati and expansion in other two sites.
• In enterprise development
o A Strategy paper on local level enterprise development completed and identified 14 priority and
secondary enterprises for selected sites
o Local enterprises on eco-tourisms developed in each site and in operation
o Elephant hike enterprise development concept paper for Teknaf and Chunati sites completed
o Export quality handicrafts, groups and cites identified, and the groups introduced with market
system.
Component # 3 & (part o) PP Objective #3: Develop policies conducive of improved Protected Area
management and build constituencies to further these policy goals
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 40
• Policy
o "Nishorgo Vision 2010"- a strategy paper for Pas complteted and widely used
o Helped in revision of Wildlife Act and submitted to FD for further perusal
o Project Proforma (PP) for FD developed and approved
o Government approved all Co-management Councils and Committees and issued Government
Order
o Proposal for retention of 50% entry fees prepared and approved by the Project Steering
Committee for further government process
Component # 4 & (part o) PP Objective #3: Build constituencies to further policy goals
• Constituency building through communication
o Co-management councils continue to include women, minorities and low income groups as key
stakeholders
o Partnership developed with Scouts
o "Nishorgo" clubs formed at all sites
o Community Development Schools formed at all sites
o Partnership developed with Bird Club and organized training for scouts and local committee
members for monitoring
o Developed partnership with IUCN Bangladesh
o Developed linkages with electronic and press media
o Country wide and local awareness of Nishorgo increased
o Developed Public-Private Partnership with seven private partners
o Developed website and web based digital information system
o Developed a good number of communication materials
Component # 5 & PP Objective #4: Strengthen the institutional systems and capacity of the Forest
Department and key stakeholders so that improvements under the Project can be made permanent.
• An Institutional Development for PA Systems developed
• Expanded Nishorgo Program offices established and functioning at the FD
• New uniform designed and in use by Nishorgo Program staff in the field
• Code of Conduct of FD staff in PAs developed through consultative process, finalized, printed and
circulated
• Organized orientation training courses for FD (completed for all Nishorgo Beat Officers, Range
Officers and ACFs; and half of Forest Guards)
• Organized orientation training for all council members
• Cross visits of FD staff and 25 council members to West Bengal
PP Objective # 5: Build or reinforce the infrastructure within Protected Areas that will enable better
management and provide limited visitor services.
• Signboards showing the map of the PA, general instructions to use the PA and map of hiking tracks
are in place in all five Pas.
• Established and developed 3-hours, 1-hour and '/2 hour hiking tracks in all five Pas.
• Construction of visitors' facilities in Lawachara is in process.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 41
PP Objective # 6: Design and implement a program of habitat management and restoration of
Protected Areas
PA Management Plans have been prepared by the NSP, submitted to FD and received approval. The
implementation of recommendations related to habitat management and restoration may now be initiated
by CM Committees.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 42
USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
STATES
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SC OPE • •
RESOURCES
FINAL REPORT:
APPENDIX C - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE NATURAL
STRATEGY
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 1
APPENDIX C: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE NATURAL RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
In this Appendix, the evaluation team first re-states the case for USAID's continued involvement in
natural resources management in Bangladesh, suggests some priorities within that field, summarizes
evaluation recommendations for immediate follow-up to the Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through
Community Husbandry (MACH) project and the Nishorgo Support Project (NSP), and finally suggests
some avenues for future assistance.
1. The Case for Natural Resources Management
Given that Bangladesh has one of the highest population densities in the world, pressure on natural
resources of all kinds is intense and growing. Almost every square meter of the country's territory is used
for one human purpose or another and areas of undisturbed nature are very few. The 50% of the
population classified as poor depend heavily on natural resources for their daily survival and are the first
to be affected by the diminution or degradation of those resources.
Bangladesh's recent moderate rate of economic growth, coupled with generous external support, has
gradually reduced the numbers of absolute poor and erased the specter of widespread famine, thus
potentially easing some pressures on the environment. At the same time, urbanization and
industrialization has heightened pressures on the quality of air and water resources. Significantly, a small
but increasingly vocal middle class is demanding a cleaner environment and the reversal of past trends of .
resource degradation. In fact, chances for effective environmental and natural resources protection will
be small, until the public - or, at least the urban elite - begins to press the politicians and policy-makers
for action, a reason why improving public awareness of environmental and natural resources issues
should be the first priority of any program.
In its 2002 "Strategic Plan for Improved Management of Open Water and Tropical Forest Resources,
FY2002 -2008", USAID/Bangladesh argued for a reinforced USAID role in natural resources
management, with special emphasis on floodplain wetlands and protected forest areas. It noted that other
donors were addressing other natural resource and environmental issues. That paper was the basis for the
extension of the MACH program and for the initiation of the NSP the following year and the case it
makes remains valid
2. Priorities for 2006 - 2010
With the short time available to the evaluation team, its review of options for future USAID involvement
was necessarily limited in scope and far from exhaustive. Nevertheless, a review of available documents,
observations of conditions in the field and interviews with knowledgeable informants, suggest that the
two priorities selected in 2002 - floodplain wetlands and forest protected areas - should remain USAID's
top environmental priorities for the immediate future. This would be consistent with
USAID/Bangladesh's Strategic Statement for FY 2006 - 2010, which includes under SO 11 (More
Effective and Responsive Democratic Institutions and Practices) a Program Component 7: Improve
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources and Biodiversity Conservation. This program component
emphasizes transparency and accountability, through community-based management, with broad based
local participation.
Other important natural resource management issues are receiving attention from other donors. Water
resources management is dealt with in the National Water Management Plan, the implementation of
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
which is being supported by the World Bank (WB)' and a number of other donors. These programs
address urban and rural water supply and sanitation issues, as well as the problem of arsenic
contamination. Energy, industrial and transport pollution have been addressed by other USAID programs
and by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), WB, Asian Development Bank (ADB) and
others. The implications of greenhouse gas emissions for climate change and sea level rise are being
studied under more than one program. A UNDP/GEF project is making a modest effort at addressing
coastal zone management (though much remains to be done).
Floodplain wetlands form the basis for the country's inland capture fisheries and thus provide the
livelihoods for millions of poor and ultra poor, including the traditional poor fishers whose livelihoods
are solely dependent on these resources. Productivity of the inland capture fisheries subsector, however,
continues to decline for reasons of resource degradation and mismanagement. However, as detailed in
Appendix A, MACH (together with the government's new Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy, for which
MACH supplied much technical backing) has now provided a firm basis for future expansion and
development. Nevertheless, the team has noted that, with the imminent closure of the WB's Fourth
Fisheries Project and the associated UK Department for International Development (DFID) and Global
Environment Facility (GEF) projects, there is at present no committed donor funding for floodplain
fisheries beyond October 2006. Furthermore, some wetlands have been designated as Ramsar sites and
some as Ecologically Critical Areas (ECA) by the Department of Environment (DoE).
The private sector seems capable of funding the growth of the dynamic inland and coastal (shrimp)
aquaculture sub-sectors, though donor support for mitigating negative environmental impacts may be
warranted (USAID is providing some technical assistance in this area). Apart from the small UNDP/GEF
project cited above, marine fisheries have perhaps not received the donor attention it deserves.
The MACH project has touched on issues of soil erosion and sedimentation, as they affect the floodplain
wetlands, and has pioneered some effective techniques, including wetland and riparian reforestation.
However, this work does not amount to a systematic approach and further analysis of this problem based
on an assessment of country-wide priorities and on a watershed based approach would be warranted,
followed by project development.
The forest resources of Bangladesh, including its modest network of protected areas (PAs), are under
intense pressure from illegal logging, fuelwood collection, encroachment and other unsustainable
resource uses. Surrounding populations are poor and are often dependent on free resources from the
forests. NSP is attempting to alleviate those pressures, for five PAs, by strengthening protection on the
one hand, providing alternative income sources on the other, and with the hope that tourism and related
other small enterprises will grow and add to the local economy around protected areas. It should be
noted, however, that efforts to assist the country's largest PA in the Sundarbans, have come to a halt, with
the cancellation of the major ADB and associated GEF projects, for what ADB felt was a lack of
responsiveness of the Forest Department (FD) to ADB's concerns on project management. Coupled with
the reputation of the FD for corruption, this event will likely deter significant donor interest in the forest
sector for some time to come. However, given that NSP appears to have successfully insulated itself from
the inadequate accountability of the "mainstream" of the FD, further assistance to PAs may well be
feasible from a fiduciary point of view, as well as highly justified from an environmental perspective.
3. Follow-up to MACH and NSP
As detailed in Appendix A, the successful outcome of MACH II and its high degree of potential
sustainability argue for the following continued USAID support:
I World Bank Office, Dhaka,"Bangladesh Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy, December 2005.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
a) a "no cost" extension of MACH II by 8 to 12 months, to ensure an even higher level of
sustainability and the completion of important civil works; and
b) a follow-on project, in collaboration with other donors2. This might take the form of
technical assistance and capacity building elements of another donor's investment project.
Alternatively, or as a prelude to a major project (which might take some time to be prepared),
USAID might consider a "transition" or bridge project, to move from the pilot project focus
of MACH to a replication phase of broader impact, with greater management involvement of
the Department of Fisheries (DoF).
For NSP, as set out in Appendix B, the chances of achieving full sustainability after the present
project is completed in 2008 appear slim. A clear lesson from MACH is that building co￾management institutions takes considerable time - 4 to 6 years in the opinion of the evaluation team.
NSP co-management must establish a working relationship between the FD and local stakeholders
and, with the limited knowledge and experience of the co-management committees, address the
varied issues of PA management, such as illegal felling, encroachment, current resource use,
restoration, wildlife management, and tourism. An additional challenge for NSP is the necessity for
finding viable compensatory mechanisms (alternative income generation) for the many people whose
livelihoods will be adversely affected by restricting access to resources from PAs on which they have
come to depend. Although that process has started, a lot of learning by doing is still needed,
including strategies and mechanisms for providing alternative sources of fuelwood, as well as sticks,
poles, posts and other forest products for the local poor3; initiatives that are not yet in the project.
Both these challenges argue for a second project to complete the work that has started and to establish
PAs that are self-sustaining. Such a follow-up project could also be the vehicle for extending the co￾management model to a limited number of other PAs, including those not in forest areas.
While it is too early to be very definite about the size, scope or duration of an NSP II, it would likely
be of comparable size to the current project. Every effort should be made to supplement USAID
funds with local currency funding from the outset.
4. Medium-Term Strategy
The co-management model has been shown convincingly to work in the floodplain fisheries sector
and shows promise of achieving the same result in forest protected areas, provided in the latter case
that well-targeted support can be continued beyond 2008. The time may now be ripe for Bangladesh
to generalize this experience into a Protected Areas System Strategy. Given USAID's lead role in this
subject over the past several years, it would be logical for the agency to support the government in
developing such a strategy. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan of 2005 would
provide one foundation for the proposed work. Another key ingredient would be the 2004 assessment
of the FD's capacity to manage PAs prepared under NSP4. This analysis includes a detailed action
plan for institutional changes and capacity building activities. Additional work, however, is needed to
articulate the roles of the FD, DoF and DoE in future biodiversity protection and to lay out the steps
needed to ensure consistent approaches for forest and wetland PAs, and possible future additions such
as coastal and marine sanctuaries. A possible outcome in the long run would be a single government
2 The World Bank is showing interest in a substantial project in the inland capture fisheries area.
3 This leaves aside the question of sawn timber, which is beyond the scope of NSP and this evaluation.
However, Bangladesh should be considering options such as the removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers on imported
timber and wood products, in order to ease the pressure on its domestic forests.
4 "Assessment of the Forest Department's Institutional Organization and Capacity to Manage the Protected
Areas System of Bangladesh", NSP, August 2004.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4
agency to manage PAs; the framework most commonly seen in other countries is a national parks
agency.
By supporting the development of a protected areas system strategy, USAID would be able to identify
the critical challenges, which call for its support at the project level over the medium term. While it
would be premature to forecast the scope of future projects resulting from adoption of a Protected
Areas System Strategy, one might envisage further support of the NSP type - combining co￾management with alternative income generation - for some or all of the remaining 14 forest PAs, plus
possibly new PAs for wetlands, coasts or marine sanctuaries. However, this approach would entail a
massive capacity building effort, given the problems noted in Appendix B in developing a
management cadre for the NSP sites alone. This is all the more reason to stay the course on NSP, to
provide a firm basis for future expansion.
Another project type which may fit USAID strategic objectives could be a program for carbon
sequestration through plantations of various kinds (excluding fuelwood, obviously) - long-rotation
timber, wetlands, mangroves, or riparian. The last may represent a more fruitful opportunity
(compared to, say, roadside plantations, which have been the target of many projects), as relatively
little appears to have been done up to now, apart from MACH. While such a project would probably
involve the "mainstream" of the FD, which might be seen as a barrier, it would also present excellent
prospects for a public-private partnership, in which US corporations may see advantages in leasing
land for planting from the FD or private owners in return for carbon credits or offsetting carbon
footprints.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 5
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX D - STATEMENT OF WORK
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation of USA ID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 1
APPENDIX D: STATEMENT OF WORK
TYPE OF TASK ORDER
This is a Firm Fixed Priced Task Order, issued under RAISE PLUS Indefinite Quantity Contract (IQC)
No. AEG-I-00-04-00010-00 with Weidemann Associates, Inc.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this task order is to procure the technical services through Weidemann Associates to
conduct a thorough evaluation of the ongoing Environment Program in order to help USAID/Bangladesh
in setting the course of its program implementation under the Mission's new strategic options. Specific
objectives are to:
1. Evaluate the overall technical performance of the ongoing programs.
2. Suggest potential variations on interventions to improve the ongoing programs.
3. Recommend realistic strategic as well as programmatic options to help realign the programs to
meet the requirements of the new Mission strategy as well as new developments in the
environment sector in Bangladesh.
STATEMENT OF WORK
Background:
The Biophysical Setting
Bangladesh is situated at the downstream of the watershed of a sprawling inter-linked basin of three great
river systems of the world - the Ganges, Meghna and Brahmaputra. Its extensive alluvial spread, rich
water resources and biological diversity makes it one of the greatest natural resources regions anywhere.
Yet, the country has one of the world's poorest populations. The situation presents an unacceptable
paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty. Due to its unique biophysical setting - the juxtaposition of a
large deltoid freshwater outlet and a large sea fan - Bangladesh, despite its relatively small size, is
endowed with a surprisingly rich heritage of plant and animal species. Pressures on Bangladesh's
biological patrimony are, however, intense and growing due to poor management of aquatic and terrestrial
resources, population growth, overexploitation, indiscriminate and unplanned development of
infrastructure, and agricultural expansion onto marginal lands. Loss of biodiversity is driven in large part
by overall loss of critical habitat, which in turn results directly or indirectly from Bangladesh's expanding
human population growth. Most of Bangladesh's tropical forests and almost all of the freshwater
floodplains have been impacted by human activities that are particularly detrimental to the natural
resource base.
USAID/Bangladesh recognizes that poor surface water management is leading to severe degradation of
the aquatic and floodplain ecosystems. The (perennial) wetland habitats and ecosystems have lost
connections with larger water bodies (rivers and canals) due to siltation and conversion of agricultural and
homestead use. Massive deforestation has also taken place, with negative consequence for both diversity
and production of tropical forest resources. In addition, and more alarmingly, degradation of floodplain
and terrestrial upland has resulted in the degradation of aquatic ecosystems (both function and health) and
important wetland habitats. As a result, both diversity and production of aquatic resources, including
open water fish species has decreased drastically along with the diversity and production of tropical forest
resources. Drastic reduction of aquatic resources has negatively impacted food security and income of the
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 2
poorest elements of the population. Reduction of forest biodiversity and production has negatively
impacted food, fodder, medicine, and shelter and overall livelihood of poor people.
The Environment Program under the Mission Strategic Premise
In light of the three areas of greatest importance to the sustainability of economic growth in the country -
people, land and water, USAIDBangladesh'Is environment program is based on the globally learned
lessons that simultaneous consideration of the'iresource, economic, and governance dimensions of natural
resource management is critical for success. Natural resource management rests on the interaction of
resource characteristics, policies, institutions, skills, and economic signals. Democracy - particularly
voice for those whose resources may be exploited and degraded by outside actors - is critical for creating
healthy ecosystems as well as creating local wealth. Experience demonstrates that programs that integrate
nature (environmental management), wealth (economic concerns), and power (good governance) have
promising results.
The program is testing whether an alternative Model, involving low income resource users as key
implementation agents, could effectively chal^enge the long tradition of a "command and control"
approach to natural resource management in the country. The primary goal is to promote sustainable
management of natural resources and biodiversity conservation. The program works to expand broad￾based economic opportunities, in order to protect and enhance the assets and livelihoods of the natural
resources dependent poor at a landscape lever keeping conservation of natural resources as central to
implementation approaches. The program prgmotes co-management of natural resources in the wetland
and natural forest habitats for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity and natural
resources, invoking a transparent process of environmental governance through strengthening the civil
society. By its very nature, co-management also addresses issues of local governance, economic
opportunity and food security. Achieving the objective involves management of complex systems where
ecological, economic, bureaucratic and socio-Oultural elements form a web. The model involves the
entire community, including government agencies at local level, elected local government and others with
a stake in the resources. Activities, that are truly crosscutting, have been designed to be interwoven and
complementary to each other, aiming at comppsing a success story of resources management through
community-driven, multi-stakeholder particip$tion.
USAID's current program to improve the management of open water and tropical forest resources focuses
on five areas to help augment natural resource management in Bangladesh:
n Implement effective community-based resource management mechanisms;
n Improve select aquatic and tropical forest habitats and ecosystems;
n Implement select policies at the local level to create awareness among the stakeholders, local
government and the national level policy-makers;
n Increase public awareness of the importance of natural resources management; and
n Improve institutional capacity for natural resources management in the government and
concerned NGOs.
New USAID/Bangladesh Strategy: USAIDB ngladesh is at a strategic transition; a new Strategic
Statement has been approved with four new S s:
• SO 11: More effective and resj onsive democratic institutions and practices;
• SO 12: Expanded economic opportunities created through equitable economic growth;
• SO 13: A better educated, healthier and more productive population; and
• SO 14: Improved food security land disaster mitigation, preparedness and relief.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 3
The Environment Program is operating under SO 11, More Effective and Responsive Democratic
Institutions and Practices, specifically addressing the Program Component: Improve Sustainable
Management of Natural Resources.
Current Program Elements
At present, two full-fledged activities are being implemented under the existing environmental strategy:
Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry (MACH), being implemented by
Winrock International along with three local NGOs, and Co-management of Tropical Forest Resources in
Bangladesh (now called the Nishorgo Support Project), being implemented by the International Resources
Group (IRG) along with a number of local and international partners, including IUCNBangladesh and
East West Center, Hawaii.
In addition, USAID/Bangladesh considers the Arannayk Foundation to be a close and active partner
working in tandem with the bilateral projects towards developing a conservation constituency in
Bangladesh. Starting from negotiating the debt-for-nature swap agreements to formally registering the
Arannayk Foundation, USAID/Bangladesh played a pivotal role. The Arannayk Foundation (AF) - a not￾for-profit company without share - was established in July 2003 under the Bangladesh Companies Act of
1994 as the "Tropical Forest Fund" pursuant to the Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) of 1998.
The main objective of AF is to promote activities designed to conserve, maintain or restore the natural
tropical forest and forest biodiversity of Bangladesh.
USAID is designing a new activity this year focusing on "Capacity Building for Protected Area
Management" that will work with the Ministry of Environment and Forest and, among other GOB
agencies, the Ministry of Finance to establish a protected area management system as well as develop
institutional capacity for protected area management.
MACH Project ($6.5 million for Phase I, $3.1 million for Phase II with additional Local Currency
Support of -$6 million equivalent): The Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community
Husbandry (MACH) Project is essentially implementing the "open water" part of the SO. MACH - the
pioneer of natural resources co-management in Bangladesh - is an innovative program to assist local
communities and local government to establish participatory management and conservation of vital open
water (floodplain wetlands and rivers) and fisheries resources. This program was being implemented
under a Results Package Agreement between the Government of Bangladesh and USAID began in 1999,
which was eventually folded into a SOAG in 2003 by concurrently terminating the RPA. The first phase
of MACH ended in September 2003 and USAID entered into a new Cooperative Agreement with
Winrock International for implementation of the three-year (October 2003 - October 2006) second phase
of the Program. The program currently operates in three sites in the northeast of the country: Hail Haor
located on the floodplains of Moulvibazar District; the Lower Turag-Bongshi River Basin in Gazipur
District; and the Upper Kongshaw-Malijhee River Basin located in the wetland portions of Sherpur
District. A brief summary of the achievements of MACH is provided in Annex 1 of the RFQ.
The Nishorgo Support Project (Co-management of Tropical Forest Resources in Bangladesh) ($6.5
million for 2003-2008 with an additional Local Currency Support of $3 million equivalent): The
Nishorgo Support Project (NSP) is the principal mechanism through which USAID is implementing the
"tropical forest" part of the program. Building upon experience in co-management of open water
resources, USAID in 2003 began implementing an integrated approach for conservation of Bangladesh's
fast-disappearing tropical forest resources. The NSP is designed to improve the conservation and
management of increasingly rare tropical forests in Bangladesh through institution of an improved governing
structure at the level of Protected Areas. A more transparent, open and participatory governance of these
Areas is to be led by the Forest Department, in partnership with local poor citizens. The Project seeks to
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 4
develop this governance model at pilot sites that can then be replicated throughout Bangladesh's entire system
of 19 Protected Areas, including National Parks, Wildlife Sanctuaries and Game Reserves. NSP focuses on:
(1) development of a co-management planning and implementation model for selected Protected Areas
(National Park, Wildlife Sanctuary and Game Reserve); (2) interventions and investments for improved
ecosystems management; (3) encouragement of a positive policy environment for co-management (4)
creation of a conservation constituency in Bangladesh; and (5) ensuring institutionalization of co￾management.
The initial pilot sites include the five landscapes around: (1) the Lawachara National Park (Moulavibazar
District); the Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary in Habiganj District; the Satchuri National Park (proposed)
(Habiganj District); the Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (Chittagong District); and, the Teknaf Game Reserve
(Cox's Bazar District). A sixth pilot site will be added prior to the end of year three of implementation. A
brief summary of the achievements of NSP is provided in Annex 2 of the RFQ.
Scope of Work
A. Review and Coordination
The contractor shall, at a minimum, address the following coordination principles:
• The contractor shall coordinate with the Director of the Economic Growth, Food and
Environment Office, Director of the Program Office, the Democracy and Governance Program,
the MACH program and the NSP.
• The contractor shall also coordinate with the Senior Forestry and Natural Resources Management
Advisor of the USAID/Washington's Asia and Near-East Bureau and the EGAT Biodiversity
Team as well as the Land Resources Management Team.
• The contractor shall review all available documents related to S06, including those produced by
MACH, and the NSP. The contractor shall also review all relevant documents related to
environment and natural resources of Bangladesh including, but not be limited to: Bangladesh
Forestry Master Plan, Bangladesh National Environment Management Action Plan (NEMAP),
Bangladesh National Conservation Strategy (NCS), National Biodiversity Strategy and Action
Plan, National Water Policy, National Fisheries Policy, Fisheries Sector Review, Inland Capture
Fisheries Strategy, and forestry and environmental legislation.
• The contractor shall have meetings with other donors and relevant projects that are playing key
roles in the environment sector and will gain a keen understanding of the ongoing programs and
processes. Of particular importance are the Sustainable Environment Management Program
(SEMP) funded by UNDP, Fourth Fisheries Project funded by the World Bank, Coastal and
Wetland Biodiversity Management Project funded by UNDP/GEF and Forestry Sector Project
funded by ADB.
• The contractor shall have to work closely with the lead local and national NGOs engaged in
natural resources management, including the Board of Director and the technical staff of
Arannayk.
• The contractor will also be expected to work with appropriate representatives of the Government
of Bangladesh, including the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MOEF), Ministry of Fisheries
and Livestock (MOFL), Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh Forest Department (FD) -
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 5
particularly the Nishorgo Program and the Wildlife Circle, Department of Environment (DOE) -
particularly the Biodiversity and Natural Resources Division, and Bangladesh Forest Research
Institute (BFRI).
• The contractor will be expected to take adequate field visits to as many MACH and NSP project
sites in Bangladesh as necessary.
B. Tasks
1. Review the progress and performance of the MACH project as it is nearing completion under the
current Cooperative Agreement. The review will focus on, but not be limited to, addressing the
following fundamental strategic questions:
a. Is the implementation of the Exit Strategy realistic enough to ensure the stability and
management capacity of the Resource Management Organizations in sustaining the co￾management approach?
b. Given the fact that an enormous database covering biological, socioeconomic and
hydrological aspects of wetland co-management has been created, has MACH done
sufficient "knowledge management" in terms of dissemination of the information for the
policy-makers, researchers and the general public? What are the institutional
arrangements MACH has come up with to maintain and manage the database?
c. Has MACH done enough to prepare the Department of Fisheries and the Ministry of
Fisheries and Livestock to sustain and scale up the wetland co-management approach?
d. Given the fact that MACH - working as a pioneer - has been successful in leveraging
some initiatives, has the message resonated enough? Can USAID expect that the co￾management approach will automatically be adopted and scaled up by the GOB and other
donors after MACH ends in October 2006?
e. If the decision is made by USAID to extend MACH, how may the existing structure of
MACH implementation be modified, particularly beyond October 2006, to make the
program focus more on institutionalizing and scaling up of the co-management approach?
2. Review the progress and performance of the Nishorgo Support Project as the project is on the
third year of implementation. The review will focus on, but not be limited to, addressing the
following fundamental strategic questions:
a. Given the fact that NSP had some early policy-level success in institutionalizing forest
protected area co-management - particularly the Forest Department launched a protected
area management program - Nishorgo, is NSP is on the right track in balancing its efforts
between policy advocacy and field implementation?
b. Given the fact that NSP has made extensive adjustments to the work plan, without
compromising the technical scope of the project, especially in an effort to accommodate
the habitat restoration efforts as spelled out in the MOEF's Project Proposal (PP), is NSP
on the right technical and strategic track and implementation pace to achieve the project
targets?
c. Given the fact that NSP is making significant strides (1) in creating much needed baseline
information on protected areas to identify appropriate points of intervention, (2)
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 6
conducting feasibility studies for identifying enterprise potential for nature-based
industries with appropriate market linkages, and (3) conducting applied research that will
help strengthen protected area management capacity, is NSP on the right track in
managing all those efforts in a balanced way to address the issues of economic growth,
governance and livelihood security?
d. NSP is tasked with converting paper parks into true protected areas. Are field activities,
including social mobilization efforts, aligned appropriately to ensure achieving the
ultimate technical goal? Are the assumptions realistic and valid?
3. Conservation of natural resources is central to the current and future implementation approaches
of the USAID environment programs that work to expand broad-based economic opportunities at
a landscape level, giving the poor a central role in the planning and implementation process and
also encourages participation of other members of the community who have a stake in the
management and utilization of natural resources, including local government and private
enterprise. The ultimate goal of the program is to establish a true protected area management
system. Where is USAID in achieving the goal? Can you suggest a roadmap, in light of the
current implementation and the Mission's new strategic approach, for the environment program
for FY 2006-2010?
4. The Arannayk Foundation will not be part of the evaluation. The USAID Environment Program
has two full-fledged ongoing projects. An evaluation of these projects -MACH and Nishorgo
Support Project - should provide sufficient information regarding the future of
USAIDBangladesh's environment program."
C. Deliverables
The following deliverables are required:
1. Workplan: The contractor shall prepare the workplan in consultation with and approval of the
CTO within seven days of commencement of the task order. During the workplan preparation
period, the CTO will explain what USAID envisions to achieve. The workplan must be
submitted in both electronic form and hard copies (drafts - electronic and at least two hard copies,
final - electronic and at least five hard copies).
2. A complete evaluation of the MACH program, including recommendations for further
interventions and/or technical adjustments if need be, that is acceptable to USAID. A draft
evaluation shall have to be submitted to the CTO for review and comments within 30 days of
commencement of field work. The final evaluation, addressing the comments, shall have to be
submitted on or before the completion date of the task order. The evaluation must be submitted in
both electronic form and hard copies (drafts - electronic and at least three hard copies, final -
electronic and at least 10 hard copies).
3. A complete evaluation of the NSP, including recommendations for technical adjustments if need
be, that is acceptable to USAID. A draft evaluation shall have to be submitted to the CTO for
review and comments within 30 days of commencement of field work. The final evaluation,
addressing the comments, shall have to be submitted on or before the completion date of the task
order. The evaluation must be submitted in both electronic form and hard copies (drafts -
electronic and at least three hard copies, final - electronic and at least 10 hard copies).
4. An evaluation of the overall implementation of the current environmental strategy and a roadmap,
in light of the current implementation and the Mission's new strategic approach, for the
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 7
environment program for FY 2006-2010. USAID does not expect the Contractor to provide a
complete design. All USAID is interested in an annotated list of plausible future directions for
the program, which can serve as a basis for the design(s) of future program(s)]. A draft report
shall have to be submitted to the CTO for review and comments within 30 days of
commencement of field work. The final evaluation, addressing the comments, shall have to be
submitted on or before the completion date of the task order. The report must be submitted in
both electronic form and hard copies (drafts - electronic and at least three hard copies, final -
electronic and at least 25 hard copies).
5. The deliverables include:
a. A draft work plan
b. A draft report
c. A final report
D. Anticipated Schedule of Deliverables
Time Tasks
Week 1- Task order signed by March 29. Work starts. The team receives all available
April 3 documents (MACH, Nishorgo). CTO and team leader discuss work plan.
CTO provides list of Washington area to the expat team. Review of documents
provided by the mission.
Week 2- Team prepares draft work plan. Expat team meets in Washington DC. (two days).
April 9 Expat team submits an electronic draft work plan for CTO approval.
CTO sends comments on the draft work plan. Review of documents provided by the
mission. Ex at team responds to comments.
Week 3- Expat team travels to Dhaka. Meet with CTO. Meets with MAH and Nishorgo
April 16 Team Review documents. Draft work plan is finalized.
Week 4- Meet with Forest, Fisheries Dept, and Environment. Conduct field visit at
April 23 MACH and NSP sites in the northeast
Week 5 Conduct second field trip focusing on MACH. Meets with NGOs & Donors
April 30 Agencies.
Week 6 Conduct third field trip on MACH. Discuss issues with MACH & Nishorgo
May 7 Debriefing presentation at USAID/Bangladesh.
Week 7 CTO sends comments on the draft report within I week
May 15
Week 8- Team incorporates and finalizes the draft report. The final report is sent to CTO
May23 within a week
TERM OF PERFORMANCE
Work shall commence in o/a April 3, 2006 and be completed by o/a June 2, 2006.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program- Final Report 8
USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX E - LIST OF KEY DOCUMENTS
June 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report I
APPENDIX E: LIST OF KEY DOCUMENTS
SERIAL NO. NAME OF THE DOCUMENTS
MACH Documents
1. MACH Pro j ect Profile, August, 2001
2. MACH II Annual Report, November 2004-October 2005, Government of
Bangladesh/ USAID, December 2004.
3. MACH-H Briefing Packet for USAID Evaluation Team, Part 1-
Achievement, Influence and Future, March 2006.
4. MACH-H Briefing Packet for USAID Evaluation Team, Part 2-Performance
Monitoring, March 2006.
5. MACH Completion Report, Volume 1, Main Report
6. Fourth Fisheries Project, Bangladesh: Looking Back on Five Years of
Lessons and Learnings, Department of Fisheries (date).
Key Lessons and Learning from Inland Open-Water Fisheries, FFP Report
No. 4, Department of Fisheries, Bangladesh (undated).
Peter Hislaire, A Strategic Proposal on Community Based Sustainable
Management of Tanguar Haor, Swiss Development Cooperation, December
9, 2005.
Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy: Summary, Department of Fisheries,
Banagladesh, September 2004.
Action Plan for the Inland Capture Fisheries Sub-Strategy, Department of
Fisheries, Bangladesh (undated).
Summary List of MACH I and MACH II Reports, Winrock Consortium
(undated).
NSI' documents -- - -- -
1. NSP Project Pro-forma, Government of the People's Republic of
Bangladesh, Ministry of environment and Forest, October 2005
2. Operationalization of Co-Management In Protected Areas, Bangladesh
Forest Department, GoB and Nishorgo Support Project, International
Resources Group
3. Core Indicators For Protected Areas Monitoring Report-Part-1
4. NSP Year 1, 3` Quarter Report: For the Period October 23, 03 to February
29, 04
NSP First Annual Pro gress Report: June 1 2003 to May 31 2004
5. NSP year 2, 3 Quarter Report December 1, 04 to February 28, 05
NSP Second Annual Progress Report: June 1 2004 to May 31 2005.
6. NSP 3 Year Work Plan, June 2005
6. NSP Year 3 Quarter 3 Progress Report, December 1, 2005 to February 28,
2006
7. NSP Year 3, Quarter 1Pro gress Report June 1, 2005 to August 31, 2005
8. Nishorgo Vision 2010, Forest Department, Ministry of Environment and
Forest
9. Designing a Co-management Model for Protected Areas in Bangladesh,
Monoj Kanti Roy, CF, Central Circle, Forest Department, Bangladesh,
August 5-21. 2004
10. Management Plan For Lawachara National Park, 2006
Assessment of the Forest Department's Institutional Organization and
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
SERIAL NO. NAME OF THE DOCUMENTS
Capacity to Manage the Protected Area System of Bangladesh, NSP, August
2004.
Pre-Assessment of Enterprise Development Opportunities Associated with
Pilot Protected Areas of the Nishorgo Support Project, NSP, June 2004.
Site-Level Field Appraisal for Protected Area Co-Management: Satchari
Reserve Forest, NSP, August 2004.
Management Plans for Satchuri National Park (Proposed), NSP, April 2005.
Towards Better Forest Management, Jafar Ahmed Chowdhury, Oitijjhya,
Dhaka, February 2006, ISBN 984-776-455-7.
Reports and Other Digital and Non-Digital Outputs of the Nishorgo Support
Project, IRG Consortium, April 12, 2006.
Other docume nts
1. USAID/ Bangladesh's Strategic Plan for Improved Management of Open
Water and Tropical Forest Resources, FY 2002-2008, USAID/ Bangladesh
(undated).
2. USAID/ Bangladesh Strategic Statement FY 2006-20 10,
USAID/Bangladesh, September, 2005
Program Design: Co-Management of Tropical Forest Resources in
Bangladesh, Strategic Objective 6 (Environment) Team, USAID/
Bangladesh (undated).
Unlocking the Potential: National Strategy for Accelerated Poverty
reduction, General Economics Division, Planning Commission, Government
of Bangladesh, October 30, 2005.
Bangladesh Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy, Bangladesh
Development Series No. 3, World Bank, Dhaka, December 2005
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX F - LIST OF KEY PERSONS MET
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
APPENDIX F: LIST OF KEY PERSONS MET
Serial
no.
Name of the person Designation/Organization Email
Management of Aquatic Ecosystems throu -h Community Husbandry MACH
Darrell L. Deppert Chief of Party, MACH/ Winrock Tel: 880-2-8814598
01711-530305
ddgppert@winrockbd.org
Paul Thompson Senior Natural Resources Adviser, 01713-017825
MACH/ Winrock thorn son winrockbd.or
Mujibur Rahman Senior Fellow, MACH/ BCAS 01711-565031
mujibur.ralunan@bcas.net
Esha Husain Communications Strategy 0187-106626
Specialist eshahusain@winrockbd.org
MACH/ CNRS
Md. Daniel Bhuiyan Institutional Development 01711-593592
Specialist MACH db@winrockbd.org
Md. Mizanur Rahman Programme Officer, MACH/ 01711-400275
CARITAS c ban la.net
Nishat Shahid Chowdhury Research Fellow, MACH/ BCAS 01716-808520
nishat.chowdh bcas.net
S. N. Choudhury National Coordinator, MACH/ 01711-541784
BCAS snc@winrockbd.org
M. Mokhlesur Rahman Executive Director, MACH/ 01711-549460
CNRS mokhles cnrs dominox.com
Ali Akbar Bhuiyan Habitat Restoration Specialist, 880-2-8814598
MACH
Mahbub. A. Mahmood Manager ISMP Project, MACH/ 880-2-8814598
BCAS 0191408108
Mahbub.mahmood@bcas.net
Sheikh Md. Ziaul Haque Site Coordinator, Sherpur, 880-2-9886700
MACH/ CNRS cnrs@dominox.com
Erin Hughes Senior Program Officer, Winrock 1-501-280-3000
International ehughes@winrock.org
Darlene Middleton Program Associate, Winrock 1-703-525-9430
International dniiddleton@winrock.org
Daniel J. Gudahi Contracts Officer, Winrock 1-501-280-3058
International dgudahi@winrock.org
Nishor o Support Project (NSP)
Philip J. Decosse Chief of Party, NSP/ IRG 880-1-987-3229
Philip@irgbd.com
Mehrin A. Mahbub Communication Specialist, NSP 01199-808012
mehrin it bd.com
Khaled Rahman Director, Admin & Finance, NSP 01713-011253
khaled@irgbd.com
Kazi M. A. Hashem Technical Coordinator, NSP 01711587516
hashem@irgbd.com
Nasim Aziz Ecological and Social Monitoring 01715-032875
S ecialist, NSP nasim@irgbd.com
Mohammad Asif Shams Enterprise Development Specialist 0187-545939
, NSP asif@irgbd.com
Shamsul Huda Local Governance and Capacity 01711-868178
Building S ecialist, NSP huda@irgbd.com
Ram Sharma Protected Area Management 880-2- 9873229
Specialist, NSP 01713-011563
ram@irgbd.com
Md. Tarigul Islam Field Coordinator, NSP 01716089652
Dhruba Kanta Kundu Participatory Monitoring Officer, 880-2-08626-698
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 2
Serial Name of the person Designation/Organization Email
no.
NSP 01712043472
M. Monirul H. Khan Wildlife Specialist, NSP 880-2-7708478 (ext. 1329)
880-1716-067769
Douglas J. Clark Corporate Vice-President, 1-202-289-0100
International Resources Group dclarkirgltd.com
(IRG)
Robert T. Winterbottom Senior Manager, Environment and 1-202-289-010
Natural Resources Division, IRG bwinterbottom@iMltd.com
George F. Taylor II Senior Manager, Environment and 1-202-289-0100
Natural resources Division, IRG Mylor@irgltd.com
Joan Ablett Communications Manager, IRG 1-202-289-0100
'ablett i ltd.com
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Richard Steelman Deputy, Office of South Asian Affairs 1-202-712-0518
rsteelnian@usaid.gov
John O. Wilson Senior Environmental Officer 1-202-712-4633
jwilson@usaid.gov
Mary Melnyk Senior Advisor, Natural Resources 1-202-712-4906
Management mmeL,,Dk@usqLd.gov
Barbara A. Best Coastal Resources and Policy Advisor 1-202-712-0553
bbest@usaid.gov
Richard Volk Coastal and Aquatic Resources 1-202-712-5373
Advisor rvolk@usaid.gov
Gene V. George Mission Director, USAID/ Bangladesh 880-2-885 5500
eor a usaid. ov
Beth Paige Deputy Mission Director, USAID/
Bangladesh hpai
Todd M. Sorenson Director, Office of Demo-cracy, 880-2-885 5500-2798
Governance and Education, USAID tosorenson@usaid.gov
Paul Andrew Sabatine Director, Program Office, USAID/ 880-2-885 5500-2552
Bangladesh Rsabatine@usaidoo_v
Anne Williams Office Director, Economic Growth, 880-2-8855500-2381
Food and Environment, USAID 01711593253
awilliams@-usaid.gov
Azharul H. Mazumder Environmental Team Leader and 880-2-885 5500-2540
Cognizant Technical Officer, USAID email: azmazumder@usaid.gov
Alia Islam Programme Assistant, USAID/ 880-2-885 5500-2721
Bangladesh
Winston H. Bowman Regional Environment Director, 662-263-7469
USAID/ Asia wbowman@usaid.gov
Apichai Thirathon Senior Program Development 662-263-7471
Specialist, Regional Environment athirathon@usaid.gov
Office, USAID/ Asia
Piyachatr Pradubraj Program Development Specialist, 662-263-7463
Regional Environment Office, ppradubraj@usaid.gov
USAID/ Asia
Government of Bangladesh
Kamrul Hasan Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and 880-2-7164700
Livestock fislivsec@moestab.gov.bd
Fakrul Islam Deputy Secretary, Ministry of 880-2-7169563
Fisheries and Livestock
Martuza Ahmed Deputy Secretary, Ministry of 880-2-7162783
Fisheries and Livestock mar tuza@yahoo.com
Rokeya Sultana Joint Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries 880-2-7161977
and Livestock rokeya03O7@yahoo.com
Mohammad Ayub Senior Assistant Secretary, 880-2-7161977
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
i
Serial Narne of the person Designation/Organization Einail IM.
Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
Md. Nasir Uddin Ahmed Director General 088-02-9562861
Department of Fisheries
Rafiqul Islam Director (Inland Fisheries), 880-2-9571812
Department of Fisheries rafiq@fisheries.gov.bd
Jafar Ahmed Chowdhury Secretary, Ministry of Environment 880-2-7160481
and Forests secretMp_moLf gov.bd
Khandokar Azizul Islam Senior Assistant Secretary, MoEF 880-2-7161676
knak@webbangladesh.com
Md. Osman Gani Chief Conservator of Forests, Forest 880-2-8828364
Department
Monoj Kanti Roy Conservator of Forests, Wildlife and 880-2-9886282
Nature Conservation Circle, Forest bforesl@citechco.net
Department (NSP National
Coordinator)
Laskar Muqsudur Rahman Division Forest Officer, 880-2-08626-262
Division 01711455761
Md. Modinul Ahsan Assistant Conservator of Forest, 01715455761
Wildlife Circle, Moulvibazar Forest
Range
Md. Harunur Rashid Khan Assistant Conservator of Forest, 01711-455761
Moulvibazar Forest Range
Shyamol Roy Beat Officer, Lawachara National 01718005422
Park
Mokhlesur Rahman Forest Ranger, Satchari Range
Ishtiaq U. Ahmad Deputy Conservator of Forest, Cox's 0341-63493
Bazar
Donor Organizations
Mohinder S. Mudahar Economic Adviser, World Bank, 880-2-8159001-28
Bangladesh mmudahar orldbank.org
S.A.M. Rafiquazzaman Irrigation Engineer, World Bank, 880-2-8159001-14
Bangladesh srafiguzzaman@worldbank.org.bd
M. Khaleq-uzzaman Environmental Scientist, World Bank, 880-2-8159001-14
Bangladesh dkhaliguzzaman@worldbank.org.bd
Mamunul H. Khan Programme Officer, United Nations 01715-015944
Development Programme 880-2-8113196
Mamunul.khan@undp.org
Zahir Uddin Ahmad Project Implementation Officer, Asian 880-2-8156000
Develop-ment Bank, Bangladesh zahmad@adb.org
Yolande Wright Environment and Livelihood s 880-2-8810800
Advisor, Department for Inter-national Y-Wright@dfid.gov.uk
Development, UK
Christian Poffett Deputy Country Director, Swiss 880-2-8812392, 8814396
Agency For Development and cbristian.poffet@sdc.net
Cooperation
Asif Munier Programme Officer, 880-2-8812392, 8814099
Swiss Agency For Development and Asif.munier@sde.net
Cooperation
Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)
Zahurul Karim Executive Director, Arannayak Foundation 880-2-9873275
zkarim@arannayak.org
Md. Abu Naser Khan Senior Program Officer, 880-2-9873275 (ext-105)
Arannayak Foundation anaser@arannayak.org
Md. Abedul Haque Manager, Finance and Administration 880-2-9873275 (ext-106)
Chowdhury anaser@arannayak.org
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4
Serial
no.
Name of the person Designation/Organization Email
Bimal Kanti Kuri Deputy Director, Society for Social Service 0921-53195
sss(@bol-online.com
Edward L Webb Associate Professor, Asian Institute of
Technology
662-524-5585
ewebb@ait.ac.th
Mark Sandiford Program Manager, Regional Community Forestry
Training Center for Asia and the Pacific
66-0940-5700x1218
omarks@ku.ac.th.
Tim Redford Director, Surviving Together, WildAid
Foundation (Thailand)
662-204-2722
wildaid@ioxinfo.co.th
William Schaedia Coordinator, Surviving Together,
WildAid Foundation (Thailand)
662-204-2719
biH@wildaidasia.org
Civil Society
G. P. Shuchiang Muntry, Kashia Tribal, Magurchara Pungi,
Moulvibazar
01711-467711
gshuchiang@yahoo.com
Md. Shamsuzzaman Chairman, Chunaru hat, Habiganj 01711353631
Razzakurrrahman Chairman, Shahjahanpur, Habiganj 01712263739
The evaluation would also like to acknowledge the several hundred other local elected and government officials, officers and
members of project co-management organizations, officers and members of resource users' groups, NGO field staff, and villagers
met, whose names were not recorded.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 5
USAID
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
-.-
June 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
Appendix G: List of Places Visited
APRIL 15th
PM Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with the local experts, Dr. Anwarul Islam and Dr. Khairul Alam
1600 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler discusses evaluation parameters and work plan with Azharul
Mazumder
Crystal Garden
APRIL 16th
0930 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Gene George and Beth Paige (Anne/Azhar) Gene's Room
1100 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Todd Sorenson, Anne Williams and Azharul Mazumder DG office
1300 Meeting with the Chief Conservator of Forests at Forest Department (Anne/Azhar) FD
1430 Evaluation Team meets with the MACH Team (MACH presentation, discuss work plan, field trips) Winrock office
APRIL 17th
0900 Evaluation Team meets with the Nishorgo Team (Nishorgo presentation, discuss work plan, field trips) IRG office
1600 Meeting with the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forest Secretariat
1730 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Azharul Mazumder to finalize work plan C stal Garden
APRIL 18th
0930 Meeting with the Director General, Department of Fisheries (Anne/Azhar/Ma ) Dept. Fisheries
1030 Meeting with the, Joint Secretary MOFL and the MACH National Project Director (Fakhrul Islam) at
MOFL
MOFL
1500 Team meet with larger Program Office (Paul Sabatine and Angela Hogg) and others from USAID
offices
3 Floor
APRIL 19` to APRIL 23 : Field trip, by road, o MACH and Nishorgo sites at Srimangal (includes weekend) (Azhar, Mary Melnyk)
SITE PLACE ACTIVITIES REMARKS
APRIL 19 : AtiTSP (Satchuri NP
(Dhaka-Satchuri￾Srimongal)
Teliapara Popular Theatre Display on Biodiversity Conservation
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
4PRIL 14th
NM Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler arrive in Dhaka
Satchuri Short hike, West Bengal experiences sharing, FD discussions,
Nishorgo Club
On way to AIG activities at Tiprapara, Ratanpur, Anatabad and Deorgach
Srimongal
Srimongal NSP NSP presentation, Dinner and Cultural Event
office
APRIL 20TH: L awachara National Park
Baghmara - AIG activities, community patrolling
Baligaon
Kamalgonj Committee Meeting and Discussions with UNO
Lawachara FRH Short hike with FD staff, teak tree enumeration
Magurchara Punji Discussions with Forest Village Chief on Community Assets
and Patrolling, Community Development School
Dolubari - Community Patrolling and AIG activities
Radhanagar
18:30-19:30 or Tea Resort MACH Baikka beel Sanctuary film
after dinner
APRIL 21 st: J14 CH (Hail Haor)
8:00-8:30 MACH site office Briefing on MACH Sreemangal site and activities:
a) Introduction and wetland resource &
permanent sanctuary management, habitat
restoration, achievements.
b) ALGA & micro credit
8:30-9:15 - n Travel to Bara n ina area
9:15-9:45 On the way to Haor
n Visit to Resource Management Organization (RUG) near
Haor
9:45-10:00 - n Travel to Baikka beel sanctuary site
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
10:00-12:30 Baikka beel area n Baikka beel Permanent Sanctuary observation and Resource
Management Organization (RMO) plan discussion.
• Fish catch monitoring discussion
12:30-13:15 n Travel to MACH site office
13:15-14: 15 MACH Site Office n Lunch/Prayer
14:15-15:30 Khoiya beel n Travel to to Khoiya beel
15:30- 16:15 Khoiya beel
Ramedia RMO
n Khoiya beel habitat restoration through excavation.
n Discussion with Ramedia RMO members about management
of resources & UP Chairman
16:15-17:15 Kalapur Field
Office
Travel to Kalapur Field Office
17:15- 18:15 Kalapur Field
Office
Meeting with Kalapur Federation of Resource Users Group
(FRUG) and discussion with the members about management of
organization
18:15-18:45 - Return to Guest House
APRIL 22nd.- MACH (Hail Haor)
8:00-8:15 Fulchhara Travel from site office to Fulchhara
8:15-8:30 Dhaka-Srimangal
highway side
• Visit to Ful Chhara tree planting area and discussion with
Chara management committee members
8:30-8:45 Dumuria n Travel from Fulchhara to Dumuria
8:45-10:00 Dumuria n Dumuria Resource Management Organization (RMO)
meeting and discussion with the members
10:00-10:30 Dumuria n Discussion with a female monitor for household fish
consumption
10:30-11:00 Fayzabad n Travel from Dumuria to Fayzabad
11:00-11:30 Foyzabad n Contour cultivation of pineapple at Foyzabad and,
n Discussion with farmers.
11:30-12:00 Gandharbapur n Travel from Fayzabad to Gandharbapur
- Mirzapur road side n Planted riparian area on Joita chhara
12:00-13:15 Gandharbapur n Visit to see AIG activities of RUG members at :
n Gondharbapur plant nursery operated by a woman member,
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
n Panchaun tailoring training for youth.
13:15-14:00 - n Travel from Gandharbapur to MACH site office
14:00-15:15 MACH site office, Lunch
Sreemangal
15:15-15:30 MACH office to Caritas Trade School
15:30-15:50 Caritas Trade Visit to Caritas Trade School to see MACH youth trainees in
school, Sreemangal different trades.
15:50-16:10 Travel from Trade school to Sabujbug
16:10-17:00 Sabujbag Visit to Sabujbug to see the entrepreneurship interventions by
RUG members in different trades.
Discussion with RUG members.
17:00-17:30 - Return to Guest House
Acronyms:
RMO: Resource Ma agement Organizatio formed under MACH
RUG: Resource Use rs Group under MAC
FRUG: Federation f Resource Users Gro under MACH
APRIL 23 : NSP Reina-Kalen a-T `ildli Sanctuary
Kalenga/ Committee meeting, FSP-NSP linkages, AIG activities
Chonbari
Return to Dhaka
APRIL 2 4th
1100 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Mary Melnyk, Anne Williams, Todd Sorenson and Azharul
Mazumder to share field observations
DG office
1230 Steering Committee Meeting of NSP (Azhar & Peter) Secretariat
1530 Meeting with the Executive Director, Arannayk Foundation Arannayk Foundation
APRIL 25th
1000 Meeting with the Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock (all team/Azhar MOFL
1530 Team meet with Dr. S. Rafiguzzaman, Dr. Mahinder Mudahar, World Bank World Bank
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
APRIL 26` to April 28t : Field trip, by road, at MACH sites at Sherpur and Kaliakoir (Mary Melnyk
APRIL 26t erp ur Site, SIu r ur
7:00 Departure from Dhaka for Sherpur
11:00 Arrival at Sherpur Site Office
11:00-11:15 Sherpur Refresh
11:15-12:00 Sherpur site office Brief presentation of site and activities:
a) Introduction, wetland resource management, habitat
restoration, organizations, achievements
b) ALGA, micro-credit
12:00-13:00 Sherpur site office Lunch at site office's rest house
rest house
13:00-14:30 On the way to n Katakhali sanctuary observation.
Jhenaigathi n Plantation activities along the Katakhali canal.
n Discussion with RMO members.
n Riparian plantation at Paglarmukh and discussion with
Chhara plantation committee.
14:30-15:30 Upazila campus Meet Jhenaigathi LGC members and discussion
15:30-16:30 Upazila campus n Ceremony of handing over RLF to Malijheekanda FRUG at
Jhenai athi.
16:30-17:00 n Travel to Dainner Kur
17:00-17:45 n Dainnerkur permanent sanctuary observation
n Meet RMO representatives and discussion on sanctuary
mana ement.
17:45-18:30 Return to Hotel
APRIL 27t': Sherur Site, Sherpur
8:30 -9:30 Travel to Dholi-Baila complex, Jhenaigathi
9:30-10:30 Dhali-Baila RMO Meet Dholi-Baila RMO and discussion.
office
10:30-11:15 Dhali-balia beel Dhali-Baila sanctuaries being managed by RMO.
11:15-11:45 Kalibari Travel to Kalibari from Dhali-Baila
11:45-12:30 Kalibari Visit to Kalibari poultry farm of a woman RUG and sharing of
her experience.
12:30-13:45 Travel to Moroshi Chhar plantation place. Visit plantation and
discussion with the plantation committee.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
13:45-14:30 Travel to Sherpur town.
14:30-15:30 Shepur Lunch at Site Office, Sherpur
15:30-17:30 Pakuria Meeting with PDB FRUG. See some of the ALGA activities, by
one Group.
15:30-17:30 Tilkandi Cane and bamboo handicrafts run by women RUG as AIGA and
meeting with Tilkandi RUG.
17:30-18:00 Return to Hotel.
APRIL 28t': Sher, ur Site, Sher ur
7:30-10:00 Netrokona Travel to Netrokona Jalghaghutia Beel FMC
10:00-11:15 See the intervention by MACH, discussion with FMC, SUFO,
DFO on the activities
11:15- 12:30 Travel to Mymensingh from Netrokona
12:30-13:30 Rest House, Caritas
Regional Office,
Lunch at Caritas Rest House, Mymensingh
13:30-15:15 Travel to Dhaka from Mymensingh. Arrival in Dhaka.
Acronyms;
RMO: Resource Management Organization formed under MACH
APRIL 30th
1130-
1230
Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Anne Williams, Todd Sorenson and Azharul Mazumder to
share field observations
Meetings with MACH/Nishor o partners
X900-
1000
Team meet with Jahiruddin of ADB (Anne+Azhar)
1530 Team meet with Dr. S. Rafiguzzaman Dr. Mahinder Mudahar, World Bank (Anne+Azhar)
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
APRIL 30`h: Field trip Turag-Bangshi Site, Gazipur (2 Evaluation Team Members
APRIL 30th: Turag-Bangshi Site, Gaii ur
8:30 Departure from Dhaka
9:30 Railway bridge Travel along the Railway track up to bridge to see pollution and
factory outlets
10:30 Matikata Visit to Matikata to see the extent of pollution around Ratanpur
canal and Mokosh Beel.
11:30 Visit Lalkhar kum sanctuary and confluence of Mokosh khal.
Discussion with representatives of Mokosh & Turag RMO and
concerned UP Chairman on impact of pollution.
12:45 Safipur Visit to Gumti Textile Industry and observed the production
process. Visit Interstoff Textile Industry, discussion with
management.
15:00 Arrival in Dhaka
.Wav 1st:
After 12
:)m
Team meet with DFID (Anne + Azhar) DFID
YIay 2-5: Field trip by air and road, to the Nishorgo southern sites
n Mav 2 Dhaka-Cox s Bazar. bv air)
Whekeong-Teknaf West Bengal experience sharing, Discussions with Eco￾Game Reserve Rickshaw Promotors, Protection of Forest Regeneration Areas
(GR)
'May -3rd:' Tekna GR
Shilkhal and Kudumguha trail hiking, community patrolling discussions, AIG
Teknaf activities, Committee interactions and visit to Mochini eco￾tourism complex
Mav 4th: Chunoti KS
Chunoti and At Chunoti discussions with CMC members, community
Banskhali/Jaldi patrolling groups, West Bengal visitors, Nishorgo Club members
and NSP staff
Observing AIG activities
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
At Banshkali visit to Chambal regeneration areas and discussion
with FD and NSP staff
May 5t : Chunot WLS Cox's Bazar Dhaka)
Cox's Bazar Meeting with NSP staff
Departure for Dhaka
May 7t :
1030 Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler meet with Anne Williams, Todd Sorenson and Azharul Mazumder to
share field observations. Discussion on draft conclusions
AM BRAG Director of Micro Finance BRAC
AM Grameen Bank- Deputy Managing Director GB
1400 Team meet with Swiss Development Cooperation (Christian Poffett and Asif Munier) (Anne+Azhar SDC
1530 Team meet with Shireen Kamal Syed, Assistant Resident Representative, UNDP Anne+Azhar UNDP
May 8t :
AM Team submits draft executive summary of the report to Azharul Mazumder. Peter Whitford and Brent
Tegler meet with Anne Williams and Azharul Mazumder to share field observations. Discussion on
draft conclusions and recommendations.
1030- Exit debriefing to Secretary, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
1200
After Exit debriefing at Forest Department
1430
clay 9t :
kM Team submits draft executive summary of the report to Azharul Mazumder. Peter Whitford and Brent
Tegler meet with Anne Williams and Azharul Mazumder to share field observations. Discussion on
draft conclusions and recommendations.
X930- Exit debriefing at USAID.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
1030
1100-
1200
ay 10
Exit debriefing with Mission Director and Deputy Director (Azharul, Todd and Anne)
Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler depart for Bangkok.
Way 11- May 12: Meetings at Regional Development Mission /Asia programs
Way 13 - Peter Whitford and Brent Tegler depart for USA
\lay 15 -CTO sends comments on draft report
\lay 22 -Team incorporates comments and sends final draft for CTO review
May 20to June 6f - Team submits final report
Evaluation of USAIDBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
USAID
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL -i￾June 2006
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development.
It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 17
Appendix H: Powerpoint Presentations/Bangkok Meeting
t ;
EnvironmenrPrograninte
MACH
USAID Bangkok
May 10111, 2006
Presenter
Dr. Peter W. Whitford
Evaluation Team
Dr. Brent Tegler
Dr. Khairul Alam
Dr. Anwarul Islam
Project Overview
MACH Achievements
MACH Problems
Sustainability
Replicability
Lessons Learned
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
•:• Hail Haor - 13,000 ha
•:•Turag-Bangshi - 10,000 ha
:•Kanshi-Malijhi - 8,000 ha
Establishment of 16 RMOs
Fisheries Management Plan
Leases (jalmahals)
Sanctuaries
Re-excavation of heels and khals
Fish aggregating devices
Meeting sheds
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Wetland and riparian reforestation
Hail Haor sanctuary
Alternative Income Generation
5,100 members in 248 RUCs (167
male & 81 female)
13 FRUGs established
Revolving Fund Tk 2m for FRUG
Active loans Tk 16 m
Total savings Tk 7 m
5. Outreach Program
v 9 sites under Fourth Fisheries Project
6. Inland Capture Fisheries Strategy
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Co-Management
Project well designed
Co-management model very appropriate and working
well
- structure, membership, meetings, minutes
LGC - working, being converted to UFC
Biodiversity Objectives
:-Sanctuaries -major, local
-:-Species diversity
•:•Biodiversity enhancements
-Riparian & wetland reforestation
-Pineapple pilot
-Nesting boxes and platforms
-Eco-tourism information
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
v RMO
v RMO
Alternative Income Generation
Clear ish productiotibenefits 140% increase
Consumption increase - 52%
B/C Ratio of 2.4
- Approach well designed - RUGs, FRUGs
-Working capital/ micro-credit working
- Short and long term training - servin
metal work etc.
- Recovery rate: 96%
Social Impacts
Non-capture of benefits by elites
Empowerment of women
Equal access between Ilindus and
Muslims
Infrastructure
Re-excavation, meeting sheds
•'• Riparian plantations
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
mpact on Fisheries Department sub-optimal
Appointment of Fisheries Department officers
Consultant/NGO linkages
Strong monitoring and evaluation system
Use of MACH experience in developing Inland
Capture Fisheries Strateg},
Outreach program has focused on infrastructure
not co-management
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Co- lanagenient
RMOs established later need more support
Lack of LGC in Moulvibazar Sadar
Enforcement issues for some RMOs
I3iodiversity Objectives
Private land in permanent sanctuary
v No strategy for restoration of locally
extinct species
Lack of academic involvement
Possible oxygen depletion in winter
Non-systematic approach to watershed management
Need to involve all stakeholders - Forest Department
and tea estates
Pineapple work should be turned over to extension
service
v Ecotourism potential not yet fully promoted
Pollution issues atKaliakoir
Evaluation of USAIDIBangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Economic Benefits
v Need to evaluate short- and
long-term AIG training
Alternative to arms length
relationship with other micro￾credit NGOs
•:• Plantation committee membership and
revenue sharing formulae
Incomplete infrastructure - major
expenditure
Use of B/C analysis
-.*-Limited erosion impact of plantations
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
InstitutionaI
Lease system (Ministry of Land) - need to
forego revenue for co-management
PP approval process
Limited capacity of Fisheries Dept to support
RMOs
Exit strate ri, to be articulated in next semi￾annual report - in case project not extended
Strategy for disseminating knowledge base,
especially to field staff, to be spelled out in next
semi-annual report
Simplified monitoring system to be developed
by October
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
,argely sustainable as it stands
Further support needed to lagging RMOs, RUGs,
FRUGs
UFO's and endowment funds need further support
0 be fully effective
v Highly desirable to find mechanism for spending
remaining 416 b funds
Strengthening of DoF
Team proposes 8 to 12 month extension o
very specific and focused
Extension would cover;
receive semi-annual monitoring and emergency
support only, weaker group to continue to receive
motivational and capacity building support
1. Strengthening the DoF
Completion of infrastructure with 416b funds
Separation of RMOs and FRUGs into two
approximately equal) groups - stronger group to
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Further outreach to FFP and other sites
Further training and support to UFOs and UFCs
Pollution control at Kaliakoir
Implementation of simplified monitoring and
evaluation system
areas for expansion
No external donor funding after October 2006 for
important floodplain fisheries sector
Challenge is to lower unit costs while maintaining
quality
Very positive economic returns
Recognize that institution building at the local level
is a time consuming and labor intensive process e.g.
4 to 6 years
Possible ecosystem approach e.g. whole watershed
Geographic expansion: in-filling (eg. Hail Haor),
stepping out to adjacent areas, plus new pilots in
other regions
a
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Expansion to whole country not recommended
Do you need the whole MACH packag
Co-management and associated infrastructure
as the core
AIG possibly by others e.g. major NGOs
Biodiversity enhancements possibly by others
e.g. GEF, IUCN
More central role of Dept of Fisheries in a larger
project
Possibility of USAID providing TA input to a loan
project and/or solely funding a bridge project
Use of instruments like WB's Adaptable Program
Lending (APL) to divide a long-term program into
phases with clear performance indicators and
triggers for moving from phase to phase
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
ifsustainability is to be ensured.
A pilot project implemented outside the normal
	Restoration of wetlands in Bangladesh both to restore
biodiversity and to improve the livelihoods of ,the many
poor people who depend on them is very`feasible.
Moreover, it can lead to attractive economic rates of
return.
Co-management has been found to be highly effective in
balancing the interests of the various stakeholders in
wetland natural resources. However, it is a slow and
staff intensive process and no "quick fixes" are available
government structure can assure transparency and
expedite implementation. However, the consequent low
impact on government capacity can impede replication.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
USAID Bangkok
May 10th, 2006
Presenter
Dr. Brent Tegler
Evaluation Team
Dr. Peter Whitford
Dr. Khairul Alam
Dr. Anawarul Islam
Project Concept and Strategy
NSP is led by the Forest Department with technical and
financial support of USAID
Intent is to support a co-management model of Protected
Areas (PA) to achieve biodiversity conservation
Six PA sites are to be involved:
1. Satchari National Park (240 ha)
2. Lawachara National Park (1,250)
3. Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (1,796 h
4. Chunati Wildlife Sanctuary (7,761 ha)
5. Teknaf Game Reserve (11,615 ha)
6. yet to be determined
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
NSP Co-management Framework
National Steering Committee (relevant high level GoB
officials)
Co-management Council (one or more at each PA, 40-60
members local stakeholders and FD)
Co-management Committee (smaller number of
individuals selected from Council) - this will be the
"working unit" for co-management
Forest User Groups (several groups formed of poor/ultra
poor living around/within each PA) - this will be the target
for Alternate Income Generation
Co-M7anagenment
Government Orders have given official status to the Co￾Management Councils and Committees and will allow
revenue sharing
Co-Management Councils and Committees recently
formed and have begun meeting
There was evidence of a greater sense of ownership among
the people
Bringing FD and community together is represents a
significant change in status quo
Joint FD and community patrols appear to have reduced
illegal felling
West Bengal study tour FD & CMC a great success 4
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
Biodiversity Objectives
Declaration of Satchari as a National Park
PA management plans submitted to FD for approval
Publicity materials and sign boards
Training of some eco-guides
Trail construction and signage started
v Infrastructure being planned - visitor centers,
entrance gate, etc. to attract and educate public
Folk theatre presentations underway
Monitoring of indicator birds, basal area and photo
monitoring initiated
v Nishorgo Vision 2010 completed by FD
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report
17
U
FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
SAID
RAISE PLUS-LIMITED SCOPE OF WORK
FINAL REPORT
APPENDIX I- MAPS
June 2006
THIS PUBLICATION WAS PRODUCED FOR REVIEW BY THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.
IT WAS PREPARED BY WEIDEMANN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 1
APPENDIX 1: MAPS
Location of NSP project sites (figure taken from Nishorgo - Protected Area Management
Program of Bangladesh, NSP 2005)
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 3
Location of MACH project sites (figure taken from MACH II Annual Report November
2004 - October 2005)
KA1{GSNA- MALIJHf 511L
Sit!ipui $ M(t k^c w 1x1 finni ^j'`.. ' A ^{^1
Management of Aquatic Ecosystem through
Community Husbandary (MACH)
Project Skos
CFGVJ0
.r : U'.:=kay
AV4, fits aflICA SCi*
Evaluation of USAID/Bangladesh Environment Program - Final Report 4