Evaluation of the Kibale Forest conservation and management project under the action program for the environment

The project was implemented by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). The implementation of this ambitious and well-justified project has been thwarted by poorly defined and increasingly difficult relationships between cooperating institutions and project personnel, limited financial administration provided by WCS, slow disbursement of USAID funds, early departures of personnel from key project positions with very slow replacement, turnover in Ugandan institutional authority over the forest, and limited financial and institutional investment in the field station by Makerere University. Despite these challenges, significant achievements have been made, including: (1) substantial infrastructure development at MUBFS, enhancing its capacity to serve as a center for tropical forest science research and training; (2) increased levels of applied conservation research and training at the station, with moderate participation of Ugandan students and scientists; (3) in and out park tourism development in place with demonstrable economic benefits to local communities; and (4) markedly increased local support for forest conservation. The imminent withdrawal of WCS from the cooperative agreement poses a critical challenge to the future of USAID support for research, training, conservation, and outreach at Kibale National Park. Consideration should be given follow-on efforts to encourage biodiversity conservation and sustainable development in and around Kibale. The following were lessons learned. (1) All grants and cooperative agreements, and particularly those involving NGOs, need an administrative unit with the expertise to handle the project's financial and management oversight. Further, the grantee should have a country representative to handle large and complex projects. (2) Regardless of the desirability of funding an activity, no grant should be made until adequate management systems of both the grantor and grantee are ready to be put into place. Missions should not attempt to internally manage a grant without sufficient staff; if numerous, similar grants are anticipated, then it is highly appropriate to develop a grants management. (3) An understanding on the part of both the grantor and the grantee of the interpretation of USAID "substantive involvement" is critical. This should be established through dialogue and negotiation at the outset of cooperative agreements. Missions should allow grantees considerable leeway in selecting qualified personnel while maintaining high standards of accountability with respect to project performance and output. (Author abstract, modified)