Grant to World Wildlife Fund (an element of AID/Brazil global climate change program - GCC)

The project has been implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). The evaluation covers the period 8/90-7/93. Results have been mixed, but given the project"s broad and challenging agenda, it is to be expected that some activities will be more successful than others. In this project, more progress has been made in field-level than policy-related components. Field activities have been well targeted and have included initiatives in Brazil"s forest frontiers with small farm households both in areas of long-term settlement (Rio Capim) and those experiencing migration (Araras); efforts in commercial forestry with the Environmental Institute of the Amazon (IMAZON); and activities in two types of protected areas: national parks (Jau) and extractive reserves (Cajuri and Maraca). WWF"s work with IMAZON was exemplary: the model was clearly specified, baseline and control data were collected, and the model was objectively tested and a dissemination strategy has been developed; the other "model" interventions fall short in all but the first area. WWF and its local counterparts performed extremely well in helping communities to band together to address natural resource issues. Efforts in Araras, the extractive reserves, and Rio Capim were particularly impressive. Implementation has been slower than expected in the extractive reserves, however, due to legal, political, and organizational constraints. In addition, the Araras component could have benefited from greater external assistance in technical forestry, management assistance could have been more appropriately tailored to local institutional needs at several sites, and environmental education could productively be integrated into all field components. However, WWF has learned from this experience and plans to increase the role of its Brazilian office. By contrast, all three policy-based components (forest policy, natural resource economics, and environmental impact assessment) have progressed slowly, and as currently structured are unlikely to improve the incentive structures facing natural resource managers. Key reasons for the lack of success have been turnover among government counterparts, overly ambitious goals, and the difficulty of managing a policy process from Washington. Additionally, the expected crossfertilization between field- and policy-based interventions has not occurred; one way of achieving this would be to use the field sites as case studies to influence policy. It is also recommended that WWF shift the institutional focus of its policy work from the Brazilian Institute of Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA) towards the National Council for the Environment (CONAMA) and nongovernmental initiatives. The environmental education component is too recent to evaluate, although WWF"s capacities in this area are good. The scope of institutional strengthening has been too broad, encompassing federal and state government, project partner NGOs, and other NGOs active in the Amazon region. Assistance should be directed to partner NGOs as a first priority and tailored to the specific needs of the project. This will mean replacing generic TA with a range of training (including basic finance and accounting) at various levels (including, NGO, community, and enterprise). Overall, WWF has managed the project soundly, and has formed an unusually collegial and productive relationship with USAID, with relatively efficient communication. Its extremely dedicated and skilled Washington staff have forged productive relationships with Brazilian organizations. However, WWF needs to be more pro-active in its assistance to local partners, and to avoid over-reliance on IBAMA. Finally, USAID systems for monitoring and evaluating WWF need to be improved, as do WWF"s systems for monitoring its subgrantees (some work is being done in the latter area).