Project assistance completion [report] : USAID project no. 519-0400 -- Salvadoran environmental non-governmental organization strengthening (SENS) : cooperative agreement no. 519-0400-A-00-2144-00 with the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF)

SENS substantially increased the capacity of 17 important NGOs to undertake environmental activities in reforestation, soil conservation, environmental education, organic fertilizer production, and protected areas management. Participating NGOs all developed open membership policies and requirements for member contributions, and established solid administrative and accounting systems, including independent audits. Their boards and staff received extensive training in strategic planning, fundraising, board functions, administration, gender inclusion, and environmental policy. All told, 1,558 individuals -- 523 board members, 947 staff, and 88 NGO members - - were trained. Due to SENS support, funding of NGO field activities is more positive than ever. As much as $1.4 million was made available to NGOs during 1995 through the Initiative of the Americas Fund (FIAES), the Governments of Canada and Japan, and the European Community. The Interamerican Development Bank's (IDB) Social Investment Fund (FIS) views NGOs as important project implementors. Project NGOs submitted more than $1.3 million in reforestation projects to the IDB's Fondo de Inversion Social for the 1994-1995 growing season. Project NGOs implemented more than $700,000 worth of project activities with funding from the Executive Secretariat for the Environment (SEMA), FIS, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and the National Audubon Society. Two project NGOs worked in the Parque Imposible/Barra de Santiago, the PROMESA project's demonstration area. During the project, SENS NGOs made important progress in developing practical, productive working relationships with public sector institutions. NGOs negotiated co-management agreements with the government for management of some of El Salvador's most important protected areas: Parque Imposible, Bosque Nancuchiname, Barra de Santiago, San Marcelino, and Parque Deininger. NGOs developed important working relationships with municipal governments in undertaking reforestation efforts and in mitigating the negative environmental impacts of development projects. Close working relationships were developed with the National Civil Police environmental units to enforce logging and hunting laws in protected areas. Project NGOs also developed good working relationships with numerous local communities and cooperatives in reforestation, soil conservation, and protected areas management. One SENS NGO worked with the Cooperative League of the USA (CLUSA) on an organic fertilizer project in Chalatenango. During the life of the SENS project, participating NGOs have grown rapidly, dramatically increasing their environmental activities, as illustrated by the following trends: (1) The 8 primary SENS NGOs carried out more than 3 times as much environmental work (based on financial investment) in 1994 as in 1992. (2) SENS NGOs matched every USAID dollar they received with $2.50 from other sources, a 45% increase over USAID's own goal. (3) Over a 2.5 year period, SENS NGOs increased their collective membership by 40%, from 728 to 1,023. (4) In 1994, NGOs raised $360,000 from membership and special events, 2-4 times the funds raised from the same activities in 1992. (5) In 1995, FIS financed $614,000 of reforestation, SEMA funded $56,000 in a variety of projects, the Central America Peace Scholarships Project (CAPS) awarded $250,000 in scholarships to participants of five NGOs, and 10 NGOs were in the process of completing their first FIAES projects, which totaled $834,000. At the end of 1995, new projects were pending with FIAES, and 11 NGOs had $448,000 worth of projects under consideration by the FONAES-Canadian fund. A key lesson learned is the need for flexibility in NGO selection criteria. If SENS had not supported NGOs that really did not need its support (e.g., FUTECMA and SALVANATURA), funds would have been available for less prestigious or more local-level NGOs that would probably have benefitted more did than those NGOs. For other lessons learned, see the abstract of the final evaluation (PD-ABL-679). (Author abstract, modified)