Midterm evaluation of biodiversity conservation network [BCNet]

The evaluation covers the period 9/92-4/96. The BCN is on track. Essential administrative structures are in place and financial flows, though somewhat slow (28% disbursed by the end of the third year), are on track with respect to the realities of project contracting and implementation. While monitoring is in urgent need of simplification, it has received substantial attention when compared with other environmental projects and is headed in the right direction. Enterprise profitability is at the level expected, but individual accounting systems need improvement. BCN is making good progress in understanding and addressing important social organization issues. Emphasis should now shift to the development and utilization of local social structures. Of 20 projects funded, 12 utilize nontimber forest products, 7 promote ecotourism, and 2 harvest timber resources. Six of the projects are located in Indonesia, 3 in Philippines, 3 in India, 3 in Papua New Guinea, 2 in Nepal, 2 in the Solomon Islands, and 1 in Fiji. At least 15 of the 20 were ongoing efforts prior to project funding and thus will meet the three-year time horizon required to show the effectiveness of an enterprise. Although 3 years may be enough in which to establish and prove the various monitoring systems or to detect the direction of change, it will take much longer to judge the project's overall effect on biodiversity and community organizations. BCN progress so far has confirmed the soundness of its concept. It has shown that biological resources used by very poor people cannot be preserved even with police action if the social and economic needs of indigenous and local people are ignored; that profitable enterprises that draw upon biological resources in a sustainable manner can be established in a wide range of ecological conditions; that supportive policies should remain a primary concern beyond the 3-year time horizon to ensure long-term success; and that, through educational programs, indigenous and local people readily understand the relationship between sustaining the resource base and their livelihoods. The following recommendations are made in order of priority. (1)Develop simple techniques for monitoring biodiversity, enterprise profitability, and social structures of participation. This may require some additional funding for outside consultants. The BCN also needs to persuade NGOs on the scene that local people should be helping to develop and implement systems of monitoring. (2) Make sure that indigenous and local people are participating in all aspects of project activities. Local NGOs should not be confused with the indigenous and local people themselves. While NGOs play a vital role in establishing the institutional structures that will involve local people, they must remember that the structures should be designed specifically for this purpose. (3) Begin to plan for a larger enterprise impact by increasing the competitiveness of the private sector in nontimber forest products. BCN projects tend to be implemented where the infrastructure is poor and thus attract relatively few private operators. This activity will have a longer time horizon than current enterprise activities and thus would require the project to be extended. (4) Be aware of the relationship between broader development efforts on the perimeter of the biological resource bases and encourage other institutions to take appropriate action where necessary. (5) Identify the broader policy issues of concern, from the rights of indigenous and local people to land tenure, and develop a plan for policy action across projects and for a general set of policy thrusts. (6) Classify projects and develop a concept of specialization that will make it possible to efficiently supervise a large portfolio of projects. (7) Seek funding from USAID beyond the present grant, preferably for another five years, to enable the BCN to pursue its central concept as modified by experience.