USAID's global conservation program (GCP I) : evaluation report

Interim evaluation covers the period 1/99-12/02. The program is implemented by six PVO/NGO partners. The GCP has begun to make contributions to biodiversity conservation, and USAID and its partners have developed a strong base on which to build. The Leader with Associate Award (LWA) has generally proven an efficient and cost-effective mechanism. Partners have (or already had) incorporated most of the 14 program principles into their ongoing work, though they need increased understanding of the concept of "results". Program strengths include: the approach to biodiversity conservation (e.g., threats-based approach, in-situ conservation, partner-driven, and global perspective); the diverse array of partners and of efforts funded; the opportunity for learning and sharing experiences; the sense of a global network; links to the broader conservation community; and an effective NGO procurement mechanism. Areas of program weaknesses include: communication and budget; proactive internal sharing and collaboration; analysis of lessons learned; staffing (e.g., limited field visits by USAID/GCP staff); program management (e.g., regarding review of work plans); USAID reporting requirements, which the majority of the partners feel are excessive; capacity building in the field; and financial sustainability. Partners believe they have identified threats at the appropriate scale for GCP- funded sites moderately well. Key threats identified have included land subdivision, lack of awareness, illegal logging, unsustainable levels of hunting and fishing, weak management capacity to address difficult transboundary issues, and issues of scale. Lessons about the threat- based approach noted by partners include the following: (1) If used rigorously, a threats-based approach helps keep field staff, communities, and other stakeholders (government, other NGOs, etc.) focused on the resource management aspects of the work. At the same time, several partners suggested that USAID has focused too intensively on the "threats-based approach" to the neglect of other important aspects (e.g., conservation targets, threats, and ultimate and proximate causes). (2) Assessment of causal linkages is useful for identifying where and how interventions can affect the threat status and where monitoring can be done. Assessment of causal changes also helps to explain why GCP is doing what it is doing. (3) A threats-based approach in marine/coastal areas must be undertaken holistically and may require addressing terrestrial-based threats. (4) Determining the size of large-scale activities is a significant issue. For example, the scale of interaction and impact in the Bering Sea is highly related to threats arising from markets and policies in the European Union (EU). At the July roundtable, partners identified "best practices" or lessons learned under the GCP in regarding the use of innovative landscape tools, ways to improve learning and measure progress, integrate economics into conservation, scope and scale issues, and place-based (site) planning. In general, relationships between the GCP and both USAID and its missions are good. However, partners and GCP staff recommended increased interactions between USAID/GCP staff and Missions; improved coordination of partner programs with USAID programs that complement sustainable development efforts of Missions; and increased interaction with and input by USAID Mission staffs.