United StatellD.partm.nt ofAgriculture

ForHt Slrvlce.nd Otflce ofIntemltlon.1 dcao.....on.nDevelopmlnt

FONItry rIIm8uPP";~ro:y the8po~S"".~n cytor.:.l:"mltIOftilDevelopm.nt

Nowrnber 1993

(J • A6u __r:3~I" N '1'lIi.5 I. -Governmen aNon f ns

Organiza I~ Resourceand Natura t in AfricaM nagemen .

a . . of InterventionsA CompendiumT.R. Ramanathan

~~

h.&!'".....~ ~;, ~.,£~ ~':tfi..~ "'ot L4l~ R •• <PO<

.6I.~.~,Ya~]. ...~...:~~ .~ ..... _....~"''f«,O~

o ~h~~»-&'.<ll ~... ~ ~,.~ Nd'»~ ~~;,.~ ~IJ?·~••!W~·~~.~~Mja'·#Jf~~, w ~f"~~Z~$~~~ ~ '~~M"'~~~.~,t-. 1t'lt.~,,-·~~~~~wlt~

-11Otot:~~t:~~~7~.tJ"'J"~j.."1:'~

The FOr2Stry Support Program (FSP) is managed jointly by tbe U.S. Depactment of Agriculture's ForestService and Office of International Cooperation and Development (OICD), with funds provided by the U.S.Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau for Research and Development (R&D) through itsOffice of Environment and Natural Resources (ENR)•

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

This study hus been commissioned by the USDA Forest Service, Office of Intemational Forestry, Forestry SupportProgram (FSP), whose primary mission is to provide technical assistance to USAID Missions and Bureaus and theU.S. Peace Corps. Funds for this study originated from the Office of Analysis, Research and Technical Support(ARTS), Division of Food, Agriculture, and Resources Analysis (FARA) of the Africa Bureau of USAID. Theinformation presented herein has been obtained from or is based on sources that we believe are reliable, however,its accuracy and completeness are not guaranteed. It is supplied without obligation and on the explicit understandingthat any person who acts on it, or otherwise changes hislher position in reliance thereon, does so entirely at hislherown discretion.

T.R. Ramanathan, a Consultant with the Forestry Support Program, bas an advanced degree in InternationalAdministration from the School for International Training in Brattleboro, Vermont. He has more than five years ofexperience in working with many non-governmental organizations involved in environmental and developmentactivities in India, and has two years ofadditional U.S.-based experience in carrying out analyses on enhancing theeffectiveness of NGOs doing environmental work in South Asia and Africa.

..................................................................~ .

Non-Governmental Organizations and Natural Resource Maalagement

in Africa: A Compendium of Interventions

T.R. Ramanathan

Forestry Support PropIm

FOI'IIl Semc:e

UDited S_ Aa-tYfor IJdemIIiaaIlDeWllopmmlt

......... ""1••••••", "UDiteds...De ofAIricuhuN

Oftlce ofIJdemIIiaaIlCoopendca aDdDevelopmllllt

y

AuthQr's Ere/ace

In recent times, there has been a growing recognition that non-governmental organizations(NODs) have an important contribution to make to the pursuit of sustainable environmental and naturalresource management in developing countries. In fact, the expanding roles and the scale ofinvolvement of these organizations in environment-relatp.d programs are reflected in the legislationgoverning United States' foreign assistance.

In responding to Congressional and other interests, over the past several years the U.S. Agencyfor International Development (USAID) has developed a variety of modes to cooperate with non­governmental organizations engaged in natural resource management efforts. Such cooperation hasbrought with it several achievements and some failures and, most importantly, present official climateseems to be conducive to more successes in the years to come. While the interest in cooperationbetween both parties continues to grow, this study, for the first time, brings together the results of adecade of cooperation between USAID and NODs in African natural resource management. In sodoing, USAID-supponed natural resource management projects in Africa involving NOOs have beenidentified via database searches and their outcomes discussed. In order to provide a broader contextfor these projects, it was essential to highlight the cooperation among NODs and other developmentplayers, such as multilateral development agencies, other bilateral donors and African governments, innatural resource management in Afiica. This compendium of interventions will form the bedrock forpreparing lessons learned from USAID's cooperation with NODs over the last decade and for .recommending suitable strategies to USAID for improving African natural resource managementpractices in conjunction with NOOs.

Accordingly, this study is divided into three pans. First, the overview section sets out to showthe overall trend in donors' support to NOOs for natural resource management activities in Africa.Second, Appendix A provides summary descriptions of 20 USAID-supported natural resourcemanagement projects in Africa that involve NODs. Apart from these 20 projects, in Appendix Barelists of food-assisted natural resource projects in Africa implemented by NODs.

I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to William Helin, Peace CorpslNOO Coordinator of theUSDA Forest Service's Forestry Support Program, without whose guidance this undertaking would nothave been possible. I am also grateful to Steve Anderson, David Hohl and Oretchen Merrill of theUSDA Forest Service who completed the groundwork, including the database searches whichidentified relevant USAlD projects, and provided initial discussion points on whicb this study islargely based. Timothy Resch, Tropical Forestry and Biological Diversity Advisor to the AfricaBureau of USAID, not only provided valuable comments on the draft repo~ but helped to obtain thenecessary background literature, for which I am most thankful to him. Finally, I wish to express myprofound appreciation to Jonathan Hawley, an international development consultant, and to R.A.Harrold, U.S. Department of Education, for their willingness to serve as external readers and for theireditorial comments which were critical to improving the presentation of this study.

T.R. RamanathanForestry Support Program

vi

TABLE QE.CQNTENTS

Author's Preface

OVERVIEW

IntroductionStudy MethodologyNGOs in the Historical Context of DevelopmentNatural Resource Management: A DefinitionUSAID's Cooperation with NGOs: A Synopsis

USAID-Supported Natural Resource Management Projectsin Africa Involving NGOs (Table A)

Diversity of InterventionsExamples of USAlD's Approaches to Natural Resource Management

Examples of Funding MechanismsUmbrella ProjectsFood-Assisted Natural Resource Projects

Select New Themes in Cooperative EndeavorsIntegrated Conservation and Development ProjectsDebt-for-Nature Swaps

Emerging Partnerships between NGOs and Bilateral Aid AgenciesCooperation between Multilateral Agencies and NGOs in Environment

The Africa 2000 NetworkThe World Bank's Collaboration with NGOs

NGO Collaboration with African GovernmentsParticipatory Agricultural Development in ZimbabweEnvironmental Conservation in Kenya

The Promise of CommunicationBibliography

APPENDIX A

Page v

12345

677889

1111131314IS161818192021

Summary Descriptions of USAID-Supported Projects Involving NGOs in NaturalResource Management in Africa 24

APPENDIX B

Table Bl. Ongoing food-assisted agroforestry projects in AfricaTable B2. NGO food-assisted projects that undertake tree planting in AfricaTable B3. Ongoing food-assisted soil conservation projects in Africa

ENDNOTES

474849

so

OVERVIEW

-J. INTRODUCTION

The prime objective of this study is toilluminate a decade of coopel'l1tion between theU.S. Agency for International Development(USAID) and non-governmental organizations(NODs) ill implementing natural resourcemanagement interventions in Africa. For thepurposes of this study, the term non­governmental organization is used broadly toinclude private voluntary organizations in theUnited States.

The last decade witnessed a significantincrease in USAID's funding for, andcooperation with, NODs undertaking naturalresource management activities throughout thedeveloping world, especially in Africa. Anunderlying reason for the increased support toNODs involved in African development can beattributed to the growing recognition that"Africa cannot pull itself out of the planet'smost serious ecological and economic crisiswithout help."1 This predication has alsoinspired official aid agencies and Africangovernments to endorse the pivotal role thatNODs play in helping alleviate poverty and instabilizing the debilitating environmentthroughout the continent.

In 1983, the U.S. Congress amendedthe Foreign Assistance Act to include Section119, titled Endangered Species. Theamendment gave USAID the necessary impetusfor its involvement in efforts to conservebiological diversity in Africa. This section wasagain amended in 1986 and states that 1I...thepreservation of animal and plant speciesthrough the regulation of hunting and trade inendangered species, through limitations on thepollution of natural ecosystems, and throughthe protection of wildlife habitats should be animportant objective of the United Statesdevelopment assistance.,,2 Section 119 alsoadds that "Whenever feasible, the objectives ofthis section shall be accomplished through

projects mcnaged by appropriate private andvoluntary organizations, or international,regional, or national nongovernmentalorganizations, which are active in the region orcountry where the project is located.'"

There is a growing body of literaturewhich suggests that NODs are an importantinstitutional medium for promotingenvironmentally sound development indeveloping countries. Donors often have,however, experienced that appropriatetechnologies and approaches, which resultedfrom innovations by NOOs at the grassrootslevel, have not been shared with the largerdevelopment community. Incidentally, thosetechnologies and approaches that may have hadviability and replicability became eitherdisparate or unlinked to other developmentefforts. Thus, opportunities for adoption andimpact on a wider scale have been lost. Thelack of adequate resources, combined with theabsence of a spatial arrangement forinformation sharing and collaboration amongand between NODs and other developmentplayers, are two limiting factors, amongstothers.

To address this situation, over t.he pastyear, the Africa Bureau of USAID hasembarked on an extensive analysis to assess itseffectiveness in working with NODs involvedin African natural resource management. Theanalysis has been examining ways tostrengthen the relationship between USAID andNODs, so that they can jointly enhance theeffectiveness and impact of natural resourceprojects 1n Africa. 'The Forestry SupportProgram of the Dffice of International Forestryat the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ForestService has been implementing the analysis forthe Africa Bureau.

As one part of the Bureau's analysis,this study intends to form the basis for drawinglessons learned from USAID's coopemtion withNOOs over the last decade, particularly in the

field of natural resource management. Toaccomplish this objective, projects supportedby USAID have been identified and discussed.At the same time, to provide a broader contextfor these projects, it was essential to highlightthose efforts of other development players, .such as multilateral development agencies,African governments and where possible,bilateral donors, that have involved NODs innatural resource management in Africa. Such acompendium of interventions will serve as afoundation for preparing lessons learned andrecommending suitable strategies to USAID forimproving African natural resourcemanagement practices in cooperation withNODs.

Against that backdrop, this study isorganized into three parts. First, this overviewsection evinces the overall trend in donors'support to NODs for natural resourcemanagement interventions. In so doing,significant operational aspects of cooperationbetween USAID and NOOs, and almong NOOsand other development players such asmultilateral development agencies, bilateraldonors and African governments have beenportrayed. The operational aspects ofcooperation have been explained using concreteexamples of natural resource managementprojects from Africa. Second, Appendix Aspecifically summarizes the outcomes of 20USAID-financed natural resource managementprojects in Africa involving NOOs, which wereidentified by this study through databasesearches. The overview section and thesummary descriptions of these 20 projects aretogether expected to fonn the mainstay fordeveloping lessons learned from USAID'scooperation with NOOs. Separate from theseprojects, in Appendix B, are lists of food­assisted natural resource projects in Africaimplemented by NOOs.

2

2. S.IJ.lay METHODOLOG.Y

The information presented in this studyis the result of both rigorous literature researchand exte;IJive searches conducted on USAID'sdatabase record system available at the U.S.­based Environment and Natural ResourcesInformation Center of DATEX, Inc., and at theCenter for Development Infonnation andEvaluation of USAID. Initially, elaboratesearches of the database record system wereundertaken to identify natural resource projectsimplemented in Africa over the past decade,using descriptors such as "natural resourcemanagement." The searches captured a total of60 projects. These projects encompassed bothexclusive natural resource management projectsand other development projects with a natumlresource management component.

AU of these 60 projects were againsearched for NOO involvement, usingdescriptors such as "private voluntaryorganizations." During this process, it wasfound that USAID1s database record systemwas using the term private voluntaryorganization in broad parameters to includeprivate contractors and consulting finns, alongwith organizations that can be considered as"NODs" in a classical sense. To give anexample, the database record has attached thespecial interest code "PVU" (which stands fora private voluntary organization registered inthe United States, but not necessarily withUSAID) to the Watershed and AppliedResearch Development (655-0017) project inCape Verde; a perusal of the project abstractprovided in the same database record revealedthat there was no mention of the involvementof any U.S. private voluntary organization.However, the author's familiarity with thisproject brought to light the fact that it wasimplemented by the U.S.-based consultingfirm, Sheladia Associates, Inc.

.'

Because of this shortcoming, the bestalternative to confirm the involvement ofNODs in each one of these 60 projects was bycarefully examining every project abstract.Following this method, a total of 20 projectswere shortlisted for inclusion in Appendix A.By and large, these 20 projects only representa segment of USAID's cooperative endeavorswith NOOs active in the environmental sector.·As an example, none of the food-assistednatural resource projects implemented byNODs listed in Appendix B appeared duringthe database record searches. Therefore, it canbe presumed that this study only represents afraction of the manifold environmentalactivities that USAID undertakes incooperation with NODs.

The next step of this process involveda separate search on the database record systemto identify project documents relevant to these20 projects (such as project papers, projectevaluation reports, project evaluationsummaries and special studies). Hard copiesof project documents were then obtained fromUSAID's Document and Information HandlingFacility and were used in preparing summarydescriptions of these 20 projects.

In some instances, necessarydocuments such as evaluation reports were notavailable for certain projects because they areeither new or because evaluations are notscheduled to take place until later. In thosecircumstances, the project papers served as theprimary source of information for summarydescriptions. At the same time, there were afew other projects that were amended aftertheir commencement. Documents pertaining tosome of these amendments were inaccessibledue to various reasons; thus, updatedinformation concerning the budget or scope ofwork for those amended projects could not beobtained. Finally, there were projectdocuments that contained "procurementsensitive information" (for example, the Livingin a Finite Environment (690-0251-73) project

3

in Namibia) and hence were available only toauthorized USAID personnel.

In spite of the above constraints andIimitations of the database record system, thisstudy still provides the reader with valuableinformation on USAID's natural resourcemanagement activities in Africa that involveNODs. Earlier research in this directionindicates that retrieval and manipulation of thissort of information is useful in monitoring andevaluating project activities.' A more accurateanalysis of the cooperation between USAIDand NODs in natural resource management,however, merits further seamh of USAID'sdatabase record system and consultations withUSAID's field missions and bureaus, both ofwhich consume time and resources. Moreimportantly, further searches and consultations,by themselves, still may not guarantee accuracyand completeness in information because of thecomplexities described in the precedingparagraphs.

3. NOOs IN.. THE HISTORICALCONTEXT OF DEVELOPMENT

NOOs are "non-profit makingorganizations, some religious, others secular,some indigenous, others foreign, whoseprincipal aim is to contribute to the alleviationof human suffering and to development in poorcountries," and they bestow severalcomparative advantages in promotingdevelopment over public sector organizations,large foreign donors and state interventions.6

Their activities help stimulate awareness ofissues and galvanaze political will and, most .importantly, they actively engage the poorthemselves in their own empowerment,?

Owing the First United NationsDevelopment Decade (1960-1970),development was viewed as an inevitable

consequence of the mobilization and focusingof resources" Those projects that wereemployed during this period emphasizedtransfer of technology and resources from thedeveloped world to developing countries formodernization, such as through propagation ofGreen Revolution technologies for increasingagricultural production and through large scaleinftastrocture projects, including buildinghydro-electric dams and constroction of roads.This approach to economic development led toan unbalanced growth or failed to change lifefor all but the few involved in the sector undermodernization.

By the Second United Nations Decade(1970-1980), the negative consequences of thisstrategy led to a fundamental change inconventional thinking, causing the emergenceof a variety of new models of development.Emphasis was put on growth withredistribution, basic services, popularparticipation, eco-development, endogenousdevelopment and basic needs.9 In all, thesenew models reflected a common concern forensuring that the poor benefitted fromdevelopment in the short run without having towait for the benefits of modernization to trickledown. In addition, equity was also stressed,meaning development efforts should not justbenefit the rich but should reach all sr~ctors ofthe population, especially the poor. IO Oneresult of this shift in thinking is that the state'srole in development lessened, while localparticipation and voluntarism increased.

Further, during the mid-1980s,proponents of adjustment programs indeveloping countries recognized that bettereconomic policies alone will not guaranteesuccessful development, and therefore,attention was called for good government toguarantee political responsibility and forcapacity building to strengthen institutionalstroetures. II The proponents' primary concernwas to reduce the role of centrJlizedmonopolistic state stroetures in production and

4

service provision, since these stmctures wereseen as rigid, inefficient and corropt in mostdeveloping countries; a response to thisproblem has been the greater support forNGOsl2 from bilateral and multilateraldevelopment agencies.

During the same period, awarenessconcerning the threats to the environment grewamong governments, NGOs and the privatesector. 13 With the increase in environmentalawareness and perception among the Africanpublic, NGOs not only started expressingopposition to the destruction and exploitationof the natural resource base, but activelyengaged themselves in the restoration andenhancement of the environment.14

4. NA TUBAL RESOURCEMANAGEMENT.' A DEFINITIONS

The World Conservation Union(IUCN) defines the natural resource to includerenewable and non-renewable resources whichare natural assets. Non-renewable resourcessuch as oil, coal and mf~ls, are distinguishedfrom renewable resources such as forests,animals and grasslands, often for economicreasons. Re:iewable resources are consideredinexhaustible when managed properly. Bothrenewable and non-renewable resources can beowned and managed privately, or bycommunities and govenunents. Theseresources are also, in general, recognized tohave market value, even though market valuesdo not always reflect their true scarcity andaesthetic value to society.

Environmental resources, which oftenoverlap with renewable resources. are morecomplex to deal with and include such thingsas provision of clean air, functioningwatersheds, biological diversity and scenicbeauty, all ofwhich are public goods that

depend on the proper functioning of anecosystem. While environmental resourcesprovide valuable services to people, such as theregulation of climate, support of economicallyimportant species and fonnation of soil, theyseldom have market prices assigned to them.Therefore, it is not too surprising that natura}resource management can embrace a vastboundary with interventions ranging anywherefrom raising homegardens to arrestingdeforestation to protect the planet's ozonelayer. One may argue that homegardens arestrictly a horticultural activity, buthomegardens are comprised of a complex anddiverse mixture of annual and pereMial plantsand livestock. Homegardens also typicallyprovide yield during any given season (or evenon a daily basis) and some form of product canbe harvested from one or several homegardenplants; this is especially true of the (roit treesin the system.16

It is apparent from the aboveparagraphs that natural resource managementlacks a single and holistic definition.However, in the African context, the naturalresource is generally considered to compriseboth the physical and biological systemsassociated with agricultural lands, range lands,forests and water. Although in practice,different stakeholders' concepts of naturalresource management have been used toinclude and exclude, emphasize or de­emphasize various actions and actors, roles andresponsibilities.I? Thus, at a conference held inNovember 1992 on "USAID-NOOEffectiveness in Implementing NaturalResource Management in Africa," theconference participants stated that thedefinition of natural resource managementvaries from one situation to another and isoften specific to a country."

s

5. USAID's CQOPEBATlONH:1IH.NODs.' A_SYNOpsIS

In recent years, various factors haveinfluenced the growth of USAID's cooperationwith NOOs in African natural resourcemanagement. Although this cooperation is arecent phenomenon in relative tenns,progressive budget allocations by USAID forNOOs indicate that it is an increasinglyimportant one." For example, theDevelopment Fund for Africa, which is aspecial developmenl assistance prog1'8m forsub-Saharan Africa established by the U.S.Congress in 1987, encourages developmentactivities which preserve the environment andpromote popular participation. The Fundrequires that activities be carried out inconsultation with all the agents, namely NOOs(both U.S. and African), communityassociations and the population in general.

Throughout the 1980s and continuinginto the 1990s, USAID pursued a variety ofnatural resource management activities inAfrica in cooperation with NOOs. This studysucceeds in bringing together-for the first timein a single strand-those natural resourcemanagement projects supported by USAID thathave NOO participation (see Table A; adetailed summary description of each projectcontained in this table can be found inAppendix A). These projects not only indicatea wide geographical distribution in USAm'soperations in the continent, but show thatNOOs can be used as an effective means toaddress concerns related to poverty andenvironment at the local level.

...

6

~A, USAID-/jupported namm.Lresource mana~ement projects in.~inyoIYin~ NODs

Country Name of Project Project Number

Africa regional Nl:.tural Resources Management Support· 698-0467

Burkina Faso Pilot Village Natural Resources Management 686-0276

Comoros Anjouan Sustainable Agriculture 602-0002

Kenya PVO Co-Financing- 615-0236

Kenya Conservation of Biodiverse Resource Areas 615-0247

Madagascar Amber Mountain Conservation and Development 687-0103

Madagascar Debt-for-Nature Swap 687-0112

Madagascar Sustainable Approaches to Viable Environmental 687-0110Management

Mali PVO Co-Financing- 688-0247

Namibia Reaching Out with Education to Adults in 673-0004Development-

Niger Agriculture Sector Development Grant 683-0246

Niger Agriculture Sector Development Grant II 683-0265

Rwanda Natural Resources Management 696-0129

Senegal PVOfNOO Support " 685-0284

South Africa regional:

Botswana Natural Resources Management 690-0251-33

Namibia Living in a Finite Environment 690-0251-73

Zambia Natural Resources Management 690-0251-11

Zimbabwe Natural Resources Management 690-0251-13

Tanzania Planning and Assessment for Wildlife 621-0171Management

Zaire Small Project Support 660-0125Indicates umbrella ro ects.

In the past decade, in particular,USAID and NOOs have come to realize thecritical importance of working together in thedevelopment process. There have been manyachievements and some failures, but presentconditions seem to promise even more successin the future. The following examplesunderscore the diversity in USAID'sapproaches to effective natural resourcemanagement in cooperation with NODs. Suchdiversity is marked by the various types ofNODs involved, the difference in strategiesused to achieve natural resource managementsuch as provision of technical assistance toNODs or through support for small-scaleactivities ofNODs, and the difference in focusareas within natural resource managementitself. The latter ranges from wildlifeconservation to sustainable communitydevelopment. A more detailed summarydescription of these examples can be found inAppendix A.

Examples o.LUSAID's Approaches to NaturalResource Man4lJ!ment

pvo Co-Financing (615-023~, Kenya.A project to support a broad range of activitiefiundertaken by several NODs, includingwildlife conservation, and to bu~ld theinstitutional capacities of NODs throughtraining, technical assistance and opportunitiesto network within the NOD community inKenya.

Small PrQiect Stq!J1Qrt (660-012.5).lJIiJ:J:.. An effort to promote communitydevelopment through support for small-scaleactivities ofNODs. The project. by workingwith successful community based NODs. aimsto enhance the likelihood ofsustainabledevelopment.

7

LiJ!J.tJ.z.iJLa Finite Env;ronment~025/~7J)t Namib;a. A recent initiative to assistNODs, the government 8':1d other organizationsin conserving Namibia's biodiversity and inmanaging the country's natural resource in asustainable way. Dne component of theproject aims to establish an institutionalframework for promoting a stronger partnershipbetween NODs, the government and ruralcommunities.

Sustainable ArJProachCSIJL~Environmental Manazement C687-0JlQJ,Mqdagascar. A project to lnanage theprotected areas of Madagascar through theprovision of technical assistance. training andcommodity support to governmental and non­governmental institutions, and through theprovision of grants to NODs for conservationactivities that directly involve the localpopulation.

Pilot ViIlaze-Leyei Natural ResourcesManll$meot (686-027~ Bur/cjna Faso. Aninitiative to explore village-level approaches tonatural resource management and the ability ofselected U.S.-based universities to supplytechnical and training assistance to NOD­sponsored activities in Burkina Faso.

In the following sections. a few typesof funding mechanisms are described that havebeen conducive to expanding USAID'scooperation with NODs in African naturalresource management. New themes in naturalresource management that befit thiscooperation also are highlighted.

8

regional Natural Resources ManagementSupport (698-0467) initiative (see Appendix Afor summary description)..~.2.J. Umbrella PrQ,ieclszo

m ,~IJ' _

5.~. ."'·xamples al.Funding Mechanisms

..

A funding approach that is activelysought by USAID for expanding itscooperation with NODs is the umbrellamechanism. Umbrella projects enable USAIDto finance the activities of several NGDs at anygiven time through a single funding obligation,thereby also reducing USAID's managementburdens (see Table A for umbrella projectsidentified by this study).

There is no formal definition availablefor umbrella projects, but they simply connotea method by which funding or sub-grants areprovided to a number of organizations underthe umbrella of a single project. In addition tomanagement of sub-grants to NODs, umbrellaprojects typically involve training, technicalassistance and inter-agency coordination. Theconcept of this mechanism encompasses avariety of management and implementationmodels, with many shadings of difference intasks, responsibilities and authority sharedamong various stakeholders. Thesestakeholders include USAID, host countrygovemmtlnts, the U.S. and indigenous NODcommunities, and in many cases, anindependent project management unit.

Although umbrella projects tend tohave their own limitations in terms of their

• effectiveness and potential impact, they havegenerally proven to be a flexible mechanismfor expanding NOD operations, enhancing theinstitutional capacities of the implementors,and opening possibilities of USAIDinvolvement with beneficiary groups not easilyreached by other programming approaches.

Case Example o.t.an Umbrella PrQjecl.The PVO-NOOlNatural ResourcesManagement Support project commenced in1989 with ftmding from the Africa Bureau ofUSAID. The project is part of an Africa

Managed by a consortium of U.S.­based NODs, which includes World LeamingInc., the Cooperative for American ReliefEverywhere (CARE) and the World WildlifeFund (WWF), the project aims to strengthenthe technical and institutional capacities ofAfrican NOOs to enable them to design andimplement feasible natural resourcemanagement activities in sub-Saharan Africa.In order to accomplish this objective, theproject has focused on providing AfricanNODs with technical assistance, training andsupport for infonnation exchange.

Since inception, the project hastargeted its activities in four countries:Cameroon, Madagascar, Mali and Uganda.Within these countries, a Country WorkingGroup or a country cOIlsortium has beenorganized for prioritizing natural resourcemanagement activities. Further, ill eachcountry, a Country Lead Agency (CLA) hasbeen selected from these working groups totake the lead in identifying specific naturalr~source management activities to beundertaken in that country. In Mali andMadagascar, the CLA is comprised of a 'national NOO or a consortium of nationalNODs, while in Cameroon the CLA is anintemational NOD. The CLA in Ugandarepresents a consortium of both national andinternational NODs.

In addition to the target countryprograms, the project has supported a regionaleffort which carried out a number ofactivities.In 1991, the project received an extension for ayear and a half (from October 1991 to March1993) which helped the creation of a NewInitiatives Fund. The Fund was to lay theground work for countries in which the projectcould potentially focus ,,0 starting a secondphase. Dne activity implemented with this

Fund was an assessment of NOO situations innatural resource management representing abroad sample of countries throughout Africa.These sample countries were selected toinvestigate the p~omise they hold in terms offunding opportunities with USAID and also tohighlight information that may prove useful forthe NOO community in a particular country orfor outside agencies interested in collabom~ing

with NOOs in those countries that werestudied.

Although the assessment is stated tohave been more cursory in many countries,important information concerning NOOscanying out natural resource managementwork, along with a sense of the appropriatenessof the PVO-NOOlNatural ResourcesManagement Support project to operate in allof these countries, were obtained. In general,the countries studied were considered eitherappropriate or inappropriate for projectactivities based on eight criteria In thosecountries where USAID is unable or lessinclined to support an effort of this sort, theassessment still provides valuable informationfor other organizations interested in workingwith NOOs in the natuml resource managementsector.

A mid-term evaluation conducted in1992 points out that the PVO-NOOlNlltumlResources Management Support project has, toa large extent, accomplished its objective.However, by January 1993, the project's futurewas confronte~ with two major issues: 1) Thefinancial sustainability of the four targetcountry programs in the immediate futuredepended on securing support from therespective USAID missions, through otherdonors, or via a combination thereof; and 2)The ability of the project to succeed in \obtaining additional funding to start newrounds of target country activities, and tomaintain a strong regional program; in doingthese, offer USAID and other donors a provenmodel for working with NOO consortia in

9

natural resource management in Africa orelsewhere in the world.

5.2.2. Food-Assisted Natural ResourceProjeclt l

Food aid is a funding approach notfound in the projects identified by this study,but it has been steadily pursued by USAID tosupport the work of NOOs in natural resourcemanagement in Africa Natural resourceinterventions undertaken by NOOs using foodaid as a resource can typically involveactivities such as tree nurseries and treeplanting, agroforestry, forest conservation,watershed management and soil conservation.

The Agricultural Trade and AssistanceAct, commonly referred to as Public Law 480(PL 480), was passed in 1954 to enable needycountries to purchase surplus grains producedin the United States and to promote U.S. trade.This law subsequently became to be known asFood for Peace with four titles: Title I - Tradeand Development Assistance; Title II ­Emergency and Private Assistance Programs;Title III • Food for Development; and Title IV- Oeneml Authorities and Requirements.

Under the provisions of Title II, NOOsbased in the United States are able to use foodaid as a resource for reliefand developmentactivities in developing countries. Foodshortages, combined with the decliningproductivity of the natural resource base, haveprompted the need to use food aid fordevelopment projects in Africa, mainly in therural areas. The choice of sites for theseprojects is determined by the extent of damagecaused by natural calamities such as droughtand famine and their influence on the lives ofthe poor who depend on the environment fortheir very survival. Africa alone bas morefood-assisted projects than any other region in

. the world. To illustrate, the Fiscal Year 1992project plans submitted to USAID's Office ofFood for Peace, Bureau for Food and

•

Humanitarian Assistance (FHA), indicate thatEthiopia and Eritrea together have the highestnumber of projects In the world.

In general, U.S. NOOs have played alarge role in enhancing food security in Africafor the last three deCHdes. Food-assistednatural resource projects implemented byNOOs not only provide food to those unable tofeed themselves but also restore the fertility ofthe land on which sustainable agriculturedepends. Natural resource interventions byNOOs using food aid as a resource haveranged from construction of access roads toforestry and soil conservation works. Thedegradation of the natural resource base andextreme famine conditions have required Africato have more food-assisted natural resourceinterventions than Latin America and Asiacombined (see Appen~ix B).

Historically. the role of food aid indevelopment has been controversial. Whilemany NOOs are intensifying their efforts inenvironmental programs which are likely to usefood resources, the perceptions of some othersconcerning the usefulness of food aid as aresource in natural resource projects in Africaappear to vary. The following instanceillustrates this point. A recent study analyzingthe effectiveness of food-for-work woodlotprojects in Ghana, Ethiopia, Guatemala ar.dPero, shows that the present net worth ofwoodlot projects in the two African countriesare negative, while those of the Latin Americancountries are positive.22

Food-assisted natural resourceinterventions undertaken by NGOs offer atremendous potential in contributi.lg to theattainment of food security in Africa,particularly through the restoration of degradedlands. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of foodaid as a resource in these interventions is saidto be undermined by the following issues:

10

1) Attempts to restore and improvedegraded lands usually occur during the post­famine rehabilitation of affected communities.Inadequate time for project design during theseperiods results in makeshift interventions thatneglect the essentials of project planning anddesign, therefore contributing to unsuccessfulprojects.

2) ]n many food-assisted naturalresource management projects, the motivationof beneficiaries relies on the availability ofeconomic incentives. Such dependency tendsto erode the self-reliance and communalvoluntary spirits of these b::.neficiaries. ]nLesotho, for example. in a project implementedby CARE. fanners were paid to plant trees ontheir land, but when CARE announced itsplans to discontinue food aid (which has aneconomic value), the same participants showedreluctance in continuing the project.

3) Immediate and measurable resultsexpected by donors not only exert pressure onNOOs to come up with quick and positiveresults. but hinder them from developing long­term approaches to solving problems.Agroforestry projects are examples whereinvestment is made in fast-growing treespecies, while ecologically oriented native treesthat may take 50 years to bear results areoverlooked.

4) NGOs experience localized 'braindrain' within their countries of operation.Differential salary structures among entitieswithin host countries exacerbates the braindrain.

5) While NGO staff have evolved fromamateurs to professionals, donors still complainabout inefficiencies in NOO operations. Thiscan be largely attributed to inadequatemanagement skills among NOO staff andinsufficient financial resources to employenough people in food aid activities.

According to official estimates. thefood imports to Africa will at least double bythe year 2000 despite increases in currentproduction. Even though there is clearindication that food aid will be needed inAfrica, it is noted that significant changes areimperative for improving the effectiveness offood aid, especially its usefulness in naturalresource projects.

5.3. Select New Themes itLCooQerqtiyeEndeqvors

5.3.1. Integrated Conservation llllfi.Deyelqpment Projects

Approaches to conserve biologicalresources while meeting basic human needsthrough economic development have receivedtremendous attention over the past decade.These projects, known as IntegratedConservation and Development Projects(ICDPs), combine the most difficult aspects ofmrsl development and environmentalconservation.

Much of the efforts to linkconservation and development are recent inprojects supported by multilateral and bilateraldonors; nevertheless, for the past twenty years,indigenous NODs and community groups havedone commendable work in this areathroughout the world.:U USAID's programmingwith ICDP concepts began in the mid·1980swith the initiation of a variety of new programssuch as the Biodiversity Support Program, theWildland and Human Needs Program and thePVD-NGOlNatural Resources ManagementSupport project.

Although the ICDP approach has beenheavily publicized and has been rapidlyexpand~ug its influence, it is not clear whethermany ofthtl project activities have generated' :local benefits that have reduced pressures onthe parks or reserves they are attempting toprotect.24 Presented below are two examples of

11

ICDP efforts in Africa where NOOs haveplayed an instrumental role either in elicitingcommunity participation or in providingtechnical support for natural resourcemanagement at the local level.

Wildlife Manaeement in.. ZimbabweInyolvinz Local Communitier.2S TheCommunal Areas Management Programme forIndigenous Resources (Campfire) ofZimbabwe, strongly supported by USAIDthrough its Zimbabwe component of the SouthAfrica regional Natural Resources Management(690.0251-13) project, is an unique example ofan ICDP that is also revolutionary in someaspects (see Appendix A for summarydescription). Campfire is a package oftechnologies consisting of discrete naturalresource management practices aimed atpreserving and eventually enhancingindigenous wildlife resource. The philosophybehind this community-based wildlifemanagement intervention is that by levying afee on safari operators and hunters for accessto wildlife living on communal lands, ruralcommunities can generate income that can andshould be used to improve their standard ofliving. The benefits arising out of thisapproach can therefore encourage rural peopleto change their attitudes towards wildlife,ensure the survival of wildlife habitats andnatural ecosystems, and reduce theenvironmental degradation that results fromrural poverty.

Campfire depends on several inter­linked ecological, economic. legal, social andinstitutional factors~ Ecologically, it hinges onthe proposition that indigenous wil~jjfe

management is likely to be the mostappropriate form of land use in marginal areas.Economically, it requires the existance ofmarkets for the goods and services that wildlifecan provide. It also requires that these marketsshould provide returns greater than those fromother forms of land use. It requires a legalframework that enables these values to be

realized, and it requires answers to problemssuch as the ownership of what has hithertobeen regarded as a common resource.Management and decision-making in Campfireoperations require institutions, such as wildlifetrusts or committees, that allow genuineparticipation by individuals, families andviJIages.

Basically, Campfire's approach relieson the devolution of management authority andownership of wildlife resource to the locallevels. Under this premise, Campfire projectsoperate in those ecological regions ofZimbabwe that are unfit for agriculture, yetsuitable for livestock production and wildlife.

After several years of planning,Campfire projects commenced in 1988 whentwo District Councils were granted authority tomanage and own their respective wildliferesource. Decisions concerning themanagement and resource allocation have beendecentralized to ward and village levels.Further, each ward receives receipts foranimals hunted in its communal reserve andmeat from these animals is distributed to thenearest village. Utilization of revenuesgenerated by sporthunting is decided at thevillage level and compensation to individualfamilies for crop damage or livestock lossesdue to wildlife is decided at the ward level.Technical assistance and managerial supportare provided to the communities by theDepartment ofNational Parks and WildlifeManagement and other institutions, includingthe Centre for Applied Social Sciences of theUniversity of Zimbabwe and two NOOs-theWorld Wide Fund for Nature and theZimbabwe Trust.

In addition to the flexible projectstructure, the willingness of NOOs and donorsto become involved and share costs, hasenabled Campfire to be a viable and successfulinitiative. NOOs have played a central role inconvincing the local communities of the

12

monetary benefits that accrue from wildlife.Also, they have incurred costs either bycontributing funds directly to the project or byproviding other services. For example, theZimbabwe Trust contributed fimds for projectstart-up and was involved in communitymobilization and strengthening of localeconomic management institutions, as well aspromoting the Campfire initiative nationally.The Centre for Applied Social Sciencesassisted with socioeconomic research surveys,and the World Wide Fund for Nature providedtechnical support.

EcotQurism in Western ll¥anda.26 Asuccessful example of ecotourism that benefitslocal communities adjacent to a national park(or other protected areas) can be found in theRuwenzori Mountains in western Uganda.Here, the Ruwenzori Mountaineering Service(RMS), a small indigenous NOO, beganoperations in 1987. The organization providesguide and porter services for tourists, maintainstrails and cabins, and posts signs in the park.In addition to tourist development, RMS alsohas conservation and community developmentgoals. Soon after its inception, RMS began toreceive funds from various foreign donors,including local currency support fromUSAID.27 The structure of RMS is similar tothat of a cooperative. The majority of itsmembers are from the local Bakonjo group andpay a small portion of their salaries towardmembership fees. FWl(ls generated throughtourism have helped finance developmentactivities.

By 1991, RMS had over 800 memberswho functioned as guides and porters, as wellas in construction, maintenance and otherservice capacities. Using the tourist fees, RMShas established a local development fund withwhich a dispensary was built and local schoolswere improved.

Notwithstanding these laudable efforts,RMS had never developed a stable relationship

with the Ugandan government. Although RMShas temponuy pennission from the governmentto be the principal tourist operator in the park,the lack of an agreement with the governmentfor revenue sharing is reported to endanger itsfuture existence. Another dilemma is that theethnic group Bakonjo, which controls tourism,has been accused of being, among other things,an elitist and not sharing benefits with othergroups (or genders; to date, women have notbeen involved in most RMS activities) living inthe area.

5.3.2. Debt-!or-Nature~.

In response to the debt crisis faced bymany developing countries, USAID introducedthe Debt-for-Development initiative during thelate 19805 to finance the development activitiesof NOOs. Under this initiative, USAIDsupports certain activities of NODs throughdebt exchange transactions that reduce the hostcountries' debt burdens and obtain a favorablerate of exchange for foreign assistance fundsprovided to such organizations.

In this process, NODs serve asintennediaries between USAID and debtorcountries. USAID provides grants to theseintennediaries to purchase debt. The recipientNODs subsequently convert this debt into localcurrency or other assets, which the NODs usefor either newly initiated or ongoingdevelopment activities approved by USAID.Such development activities also involveestablishing endowments. The participation ofNODs in debt-for-development is intended tostrengthen the development programs of theseorganizations, while also advancing the otherobjectives of this initiative.

Recent policy and legislative changesindicate USAID's support for debt-for­development programs and a correspondinginterest in using endowments to support theseprograms. Towards that end, USAID provideda grant for the establishment of the Debt-for-

13

Development Coalition, a consortiumcomposed of U.S. universities, internationalagricultural research institutions and NODs.The Coalition, along with its sisterorganization, the Debt-for DevelopmentFoundation, assists member organizations inidentifying and negotiating debt-swaptransactions.

USAID's experimentS with theendowment concept in Latin America andelsewhere suggest that endowments can beused to support a wide range of developmentactivities, including agricultural universities,agricultural research, trade and investmentpromotion, agricultural policy analysis, micro­enterprise development and natural resourcemanagement. The example that is mostpertinent to this study is the Debt-for-NatureSwap (687.0112) project in Madagascarimplemented by the U.S.-based World WildlifeFund. With assistance from USAID, theproject has established a conservation programto increase the technical and financial resourcesavailable in Madagascar for the protection ofthe natural resource and for reducing thecountry's external debt burden (see Appendix 2for summary description).

6.0. EMERGING PARTNERSHIPSBETWEEN NGDs AND

BILATERAL AID AGENCIES

Bilateral aid agencies' support to NODsengaged in African natural resourcemanagement has noticeably expanded duringthe last decade. Many bilateral aid agenciesare presently providing substantial resources(financial and technical) to the non­governmental sector for sustainabledevelopment activities and are increasinglyemphasizing partnerships among NOOs andother development players. Most of theseagencies are members of the Development

Assistance Committee of the Organization forEconomic Cooperation and Development, andinclude the Norwegian Development Agency,the Swedish International DevelopmentAgency, the Finnish Development Agency, theDanish International Development Agency andthe Gennan Agency for Technical Cooperation,to name a few. Because of a lack ofinformation on cooperative activities of theseagencies and because of the limited scope ofthis study, it is only possible to briefly discussthe cooperative activities of two of them.

The promotion of sustainabledevelopment is the principal purpose of theCanadian International Development Agency's(CIDA) strategic concept-Partnership. ClDArecognizes that pannership among thegovernmental, non-profit, institutional andprivate sectors is a means to advancedevelopment cooperation between Canada anddeveloping countries. In order to implementthis strategy, CIDA intends to playa catalyticand supportive role in such collaboration.

CIDA's strategy on internationaldevelopment, titled "Sharing Our Future,"makes the unequivocal statement that"governments cannot create development ontheir own,II rather "the role of government is tocreate a social, economic and politicalenvironment conducive to such progress."Z9The key to development is therefore seen byClDA as the strengthening of a broad range ofinstitutions, including public, private andvoluntary, in developing countries. The mosteffective ways of implementing this arerecognized as enhancing linkages and fosteringpartnerships between Canadian institutions andtheir counterparts in developing countries.From ClDA's point of view, consultation,funding and shared decision-making all havetheir appropriate role and are best seen assuccessive elements in partnerships whichCIDA might wish to construct with its variousstakeholders.

14

Effective suppon for NOOs conductingenvironmentally sustainable developmentprograms in Africa also comes from anotherbilateral aid agency, the Overseas DevelopmentAdministration (ODA) of the United Kingdom.The United Kingdom is heavily involved inworking with its international partners toconserve ecosystems and species in many pansof the world. In Africa, for example, the ODAin conjunction with the World Wide Fund forNature has carried out a project in the KorupNational Park in Cameroon to protect one ofAfrica's most genetically diverse areas ofrainforest.3o

7.0. COOPERA TION BETWEENMULTILA fERAL AGENCIES

AND NOOs IN ENVIRONMENT

At one level. multilateral developmentagencies. along with governments and NOOs,have begun to realize that environmentalquality and economic development are not onlycompatible but inexorably Iioked. At anotherlevel, there has been a growing recognitionamong multilateral donors such as the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP), theFood and Agriculture Organization of theUnited Nations (FAO) and the World Bank ofthe vital role that NOOs play in the process ofnational recovery and development. Forexample. at a conference organized by FAOduring the late 1980s, FAO expressed itsdetennination to cooperate more closely withNOOs."

In addition, the value of maintai~ingastrong relationship with the NOO communityin its member countries has prompted theEuropean Community to establish a NOOLiaison Committee through which NOOs canrepresent their views to the EuropeanCommission and the European Parliament.3Z

Funhennore, regional developments banks such

as the African Development Bank hadconsidered developing relations with NGOs in1989. In light of this growing concern, theexamples given below provide anunderstanding of the cooperation betweenNGOs and mUltilateral agencies in promotingenvironmentally sound and socially responsibledevelopment in Africa.

7. J. The Africa 2000 Network

The Africa 2000 Network is a regionalprogram headquartered at UNDP in New York.The idea for'the Network was originallypropounded by the Government of Canada 1n1986. The Network mobilizes and providesfinancial support to community groups andNODs, as well as to training and researthinstitutes, seeking to combat environmentaldegradation and promote environmentallysustainable development in Africa. TheNetwork, since the commencement of itsoperational phase in 1989, has been operatingin Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Ghana,Kenya, Lesotho, Mali. Mauritania, Uganda,Senegal, Rwanda, zambia and Zimbabwe.

The long-tenn development objectivespursued by the Network encompass preventingand reducing environmental degradation,promoting environmentally sustainabledevelopment in the rural areas, increasing foodand firewood production through efficientnatural resourte management, andstrengthening indigenous NGDs and researthand technical institutions so that they canimprove their efficiency in implementingenvironmentally sound development programs.

The Network supports two main typesof projects: national projects covering one ormore communities within a single country, andregional projects covering a number ofcommunities in different countries. Whilenational projects are characterized by theirmodest size and the fact that they benefit thelocal communities directly, regional projects

IS

focus on training the Network counterparts inhost countries and facilitating infonnationexchange among and between NGDs and localcommunities through publications and fieldvisits to other areas.

The projects supported by the Networkfall under four categories: afforestation, waterand soil management, preservation ofagricultural products, and training. In 1991,173 projects were in operation in 13 countries.The expansion from seven projects in 1989 to173 projects in 1991 is characterized bydemands from the countries in which theNetwork is active and by demands fromcountries wishing to undertake Networkactivities. As a result, the expenditures of theNetwork have grown from nearly $O.S millionin 1989 to almost $S.O million in 1992.

7.1.1. A(forestatioD Pnqects

A good number of projects supportedunder this category by the Network initiallyfailed to respond to the needs of thecommunities or to the environmental problemsat the local level. Largely initiated by NGDs,these afforestation projects had only a marginalimpact in the beginning because of the failureto accurately reflect the priorities of thecommunities, whose participation in them wasalso minimal. In light of these failures, theproject design was revised to take into accountlocal knowledge and customs: emphasis wasplaced on afforestation that is responsive tocommunity needs, and on the choice of treespecies that have local utility and profitability.Roughly 39 projects spread across the Africancontinent received this new orientation.

To give an example of an afforestationproject supported by the Network, in the Kaediregion and the valleys of the Senegal River inMauritania, an indigenous NGD namedNational Rural Development Societyestablished windbreaks using indigenous treespecies such as Prosophis julijlora. Acacia

senegal and Tamarisk to protect irrigated fannlands. The benefits of these windbreaksinclude a 20 to 30 percent decrease in windspeed, a 30 percent reduction in evaporationand leaf transpiration, and regulation oftemperature in summer and winter, all of whichhave resulted in substantial increases in localagricultural production. Although the resultsobtained by crop protection against sandstormin Mauritania are encouraging, these windbreakplantations are said to be inadequate inprotecting useful agricultural land.

7.1.2. ~IllHi..Soj/ Manag,emeot

The Network supported 8S projectsunder this category during 1991. Theseprojects aimed at extracting water, particularlyin the Sahelian countries and the arid zones ofKenya and Zimbabwe, and at protecting thesoil against erosion and ensuring bettermanagement ofgrazing lands. In addition,activities around water points, such ascultivation of market-gardening crops,establishment of nurseries. orchards andlivestock-raising. received support. Soilprotection generated afforestation work to halterosion, fencing-off of grazing areas to avoiddestruction of the soil by stray animals,developing organic agriculture programs,permaculture and so on.

As an example, the Organic FarmingOutreach Programme, which o;>erates in theWest Pokot district of Kenya, focuses onextension services to farmers. The Programmehas established a demonstration farm thatcombines various aspects of organic fanning,namely agroforestry and livestock.

7.1.3. Pre.seryation q,'Agriculturql Produce

This category involves the propagationof appropriate post-harvest technology,especially for storage and preservation ofagricultural produce. The two projects thatwere supported under this category by the

16

Network mainly safeguarded and protectedproduce obtained from soil and watermanagement efforts, and from otherenvironmental protection and restorationactivities.

7.1.4. Training and 111(ormation Activities

Training activities, which includeseminars and workshops, are conducted both atthe headquarters and in the field for the staff ofthe Network and for partner organizationswhich include NOOs and local communities.Information activities are typically directedtoward donors and the embassies of donorcountries where the Network is active. In thearea of training, the Network has focused onexchange of experience among communitieswithin a single country and betweencommunities in neighboring countries.

It is in this context that the Networkfinances its regional projects; they haveinvolved either visits to facilitate exchangesbetween NOOs and communities, or thepublication of case studies that have served asexamples. In 1991, the Network supported 27projects of this nature. To illustrate, as thenrst step toward developing a regionalnetwork, the Kenya and Uganda Africa 2000Programmes together launched an exchangetraining project in organic farming in Kenyafor Ugandan fanners. The exchange wasorganized by indigenous NOOs in bothcountries.

7.2. IM..World Bank's Collaboration r;jJ!J.1i!i1b.]3

The World Bank is one among severalmultilateral agencies to have placed importanceon involving NOOs in efforts to achieveenvironmentally sustainable economic growth.While the Bank seldom provides grants directlyto NOOs, they are usually recipients of Bankproceeds in instances where the governmentpasses the proceeds on to NOOs as loans or

grants. The purpose of the Bank's NGDinitiative"· however, has been to open doors tofruitful interaction between its membergovernments and NODs, and to encouragepublic policies that foster effective NODcontributions to national development.

With the growing importance of takingenvironmental issues into account indevelopment work, the Bank has not onlystrengthened its environmental policies andinstitutionalized many changes in itsoperational guidelines, but has beenencouraging NOD input into project planningand design. In order to facilitate NOOengagement in project design, the Bankcompiles a biannual "List of World BankFinanced Projects with Potential for NODInvolvement," which includes region-wiseupcoming Bank projects. The List isdistributed to approximately 5,000 NGDsworldwide to infonn them of specificcollaborative possibilities in these projects. Inaddition to the List, nearly 350 NODs receivethe Bank's Monthly Operational Summary ojBank and International DevelopmentAssociation Proposed Projects which containsinfonnation on numerous projects that theBank may finance.

Further, as part of integratingenvironmental considerations into a developingnation's overall social and economicdevelopment plans and for promoting acomprehensive environmental policy at thenational level, the Bank has worked with 18countries (mainly in Africa) to prepareNational Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs).NOOs were consulted in drawing up manyNEAPs that are now benefiting from theBank's lending. The NEAP in Madagascar, forwhich the Bank approved a loan in 1990, andthe Environmental Monitoring andDevelopment Project in Mauritius, approved in1991. are cases in point.

17

During Fiscal Year 1992, 66 (or aboutone-third) of the 222 projects approved by theBank had NOD participation; between 10 and15 percent of th~ relevant projects were free­standing environmental operations in eightcountries spread across the developing world,including Kenya, Mali and TlU128Dia. Seventy­six percent of the NOOs involved in theseprojects are either grassroots organizations orindigenous intennediary NOOs based indeveloping countries. Over the years, nearly50 percent of Bank-financed, NOD-associatedprojects have been in Africa, with Asia andLatin America accounting for the remainingprojects.

Apart from its operational collaborationwith NODs, in 1991 the Bank activelyinvolved NOOs in two of its majorenvironmental initiatives; 60 NGDs took partin a consultation to discuss the draft elementsof the Bank's revised policy for the forestJysector, and a special session was arranged forNOOs to discuss the Global EnvironmentalFacility (GEF) in collaboration with the UnitedNations Environment Programme and UNDP.The OEF program, administered by UNDP. hasalso established a $S million grant 'window' forNODs to undertake activities to preservebiological diversity. In addition to the above,two consultations were held in May 1992 tofacilitate NOD input into reviews of Bankpolicy on energy conservation and on themanagement of water resource. Moreover,NODs contributed to background papers andthe draft of the World Development Report1992, which focuses on linkages betweenenvironment and development.

A recent exploration of possibilities toestablish an Economic Development Institute­NOD program in Africa revealed that manyAfrican NODs are interested in seminars onstrategic planning to help them moresystematically meet the challenges ofdevelopment in their region. To facilitate thiseffort, the Bank sent identification missions to

Ethiopia. Sudan, Uganda, Burkina Faso, Maliand Senegal for intensive exchanges withindigenous NODs.

This recent and rapid expansion ofNOD involvement in Bank-financed projectshas resulted in the Bank paying more attentionto the effectiveness and quality of itscollaboration with NODs. To gain a betteru.'lderstanding of this collaboration, the Bankhas established mechanisms to receivefeedback on project implementation fromNODs, and has been commissioningindependent studies of lessons learned inspecific projects and regions. The InternationalEconomic Relations Division of the Bank hasdeveloped a monitoring and evaluation systemfor NOa-associated components of Bankprojects, included in which is a newlycomputerized database, and has launched aresearch project to expand the Bank'sknowledge base concerning its collaborationwith NOOs.

8. O. NSiQCQLLABQRA TION J£IIH.AFRICAN GOVERNMENTS

The thesis that agricultural and ruraldevelopment strategies would benefit fromincreased collaboration between governmentagencies and NOOs has been argued lately atthe international level by development experts.An examination of this statement reveals theemergence of two parallel and significanttrends. Firstly, NODs are demanding moreparticipation in the development procells andmore control over how it affects them, andsecondly, governments increasingly needNOOs to take an active role in developmentbecause they can no longer afford to, or arebeing dissuaded from, perfonning a full rangeof social and development services.H Theapparent result has been the increased interest

18

.among both parties in collaborative endeavorsthat build on complementary strengths.

Although the reasons for this mutualinterest differ from one context to another,36the social history of NOOs, among otherthings, is an important factor that has shapedgovernment-NOa collaboration. On the onehand, recent socio-political trends areinfluencing a steady growth of grassrootsmovements and civic associations]7 throughoutthe developing world, especially in Africa. Onthe other hand, these organizations haveevolved either in opposition to repressive andauthoritarian regimes, or in criticism of corruptand inefficient govemments.31 In thesecircumstances, the theory of collaboration,advantageous as it seems, has in practice,yielded only mixed results. Discussed beloware two examples of government-NOO jointendeavors in the natural resource managementsector in Africa.

8.1. Participatory A~rjcullUral

DevelQPment ilL Zimbabwe39

The Organization of Rural Associationsfor Progress (ORAP) is a grassrootsmembership organization operating in theMatabeleland and Midlands provinces ofZimbabwe. CRAP supports roral developmentactivities ranging from community mobilizationand development education to food security.The organization's research activities, such asthe indigenous grains program, have not onlybeen initiated in response to locally voicedneeds, but have been very well received byfarmers. The organization enjoys a great dealof autonomy by raising part of its resourcesfrom its members and is able to work incollaboration with local government agenciesand other NOOs.

ORAP's Mhlabangubo group has amembership of about 20 people, many ofwhom are women. This group started a smallvegetable garden over an area of O.S hectares

and the vegetables derived from the project aresold locally and in the nearest market,Tsholotsho.

The people of Mhlabangubo for manyyears resisted the idea of establishing avegetable garden despite the availability ofwater and good soil. Officials from theMinistry of Agriculture approached these localresidents to initiate a project of this sort buttheir effort was in vain. Yet ORAP managedto convince the Mhlabangubo inhabitants that avegetable garden would benefit them. Theproject commenced and became known as thebest vegetable garden in the district.Throughout the project cycle, the groupmembers remained aloof from taking anytechnical support or advice from AGRITEX,the government agricultural extension serviceagency.

ORAP, in view of the benefits that aproject would accrue from closer cooperationwith government agencies, has since thenrequited that all agricultural projects beplanned collaborativeRy by the local groups andthe government extension workers. Thus,ORAP field staff are currently working withgovernment agencies in planning meetings andhelping people understand that the interest ofall agencies is in the development of ruralcommunities.

8.2. Enyironmental CODseryatiQILiD.~D

The Kenya Energy and EnvironmentOrganizations (KENGO) is a national networkof NOOs working in the fields l)f environment,energy and community development. Theorganization was founded out of a need tomaintain coordination and exchange ofinformation among Kenyan NOOs undertakingrenewable energy and community developmentprojects. However, since its founding,KENOO's scope of activities has expanded toinclude environmental conservation. KENOO

19

has programs in natural resource, energy, land­use management, extension and informationwhich are developed and adapted at the districtlevel following surveys of local needs.

The Natural Resources Programme ofKENGO combines research, extension andtraining strategies for resource production. Asmall core of specialists, along with theRegional Resources Centers on Environmentand Development as principal outreach pointslocated in various parts of the country, providesupport services and information to communitygroups in the areas of land-use management,fuelwood conservation and utilizationtechnologies, and natural resource conservation.

The Tree Planting Campaign programis another initiative taken up by KENOO inenvironmental conservation. For the pastseveral years, this program has been providingtechnical advice and material assistance to treeplanting efforts of member NOOs. Theprogram, although administered andimplemented by KENOO, was facilitatedextensively by government agencies throughlogistical support and technical resources.Included in these agencies are the ForestQepartment of the Ministry of Environmentand Natural Resources, and the Ministry ofEnergy and Regional Development. Inaddition, other development organizations andNOOs, such as the Church of the Province ofKenya, have played leading roles in thisprogram. The training activities conductedunder this program have enabled KENGO tobecome a vehicle for dissemination of researchfindings of its own programs and of otherorganizations such as the Kenya RenewableEnergy Development Project, the InternationalCouncil for Research in Agroforestry, theKenya Woodfuel Development Programme,and the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute.From 1982 through 1985, the training activitieshad a significant impact on the public,therefore increasing the demand by localorganizations for KENGO's assistance in

.planning and organizing demonstrations andtraining, and in developing educationalmaterials. Since then, KENGO has involveditself more in the above areas than in theequally necessary research and technicalassistance activities.

KENGO's collaboration withgovernment agencies has been mixed. On theone hand, at the field level, KENGO staff haveworked alongside government extensionists andhave even provided specialized training forthese extensionists in such areas as tree-seedcollection. Research activities, however, haveonly been partially successful despite thepotential for collaboration between KENGO,local groups and government agencies. Theabsence of a clear understanding of researchobjectives and methodologies on the part ofKENGO and local groups, and the lack ofrecognition by government agencies of certainresearch methodologies and work styles ofNOOs, caused mistrust and misunderstanding;NOOs which responded to urgent tree-plantingproblems had used quicker and less rigorousmethods of research or experience validation.

9. O. IllE-PROM1SE QE.COMMUN/CA VON

To ensure that the full potential ofNOOs is realized, Agenda 21 of the UnitedNations Conference on Environment andDevelopment calls for the fullest possiblecommunication and cooperation betweeninternational organi7.ations, national and localgovernments and NOOs. The Agenda alsocalls on NOOs to foster cooperation andcommunication among themselves to reinforcetheir effectiveness as actors in theimplementation of sustainable development.41

This implies proper dissemination ofinformation for generating the necessaryknowledge and techniques for leadership in

20

research, institutional strengthening, policyanalysis, development management andtechnology transfer.42

New information technologies such asthe CD-ROM (compact disk-read-onlymemory) are a definite asset to this process byallowing the storage and search of astupendous quantity of information. Suchtechnologies are also unleashing a new powerto manipulate information for improvingproject design and performance. Severalinformation databanks presently exist in bothdeveloped and developing countries, and manyof them make use of the CD-ROM technologyas well as other advanced informationtectJlologies. For example, the SahelInformation Network, which is an informationdatabank established by the Industry Councilfor Development with the financial support ofUNDP, provides information on NOOs activein the environmental sector in four WestAfrican countries.43 Also, the DevelopmentInformation System established by the Centerfor Development Information and Evaluation ofUSAID provides access to USAID's p~ject

experience.

There is no doubt that USAID issucceeding in terms of making an importantcontribution toward the dissemination ofdevelopment information. However, to bemore effective, USAID should considertackling the major constraints and limitationsposed by its information system so that theseconstraints and limitations do not create furtherobstacles to progress.

BlBL10GRAP/fY

Africa 2000 Network. 1992. Network News,Vol. I (2). New York: United NationsDevelopment Pcogramme.

Africa 2000 Network. 1991. Progress Reporton the Africa 2000 Network. New York:United Nations Development Programme.

Africa 2000 Network. 1991. Project SummaryReport 1989-1990. New York: United NationsDevelopment Programme.

Amanor, KS., et al. N.D. NGDs andAgricultural Technologies in Northern Ghana.Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Network Paper. U.K: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Brandsetter, R.H., and G.E. Karch. 1992.PVO·NGOlNatural Resources ManagementSupport Project: Mid-Tenn Evaluation.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development, Africa Bureau.

Brown, M., et al. 1993. Non-GovernmentalOrganizations and Natural ResourceManagement: An Assessment ofEighteenAfrican Countries. Executive Summary.Washington, D.C.: The PVO·NGOlNaturalResources Management Support Project.

Buck, L. N.D. NGDs, Government andAgroforestry Research Methodology in Kenya.Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Network Paper. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Copestake. J.O. 1990. The ScopeforCollaboration between Government andPrivate Voluntary Organisations inAgricultural Technology Development: TheCase ofzambia. Agricultural Administration(Research and Extension) Network Paper 20.V.K.: Overseas Development Institute.

21

FAO. 1992. NGDs and Forestry, inUnasylva, Vol. 43 (171). Rome, Italy: Foodand Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations.

Gilbert, E. 1990. NGDs and AgriculturalResearch: The Experience ofThe Gambia.Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Network Paper 12. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Henderson, P., and R. Singh. 1990. NGD­Government Collaboration in Seed Supply:Case Studies from The Gambia and Ethiopia.Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Network Paper 14. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Honadle, G., and J. VanSant. 1985.Implementation for Sustainability: Lessonsfrom Integrated Rural Development. WestHartford, CT: Kumarian Press.

Johnson, W.R., and V.R. Johnson. 1990.West African Governments and VolunteerDevelopment Organizations: Priorities forPartnership. Lanham, MD: University Pressof America.

Musyoka, J., et al. 1991. Inter-AgencyCollaboration in the Development ofAgricultural Technologies at National andDistrict Level in Kenya. AgriculturalAdministration (Research and Extension)Network Paper 23. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Osborn, T. 1990. Multi-InstitutionalInitiatives in Seed Supply in Senegal.Agricultural Administration (Research andExtension) Network Paper 13. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute.

Otto, J. 1991. NGOs in the Sahel: Actors andIssues in Natural Resource Management.Amh~rst, MA: Center for InternationalEducation of the University of Massachusetts.

Owubah, C. 1991. Food Aid andDevelopment: A Selected BibliographyEmphasizing Forestry Projects. Washington,D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Forestry SupportProgram.

Paul, S., and Israel, A. eds. 1991.Nongovernmental Organizations and the WorldBank: Cooperation for Development.Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

PVO-NGOINRMS Project. 1993. Non­Governmental Organizations and NaturalResources Management in Africa's PastoralSector: Where to Go from Here? A SynthesisDocument. Washington, D.C.: PVO­NGOlNatural Resources Management SupportProject.

Ramanathan, T.R. 1992. Non-GovernmentalOrganizations and Natural ResourceManagement in Africa: A Literature Review.Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service,Forestry Support Program.

USAID. 1992. Community Variables inNatural Resource Management: WorkshopProceedings, (July 28-30, 1992). Washington,D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment, Africa Bureau.

World Bank. 1992. The World Bank and theEnvironment. Fiscal 1992. Washington, D.C.:The World Bank.

World Bank. 1992. List of World BankFinanced Projects with Potential for NGOInvolvement. Washington, D.C.: The WorldBank.

22

z

APPENDIX A

24

SUMMARY DESCR1PTIONS..QE..USAID-SupPQRTED PROJECTSINVOL VlNG YGOs IN NA TUBAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA

1. Project Title: Natural ResourcesManagement SupportProject Title: 698-0467Country: Africa RegionalProject Years: 1987 to 1991Project Cost: 520,360,000

The Natural Resources ManagementSupport (NRMS) project began in 1987 asUSAID Africa Bureau's tool for implementingthe Plan for Supporting Natural ResourceManagement in sub-Saharan Africa. Using avariety of mechanisms, its purpose is toincrease the quality and level of USAID'snatural ",esource management activities incountry and regional level programs, as well asprivate voluntary programs. The project isflexible and is providing wide-ranging financialand technical support to USAID missions andNGOs for planning and implementing naturalresource management activities. However, thisassistance has varied according to individualcountries' ecological needs and ~nstitutional

capacities.

The countries that receive supportunder this project are categorized into threegroups:. In nine Group I countries (Guinea.Madagascar, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, Senegal,Gambia, So••lalia and Sudan). tht I'roject ishelping missions conduct detailed naturalresource management assessments, revise theirCountry Development· Strategy statements, andimplement a focused program of naturalresource management. In five Group IIcountries (BUNDdi, Cameroon, Malawi,Tanzania and Uganda), the project is providingthe missions with focuSed assistance forspecific natural resource managementproblems, mainly through NGOs. In GroupIII countries (includes the remaining countriesin Africa), the key objective is to strengthen

indigenous natural resource managementcapacities through training.

Given the origin and history of theNRMS project, interested groups such as U.S.and indigenous NGOs, and USAID's AfricaBureau and missions see the project as asuccess. The 1990 mid-tenn evaluationhighlights the following major findings: 1)NGOs are extremely heterogenous with regardto their natural resource managementexperience and capacity; 2) Despite the factthat this experience and capacity varies greatlyfrom one country to another, most NOOs areresponding very positively to training-of-trainerprograms at the regional and national level andare interested in tapping technical assistancefor natural resource management efforts; 3)There is indication that considerablecompetition for funding exists between U.S.and indigenous NGOs. Therefore, directcollaboration between U.S. and indigenousNOOs is becoming somewhat a delicate matter.In view of this situation. most of the U.S.NOOs present in the target countries areunwilling to take up the role of supervising(e.g. auditing) a number of indigenous NOOsunless they serve as sub-eontractors. The U.S.NOOs are also hesitant to develop a largeadministrative staff necessary for suchactivities. Moreover, this type of function andstaff requires much larger overheads thanUSAID is currently providing to U.S. NOOs.Finally, U.S. NOOs believe that operating onsmall overheads is one of their chief attributesin attracting funding and in distinguishing theiractivities from those of other contractors.

In eastern and southern Africa, thoseNOO community representatives that werecontacted by the evaluation team havegenerally favorable comments about the

project. As an example, a representative ofU.S.-based Wildlife Conservation Internationalfeels that the biodiversity grants under theproject provided catalytic support. In Kenya,the NOO community states that USAIDsupport for conservation education programs atwildlife reserves was a good contribution. Inaddition, NOO representatives are eager tosupport the new director of the Kenya WildlifeService and hope that USAID will make anappropriate contribution in this direction. TheMountain Oorilla Project and the NyungweForest Reserve in Rwanda are both recipientsof biodiversity grants under the project. Bothof these projects are able to use grant funds forresearch and conservation education activitiesand feel that the support has made a substantialcontribution toward nature education.

References:

USAID. 1987. Natural ResQurcesManagement Support. Project Paper.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

Chemonics Corporation. 1992. PVO­NOOlNatural Resources Management Project:Midterm Evaluation. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

2. Project Title: Natural ResourcesManagementProject Number: 690-0251-33Country: Botswana; South Africa RegionalProject Yean: 1989 to 1995Project Cost: 510,091,000

This project is the Botswanacomponent of USAID's South Africa regionalNatural Resources Management (690-0251)project. It is also part of the Southern AfricanDevelopment Community's effort to facilitateregional cooperation and coordination amongZimbabwe, Botswana and zambia formanaging and protecting the region's natural

2S

resource. The goal of the project is to increaseincomes and enhance the capability to meetbasic human needs through utilization andconservation of natural ecosystems in asustainable manner. The purpose is to improvethe social and economic well-being of residentsin targeted rural communities by implementingcommunity based wildlife and other naturalresource conservation and utilization programs.

Initially, the government's Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks implementedthe project and it faced s~me serious obstacles,mainly stemming from key assumptions uponwhich the project agreement was based. Theseinclude perceptions that: proven models forcommunity based resource utilization are readyfor demonstration in Botswana; that there issufficient quantity of wildlife to support suchdemonstration; and there is also a body ofexperieoced NOOs (indigenous andinternational) ready to undertakeimplementation of community baseddemonstrations. Further, NOOs in Botswanasimply lack the technical and institutionalcapacity to perform a leading role in theproject. Specifical1y, their role is to assistcommunities to take advantage of newopportunities that encourage the sustainable useof wildlife, veldt and forest resource forincome generation. This is done by mobilizingcommunities, transferring natural resourcemanagement technologies and facilitatingmutually beneficial arrangements with outsidestakeholders.

In spite of these obstacles, the projectis functioning flexibly, undertaking in differentparts of Botswana a variety of activities whichattempt to demonstrate that managing naturalresource for use in a sustainable fashion is alsoeconomically valuable to a range ofstakeholders. These activities includedeveloping proposals for utilization of thenatural resource by communities and controlledhunting efforts in eight communities, fonning alocal conservation tlUS1: to manage hunting

quotas in the Chobe Enclave, preparingmanagement plans for two parks, providingtechnical support for the Nata Sanctuarythrough the Kalahari Conservation Society, andexploring the potential for harvesting andmarketing veldt product in eight communitie.'l.

Additionally, the project is supportingthe Environmental Liaison Oroup, an umbrellaorganization composed of envirorunentalNOOs. This group intends to developmechanisms suitable for external donorfunding. Two lead members of this group arethe World Conservation Union and theKalahari Conservation Society.

The mid-term evaluation points out thatthe project is operating successfully on apragmatic basis, using adaptive management totake advantage of opportunities that emergedboth from field investigations and from theremoval of c~nstraints encountered earlier inthe project.

References:

USAID. 1989. Project Orant Agreementbetween the Republic of Botswana and theUnited States of America for NaturalResources Management. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Agency for International Development.

Tropical Research and Development. 1993.Midtenn Evaluation of the Botswana NaturalResources Management Project. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

26

3. Project Title: Pilot Village-Level NaturalResources ManagementProject Number: 686-0276Country: Burkina FasoProject Years: 1989 to 1991Project Cost: 52,000,000

This project is a three-year pilot effortinitiated in 1989 by the Center forPVOlUniversity Collaboration in Developmentof the Western Carolina University. Theproject's goal is to explore village-levelapproaches to natural resource managementand the ability of selected U.S. universities tosupply technical and training assistance toNOO-sponsored activities. An underlyingintent is to assess the benefits of acollaborative relationship between U.S.universities and indigenous NOOs.

The project involves sub-gmnts toindigenous NOOs and U.S. NOOs with apresence in Burkina Faso, technical assistance,U.S. University based technical review,establishing an in-eountry CoordinatingCommittee and an in-eountry Liaison Office.The project has two main components. Thefirst component is to support na~nal resourcemanagement activities directly implemented byNOOs at the field level. Fifty percent of theoverall project budget is set aside for thispurpose in two target geographical zones:Tougouri and Sapone. Two U.S.-based NOOs,Africare and Save the Children, have the .responsibility for coordinating project activitiesin these zones and will receive a sub-grant forthis purpose. In addition, both Africare andSave the Children will receive grants forimplementing their own natural resourcemanagement activities in these zones. Finally,grants will be made to participating indigenousNOOs which are functioning in the two zones.

The second component is to providetechnical assistance and training in support offield-level activities identified by U.S. andindigenous NOOs. The following activities are

I

to receive support under this component: siteselection and feasibility studies; field projectimplementation plans; and technical assistancein specific areas of natural resourcemanagement.

Although the project seems to have thepotential for improving the capacity of localinstitutions to deal with natural resourcemanagement issues, its effectiveness ishampered by such factors as delays due to thecomplexity of the management structure,c1lntralization of the decision-making process,poor design, and lack of communicationbetween the Center for PVO/UniversityCollaboration and the USAID Mission.

The January 1992 mid-term evaluationmade the following observations: I) Theproject is not demonstrating an effectivedemand for U.S. university technical assistanceor for training from U.S. university trainers; 2)It is difficult to determine with confidencewhether there was a latent demand for U.S.university expertise because of the shortduration of project activity and because of thelack of attempt to stimulate that demand ormarket U.S. university services; 3) There issupporting evidence that local institutions arebetter able than outside agencies to define theirneeds and marshall tbeir technical capacities,and there is also indication of resistance toreliance on outsiders for technical solutions tolocal problems; 4) There is slim evidence tosupport the idea that indigenous NOOs andcommunity groups have access to nationallevel institutions with the capacity to providetechnical aid when necessary; S) Both U.S. andindigenous NOOs are not showing adequateinterest in expanding their knowledge of other,more innovative types of natural resoun:emanagement interventions; 6) The overallproject structure is excessively cumbersomeand complex for 3 pilot activity; 7) The projectmanagement is too heavily oriented toward theCenter for PVOlUniversity Collaboration andinadequately reflects local needs, local

27

problems and local solutions; 8) Technicalreview of sub-grant proposals by the TechnicalSupport Committee is not proving useful and isa potential irritant to constructive relationshipsbetween U.S. and indigenous NODs; and 9)Considerable efforts are required to forge bettercommunication between project managers at alllevels and it is particularly important to forge aconsensus on project priorities and strategy.

References:

USAID. 1992. Pilot Village-Level NaturalResources Management Activities. ProjectEvaluation SummaI)'. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

4. Project Title: Anjouan SustainableAgricultureProject Number: 602-0002Country: ComorosProject Yean: 1989 to 1994Project Cost: 53.500,000

The Anjouan Sustainable Agricultureproject (Phase II) is addressing the pervasiveproblem of declining productivity ofagricultural lands on the island of Anjouan inthe Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros.The project aims to ultimately increase theincome of the project participants by 30percent by helping farmers to conserve andincrease the fertility of their soils and bybroadening the diversity of agricultural cropscultivated.

The Cooperative for American ReliefEverywhere (CARE), a U.S.-based NOO witha field presence in Comoros, has been active inthe Comoros archipelago since thecommencement of Phase I of the AnjouanSustainable Agriculture project in 1984.CARE's presence is particularly importantbecause very few indigenous NOOs exist inComoros, and these indigenous NODs are not

able to provide the technical assistance anddonor linkages furnished by CARE.

The goals of Phase II (started in 1989)are: t(' improve the productivity of 1,000hectares of farmland of the target area farmersby 1994, and to achieve the acceptance andpractice of management options at the fieldlevel enabling 4,275 farmers to vary theiroutputs in response to market conditions andsubsistence needs. The measures to achievethese goals include activities such as extensionof soil conservation, crop diversification andagroforestry technologies.

More specifically, the project promotessoil conservation and fertility by plantingcontour strips, using a mixture of grasses,nitrogen-fixing tree species and shade-tolerantcash crops (e.g., vanilla) that use the trees asclimbing support, and by constructing terracesbetween the strips. Food rations are distributedas an incentive for the contour plantings. Todiversify ~rop production, the project isproviding seed and plant materials both for lesscommon subsistence crops and for a widerrange of cash crops. Centralized nurseries arebeing established and nursery production isbeing supplemented by the planting of cuttingsand using direct sowing at the farmer level.

Under the auspices of the extensioncomponent, the project is seeking to identifyand solve problems through regular contactsbetween individual farmers and theextensionists. In addition, the project ispromoting the formation of committees; it isexpecting committees to continue operating afanner-to-farmer extension program after theproject ends, as it is unlikely that thegovernment can financially sustain extensionservices. A program of extension for thegeneral public is also being developed, usingaudio-visual materials, to disseminateinformation on the need for tree planting,protecting the forest and watershed-relatedissues. Further, a new experimental component

28

is exploring the potential f~r an environmentaleducation training program for primary andsecondary school teachers.

Extension agents from CARE and fromthe participating national organizations, such asthe Federal Center for Rural Development, arebecoming equipped for their work throughtraining in communications skills and informaleducation techniques, and visits to successfulprojects in nearby countries. A special effortis being made to recruit female extensionagents to interact with women farmers.

References:

Cooperative for American Relief Everywhere.1989. Anjouan Sustainable AgricultureProject. Project Proposal. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Agency for International Development.

s. Project Title: PVO Co-FinancingProject Number: 615-0236Country: KenyaProject Years: 1985 to 1995Project Cost: $22,401,000

. The PVO Co-Financing project is aseven-year effort that commenced in 1985 tobolster Kenya's NOO community by supportingthe Voluntary Agencies DevelopmentAssociation (VADA), a Kenyan NOO, to actas an intermediary to screen, select and fundworthy NOO activities, and to provide training,technical assistance and opportunities tonetwork within the NOO community. Thisinitiative proved too extensive and difficult forVADA. Therefore, in late 1987, USAID wasforced to terminate its cooperative agreementwith VADA and redesign its co-financingactivity.

In 1988, USAID itself began tomanage the project directly out of its HumanResourees Development Office, using personalservice contractors to staff a new Project Unit.

This shift in management has left the project'sobjectives virtually unchanged and allcomponents intact, except for networking.

In its revised form, the new projectmanagement is absorbing more of the Missionstaffs time, both infonnally and through theProject Review Committee. The process ofscreening and selecting NOD activitiesregularly involves staff from USAID'stechnical, program, project support, legal andaccounting offices. Many of these staff areunclear of what the Co-Financing project is toaccomplish. Meanwhile, USAID is heavilyinvolved in supporting NODs with sector­specific activities in health, family planningand income generation, and plans to supportNODs in natural resource management,including wildlife conservation. The details ofhow the Co-Financing project differed fromthese other NOD activities are still not spelledout.

By the 1991 mid-term evaluation, 10grants to NODs had been approved, with sevenmore under consideration. The total sub­project funding as of February 1991 was nearly$2.5 million. This amount involves fewergrants and less funding than originallyenvisaged in the 1988 project plan. Most ofthe grants have an institutional strengtheningfocus. The project is supporting NODactivities in the following sectors: small-scaleagriculture, health care, vocational training,small-scale enterprise development, watersystems and wildlife conservation.

The pace of implementation is slow fora number of reasons. The start-up of activitiesunder the revised project mode requires timeto: recruit personnel; develop and refineinternal management procedures; deal withstaff turnover; and recNit an outside firm toprovide technical assistance. In addition, thelengthy sub-project approval processemphasizes the completion of detailed and highquality plans by NODs and consensus among

29

USAID staff about any given proposal.Nevertheless, all the activities financed underthe project are of high quality, well designedand progressing well at the time of evaluation.The effects of the project's selection andscreening process, training, workshop andtechnical assistance components on granteesare also apparent, especially strengthening theinstitutional capacities of NODs. Inconclusion, the Co-Financing project, despiteits early implementation turmoil and therelatively conservative pace of implementationsince 1988, has sponsored a range of highquality projects. The project has alsodeveloped a solid base for use in many basicor innovative ways to the advantage of USAIDand to the advantage of an importantconstituency of NOOs (beyond those USAIDnormally reaches in its sector-specificprograms).

References:

USAID. 1985. PVO Co-Financing. ProjectPaper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

USAID. 1988. PVO CO-Financing.Amendment No. 1. Washing',on, D.C.: U.S.A.gency for International DI~velopment.

USAID. 1991. Midterm Evaluation of PVOCo-Financing Project. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

USAID. 1991. Profiles of Sustainability.Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Agency for International Development.

6. Project Title: Conservation ofBiodiversity Reserve AreasProject Number: 615-0247Country: KenyaProject Years: 1991 to 1996Project Cost: 57,000,000

The goal ofthe Conservation ofBiodiverse Resource Areas (COBRA) project isto promote socioeconomic developmentthrough conservation and management ofKenya's natural resource. The project'spurpose is to increase socioeconomic benefitsto communities living adjacent to parks andreserves from conservation and management ofwildlife and natural resource in a manner thatis sustainable. The project is beingimplemented by the Government of Kenya'sWildlife Service.

The project seeks to assist the Kenya'sWildlife Service in implementing its newcommunity conservation approach to wildlifemanagement to demonstrate that it is in thepeople's financial and social interest to produceand protect wildlife resource. During theproject's five-year tenure, USAID will assistthe Wildlife Service in establishing afunctioning Community Wildlife Service Unitwith staff capable of carrying out, coordinating.supervising and monitoring the communityconservation prCl;:ram.

In addition. assistance will be providedto the Wildlife Service in designing andimplementing mechanisms for sharing revenuefrom gate receipts directly with communities.Also. the Community Wildlife Service UnitwiII be assisted in administering a Communityand Enterprise Development Fund. This FundwiII support technical assistance to .communities for: organizing to access revenuesharing, developing wildlife-related enterprise

.proposals. and developing communitydevelopment activities that will be financed byrevenue sharing.

30

The project also aims to undertakepolicy studies in wildlife utilization andmanagement. These studies will assist theWildlife Service in further defining key policyissues in wildlife-related management andutilization. Additionally, the project will helpdirect the Wildlife Service's assistance toNGOs for wildlife management, training andcommunity development activities. Finally, theproject will support long- and short-termtraining activities for the Community WildlifeService Unit and for the communities to linkpractical expertise to academic training inwildlife and natural resource utilization andmanagement.

The COBRA project is designed in thecontext of a phased multi-donor supportedinvestment program for the Wildlife Serviceled by the World Bank. The investmentprogram amounts to $300 million over eightyears. The COBRA project is seen by theWorld Bank and others as a crucial initiativefor achieving reforms in Kenya's wildlifemanagement sector.

References:

USAID. 1991. Conservation of BiodiverseResource Areas. Project Paper. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

7. Project Title: Amber MountainConservation and DevelopmentProject Number: 687-0103Country: MadagascarProject Yean: 1989 to 1992Project Cost: 591%,000

The purpose of the Amber MountainConservation and Development project is tofmance technical assistance. commodities,training, construction and other costs of thecontinued survival of the Amber Mountainarea's forest ecosystem. through the

establishment of an integrated conservation,development and public awareness program.This two-year project is to be implemented bya grant to the World Wildlife Fund, a U.S.­based NOO, in collaboration with thegovernment's Ministry of Animal Production,Water and Forests.

The project is targeting ecosystemscontained in rainforests and deciduous forestswithin four neighboring protected llreas: AmberMountain National Park, the Amber Forest, andAnkarana and Analamera Special Reserves.

The project consists of sevencomponents. The first component will promoteforestry and agroforestry activities through thedevelopment of tree nurseries. In achievingthis objective, training of forestry extensionpersonnel will form the primary support to thegovernment's village reforestation program in .the vicinity of the four target protected areas.Eight-to-10 tree nurseries, along withdemonstration plots, will be developed in fivevillages. Improved fruit, forage, anti-erosionand nitrogen-fixing tree varieties will beintroduced, and the quality and quantity of treeseed availability in the target areas will beimproved. This component also includes anexamination of the use and production ofindigenous forest tree species and measures forestablishing standards for the utilization ofminor forest products. In addition, anevaluation of native forest resource utilizationwill be conducted and advice will be providedon the rational commercial exploitation offorests outside the protected areas.

The second component will promoteimproved agricultural practices by developingalternatives for in-forest cultivation of food andcash crops, particularly bananas, and byimproving the quality and quantity of locallyavailable crop and vegetable seeds.Appropriate inigation schemes will beintroduced on a pilot basis, and all state andprivate land not under cultivation or sound

31

pastoral management in the project area are tobe identified. This component will alsoenhance the institutional capacity of theMinistry in agroforestry extension.

The third component, tourism andpublic utilization in protected areas, willrenovate existing buildings in the AmberMountain National Park for a visitor-cum­education center, as well as the accommodationfacilities for visitors. Main access trails andvisitor trails in the Amber MOImtain NationalPark will be improved and informationphamplets are to be developed for the AmberMountain National Park and Ankarana SpecialReserve with local, national and internationalpublicity support. A system of entrance feesand their utilization will be established forthese two protected areas. Also, a visitorutilization plan for the Ankarana SpecialReserve will be developed and local guidesrecruited and trained for assisting andmonitoring visitors to the Amber MountainNational Park and the Ankarana SpecialReserve.

The survey and needs assessmentcomponent will analyze land use and forestcover using aerial survey and satellite imagerytechniques. A socioeconomic survey of trendsand development needs will be completed infive villages, and assessments of in-reservezoning and utilization and of natural forestresource outside the protected areas will beundertaken. The land tenure status around theAmber Mountain area will be surveyed andland that will potentially be available as analternative to in-forest and in-reservecultivation will be mapped. In addition tothese activities, a biological survey andinventory will be prepared.

The protected areas' protection andmanagement component aims to detennine andmarie the boundaries for the Amber MountainNational Park and for the Amber Forest andAnkarana Special Reserve. At least 1I ~ds

will be recruited to effectively manage andprotect the above ar.eas. All forest guards willbe tmined and equi)..iJed and their activities willbe scheduled. An adequate infrastructure foradministmtion, guards' accommodation andprotection activities will be developed. Aradio communication system between theguards, the protected areas and the regionaladministration for the Amber MountainNational Park and the Ankarana SpecialReserve will also be installed. A detailed mapof native forest cover, land use patterns andsites facing an immediate threat within the fourprotected areas is to be produced and firemanagement plans will be developed for theAmber Mountain National Park and theAnkarana Special Reserve. Long-termmanagement plans for the Amber MountainNational Park, the Amber Forest and theAnkamna Special Reserve and, a preliminarymanagement plan for the Analamem SpecialReserve, will be developed.

The sixth component for environmental.education and public awareness Involvesdeveloping a media-based public awarenessprogram on the integration of conservation anddevelopment activities with other conservationissues. An environmental course, along withcourse materials, will be developed for schoolsin the project area. Further, small educationalreserves will be created for use by theseschools.

The last component, domestic andindustrial water utilization, will assess thesocioeconomic needs for water by competingusers.

References:

USAID. 1989. A.J.D. Grant to WorldWildlife Fund for Amber MountainConservation and Development. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

32

8. Project Title: Debt-for-Nature SwapProject Number: 687-0112Country: MadagascarProject Years: 1989 to 1992Project Cost: $1,000,000

The Debt-for-Nature Swap project,implemented by the U.S.-based World WildlifeFund, will increase the financial and technicalresources available in Madagascar for theprotection of its natural resource and to reducethe nation's external debt service burden. Theproject will use a majority of its funds topurchase the country's public debt on the worldmarket, to be redeemed by the Central Bank ofMadagascar in local currency. The localcurrency proceeds will be used for supporting aconservation program that consists of thefollowing components: planning andadministration, as well as protection and ruraldevelopment activities in national parks andreserves and in their buffer zones; research toidentify key areas for biodiversity protectionoutside existing parks and reserves; training ofconservation professionals; and institutionalsupport to government agencies responsible formanaging parks, reserves and forests. Theremainder ofthe project funds will coverforeign exchange and local currency costs forproject administration and monitoring.

Specific activities to be implementedunder the conservation program includeboundary demarcation, development ofmanagement plans, physical infrastructure andbuffer zone projects, nature interpretation, andenvironmental education, research and training.Further, high priority will be placed onnational parks and on special and privatereserves important to preserving Madagascar'sbiological diversity. Conservation activities arealso planned for the following areas: theAndohahela Reserve and Beza-MahafalySpecial Reserve; the Andringitra Reserve; theMarojejy Reserve; Masoala Peninsula;Montagne d'Ambre Northern Reserves

Complex; and the establishment of a nationalpark at Ranomafana.

The project will render technicalassistance to identify key areas for biodiversityprotection outside existing parks and reserves.New conservation projects will be developedand implemented in these areas. Institutionalsupport, in the form of funding for salaries,training, nlaterials and equipment, will beprovided to the government's Department ofWaters and Forests, which is responsible forprotected areas, species protection and forestmanagement. The project will also conductin-country workshops and field courses forMalagasy conservation professionals.

References:

World Wildlife Fund. 1989. A Debt-for­Nature Program for Madagascar. A Proposal.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development..

9. Project Title: Sustainable Approaches toViable Environmental ManagementProject Number: 687-0110Country: MadagascarProject Years: 1990 to 1996Project Cost: $26,600,000

The goal of the SustainableApproaches to Viable Environmental Protection(SAVEM) project is to establish sustainablehuman and natural ecosystems in areas ofMadagascar where biodiversity is threatened.In moving toward this goal, the project seeksto identify and initiate systems (institutions,methods and behaviors) for the management ofprotected areas of Madagascar and theperipheral zones adjoining these areas.

The project will be implementedthrough two basic strategies. The first strategywill help develop the country's institutional,managerial, technical and human resources. In

33m

support of this strategy, the project willprovide technical assistance, training andcommodity support for both governmental andnon-governmental institutions active in thenatural resource sector. In particular, it wmprovide institutional support to the NationalAssociation for the Management of ProtectedAreas (ANGAP), a recently established semi.private association. The association wascreated as a flexible body so that it couldbecome capable of coordinating NGOactivities, ensuring the integration ofconservation with development, and eventuallyreplacing those foreign operators that aredesignated on an ad hoc basis to manageindividual protected areas.

The second strategy is to test thehypothesis that the local population will altertheir behavior from destruction to conservationof their environment if they see a relationshipbetween their economic and social well-beingand the conserved area, and if they areempowered to make the right decisions. Toimplement this strategy, the project will awardup to six large Protected Area DevelopmentGrants either to international or nationalNGDs, or both, for the management ofinteractive development and conservation

. efforts in priority protected areas and theirperipheral zones. In addition, the project willaward about 100 small ConselVation ActionGrants to indigenous NGDs, government unitsand individuals fol' more limited and locallyinitiated interventions. in the peripheral zonesadjacent to any of Madagascar's 50 protectedareas.

By late 1992, ANOAP had acceleratedthe development of its institutional capacityand is presently in a position to assume a fullrange of responsibilities, many of which werebeyond those envisioned for the fllSt threeyears of the association's existence. Asexamples, the association has implementedpolicy and pllMing activities that wererelevant to fulfilling its institutional role and

..

has made strides in transferring responsibilitiesfrom the government to ANOAP in matterssuch as collecting and managing visitor fees inthe protected areas.

A 1992 study titled liThe BrokenForest: Applying the Integrated Conservationand Development Paradigm to Madagascar'sProtected Areas" points out that indigenousNODs, with their own resources, have becomeinvolved with the integrated conservation anddevelopment concept. However, one of themajor concerns raised by the study is that fewof the indigenous NODs involved in theSAVEM project have experience in themanagement of tropical hardwood forests.

References:

Development Alternatives, Inc. 1992. TheBroken Forest: Applying the IntegratedConservation and Development Paradigm toMadagascar's Protected Areas. Volumes I &II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

Tropical Research and Development. 1992.Association for the Management of ProtectedAreas Institutional Contract. Third QuarterlyReport. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

Cbemonics Corporation. 1991. InterimManagement Advisor to ANOAP: FinalReport. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

USAID. 1990. Sustainable Approaches toViable Environmental Management. ProjectPaper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

34

10. Project Title: PVO Co-FinancingI"roJect Number: 688-0247Country: MallProject Years: 1989 to 1994Project Cost: 516,000,000

The PVD Co-Financing project's goalis to promote economic development throughan increase in production incomes and rural­well being by assisting NODs. Through anumbrella mechanism, the project usesindigenous and international NODs toimplement village-level outreach activities inthe sectors of child survival, natural resourcemanagement and micro-enterprise development.

In order to build on the expertise of theU.S. NOD community, the project is financingand supporting activities that are designed andimplemented by U.S. NODs. The project wasinitially designed to award up to eight or ninegrants for activities in the aforesaid threesectors.

The project's natural resourcemanagement component is aiding the Maliansin building their capacity to manage the naturalresource through activities such as soil and~ater conservation, soil fertility, agroforestry,field tree and forest regeneration andmanagement, promotion of fuel-efficient woodstoves, and environmental education. The firstyear's activities involved hiring a local NODproject coordinator and providing a series ofgrants to U.S.-based NODs operating in Mali.By 1991, six grants had already been awarded,covering all the three sectors. Two of the sixgrants were provided to U.S. NODs workingspecifically in the natural resource sector.

The U.S.-based Near East Foundation,in partnership with an indigenous NOO, hasmade progress in the forestry component of itssoil conservation activity in Douentza. Theactivity has hired and trained field staff.Village animation work is in progress andoffice equipment and vehicles procured. In the

field, both active and passive agroforestryactions have been yielding interesting results.Twelve training courses were conductedinvolving 285 villagers and four evaluationcriteria were elaborated, which will be used injudging active agroforestry. Passive action hasgiven birth to studies on forest regeneration in20 sample fields. In addition, forestmanagement practices are being studied.

In a parallel effort, Africare has madestrides in procuring equipment, selectingactivity sites, and identifying two indigenousNOOs for partnership endeavors in the naturalresource sector. The Association Maliennepour Ie Developpement has commenced workwith the local communities, while the Comited'Action pour les Droits de la Femme et del'Enfant has begun organizing a team forcarrying out development activities withwomen.

Furthermore, three leading U.S. NOOs,one from each sector, have been activelyengaged in developing sectoral databases on allinternational and indigenous NOOinterventions, innovations and appropriatetechnologies in Mali. Using these databases,USAID hopes to expand its portfolio for NOOsin Mali and also hopes to eventually assistsome Malian NOOs in registering withUSAID.

References:

USAID. 1989. PVO Co-Financing. ProjectPaper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

USAID. 1991. PVO Co-Financing Project.Amendment No. l. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

3S

11. Project Title: Reaching Out withEducation to Adults In DevelopmentProject Number: 673-0004Country: NamibiaProject Years: 1992 to 1998Project Cost: 513,500,000

The Reaching Out with Education toAdults in Development (READ) project isdesigned as an umbrella activity in which sub­grants will be made to Namibian NOOsthrough a competitively selected U.S. NOO toprovide assistance to historically disadvantagedNamibians for non-formal adult education.This approach will allow USAID to respond tolocally generated initiatives, mther than playaproactive or prescriptive role in non-formaleducation. About 40,000 Namibians and someS5 indigenous NOOs will benefit from thisinitiative. The project, in addition to beingflexible to respond to opportunities as theyarise, seeks to promote the institutionaldevelopment of selected NOOs and theNamibian govemment's Department of Non­Formal Education.

This project funds two maincomponents: NOO-based non-formal educationand training, and project guidance andcoordination. These components are furtherdivided into five specific sub-componentsincluding institutional development, skillstraining, environmental education, non-formaleducation methodologies, and outreach andinformation.

The environmental education sub­component (the most relevant sub-eomponentfor the purposes of this study) is beingimplemented under a cooperative agreementwith the Rossing Foundation, an indigenousNOO. This component has two major foci.The first is a community based non-formalenvironmental education program. Thisactivity will be implemented in four rural areasand complements similar community basedinitiatives undertaken by the USAID-supported

LIFE (Living in a Finite Environment) projectin Caprivi and Bushmanland areas. The goalis to empower local people to sustainablymanage and economically benefit from theirnatural resource. The Rossing Foundation willimplement this activity by providing sub-grantsto NOOs already working in ruralcommunities. Such organizations include theSave the Rhino Trust, the Namibia Sport andRecreation Club, the Namibia AnimalRehabilitation, Research and Education Centre,the Nyae-Nyae Development Foundation ofNamibia, the Integrated Rural Developmentand Nature Conservation, and the DesertEcological Research Unit.

The second environmental educationactivity will meet the constraint posed by thelack of a coordinated national strategy forformal and non-formal environmentaleducation. With the advent of a generalincrease in activities in this sphere by thegovernment, international donal'S and a fewNOOs, the Rossing Foundation will create anational network of public and privateorganizations working in environmentaleducation and assist with the formulation of anational association. This national associationwill support the activities of wildlife clubs inschools, rationalize the overlapping activities ofthe Ministry of Education and Culture, and theMinistry of Wildlife, Conservation andTourism in formal and non-formal outreachand curriculw'l development. In addition, theassociation will establish a desk-top publishingunit for production of materials for use in thecommunity based environmental educationprogram.

Technical assistance provided under theproject will help develop a nation-wideenvironmental education cuaiculum, establishthe policies and procedures of the nationalassociation and advise the Rossing Foundationon the financial aspects of sub-grantmanagement. Also, short- and long-termtraining support will develop the skills base of

36

key environmental education personnel.Commodity support will be provided toproduce the necessary educational materialsand to purchase computer and printerequipment for publishing.

References:

USAID. 1992. Reaching Out with Educationto Adults in Development. Project Paper.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

12. Project Title: Living In a FiniteEnvironmentProject Number: '90-0251·73Country: Namibia; South Africa RegionalProject Years: 1992 to 1999Project Cost: 510,500,000

Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE),a project that commenced in 1992, is theNamibia component of the USAID-supportedSouth Africa regional Natural ResourcesManagement (690-0251) project. The projectwill provide assistance to the government'sMinistry of Wildlife, Conservation andTourism, NOOs and other organizations incarrying out a variety of activities in thepoverty-stricken communities of Caprivi,Bushmanland and the Etosha catchment. Itwill conserve the country's biodiversity andmanage its natural resource in a sustainablemanner. The purpose of the project, however,is to improve the social and economic well­being of the people residing on marginalagricultural areas and on buffer zones tonational parks or game reserves. A secondpurpose is to carry out natural resourceconservation and utilization aetivitiesthat arecommunity based and sustainable.

The project consists of fourcomplementary and inter·related aspects, all ofwhich support commwaity based naturalresource management: 1) natural resource

management activities; 2) planning and appliedresearch; 3) environmental education; and 4)regional coordination and exchange ofinformation.

The first component will financecommunity based pllot activities in Caprlvi andBuslunanland and will expand to the Etoshacatclunent following the completion of researchand planning in th.is area. The pilot activitieswill be based on the ecological and humanneeds of the respective regions. The secondcomponent will fund planning and appliedresearch that are relevant to community basednatural resource management activities in thesethree regions. Research on the so~ioeconomic

conditions will be conducted before theinitiation (If any pllot activity in the Etoshaarea. This will ensure that: 1) the benefitsaccrue to the local communities; and 2)monitoring and evaluation provides valuableinformation to be used in new and ongoingprojects, as well as sharing lessons learnedwith other countries.

The third component will financeenvironmental education activities aimed atstrengthening community based initiatives byproviding training for community leaders,community liaison officers and the peopleresiding in the project's target areas. Enhancedenvironmental awareness will empower localpeople in designing, developing andimplementing activities that will be of directeconomic and social benefit to them.

Lastly, the fourth component aims atlinking the Namibian experience to similarregional efforts in Zimbabwe, Malawi, zambiaand Botswana through regional research,conferences, workshops and seminars. It isanticipated that by the time the project iscompleted, an Institutional framework willexist, a framework that will be characterized bydecentralized decision-making and a strongerpartnership among the government, NOOs andaffected ruml communities.

37

References:

USAID. 1992. Natural ResourcesManagement Project Paper Amendment forNamibia Entitled Living in a FiniteEnvironment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

13. Project Title: Aerlculture SectorDevelopment GrantProject Number: 683·0246Country: NigerProject Years: 1984 to 1992Project Cost: 559,934,000

The objectives of the AgricultureSector Development Grant project are to: assistthe national government in Niger to achieveeconomic and financial stabilization; andcontribute to increasing food production andrural income growth and diversification.Under the project, support is provided throughlocal currency to undertake a specific set ofagricultural policy reforms. These refonns area requirement for the release of funds into aspecial account, namely the Counterpart Fund.A secretariat manages the fund and a jointcommittee comprising USAID and theGovernment ofNiger allocates the fund toagricultural policy reforms and developmentactivities.

An 1989 amendment to the projectextended the project's life to 1992. To supportthe amendment, funds were derived from theDevelopment Fund for Africa. A portion ofthese funds is used· for technical assistance andtraining and for carrying out studies. Theextension also focuses the project on issues ofsustainable agriculture and natural resourcemanagement. The condition is that thegovernment officially detail the usufmet andextend the rights enjoyed by experimentalforen management communities (especiallyGuesselbodi) to other groups who follow anapproved forest management plan. In addition,

the government is to publicize the CounterpartFund's purpose, which is devoted exclusivelyto natural resource management activities, toNOOs (both indigenous and international).

As an example, the agroforestry projectin Tahoua received significant support from theCounterpart Fund to favor the management ofnatural resource and the environment by therural populat'ion. The Cooperative forAmerican Relief Everywhere, a U.S.-basedNOO, provides technical assistance to thisintervention. The aim of the intervention hasbeen to stop desertification in Niger byplanting wind-break trees and buildingstlUetureS to reduce soil erosion. Theintervention will also assist several ruralcooperatives with improved logging activities.Despite its positive effects in contributing tothe establishment of more than 140 kilometersof wind-break trees, this intervention has facedproblems in transporting and marketing of theirwood.

In addition, as of 1989, theagroforestry intervention bad confronted theissue of how to generate resources necessaryfor the continuation of activities. The failureto address marketing and transportationprobler!\s are believed to considerably affectthe financial autonomy of the cooperativeswhich were originally conceived to becomeself-supporting institutions.

References:

Laurent, M., et al. 1986. Midtenn Evaluationof the USAID/Niger Agriculture SectorDevelopment Grant. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

Development Economics Group of LouisBerger International. 1989. Final Evaluation:Agriculture Sector Development Grant.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

38

Center for Research on Economic Developmentof the University of Michigan. 1992. NigerAgricultural Sector Development Grant Project:Technic.al Assistance Component. FinalReport. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

14. Project Title: Agriculture SectorDevelopment Grant IIProject Number: 683-0:%65Country: NigerProject Years: 1990 to 1997Project Cost: 55,000,000

The Agriculture Sector DevelopmentGrant II project contributes to the goal ofincreasing agriculturcll production andindividual incomes in rural Niger. Thepurpose of the project is to enhance the abilityof individual rural inhabitants to gain controlover resources they habitually use and tomanage and profit from them in a sustainablemanner. The project is organized as a sectorgrant to be released in four tranches uponsatisfaction of policy reform conditions and asa project component for financing technicalassistance, training, studies, evaluation andaudit requirements of the project.

Since its commencement in 1990, theproject has sought to assist the government toestablish the legal and policy frameworknecessary for effective natural resourcemanagement and promote the development t)finstitutions which can be positive agents ofchange in rural Niger. The underlying conceptis that necessary conditions must prevail forNiger to capitalize on gains from agriculturalpolicy reforms, already undertaken or planned,and lead to sustainable increases in productionand income. For this, JUral citizens must havecontrol over the land resource which theytraditionally exploited, have access totechnologies and resources from serviceproviders (both private and public) whichpromote production in a sustainable manner,

and profit from their labor through higherincome and better standard of living.

Based on the experience from theprecursor project (Agriculture SectorDevelopment Grant (683-0246), Niger),USAID has chosen a non-project assistancemode to support this effort. Under this mode,local currency is provided for NGOs andprivate sector organizations and for theGovernment vfNiger in support of its budget.This fund is managed by a U.S.-based privatesector entity. By providing grants in localcurrency for activities undertaken by NGOs,the project is contributing towards therealization of the project's objective to increasenatural resource management by individualsand strengthen the ability of rural serviceorganizations to assist individual farmers andherders.

Supporting the government involvesestablishing a framework for natural resourcemanagement. This requires formulation andimplementation of a national strategy and aprogram of natural resource management,clarification of tenure rights, progressivetransfer of decision making on natural resourcemanagement from central government to thelocal population, and creating a regulatoryenvironment conducive to individualinvestment. The project's natural resourcemanagement component also contributes toidentifYing ways to increase the efficiency andbroadening the impact of public investment, aswell as stimulating private investment innatural resource management.

In addition, institutional changes arebeing promoted. nevisions in the roles of .government persormel, such as forestry agents,are transforming their sanctioned roles to onespromoting individual and community resourcemanagement endeavors. Concurrently, 'theproject is also reducing governmentalrestrictions on the operations of indigc:nousNOOs.

39

References:

USAID. 1990. Agriculture SectorDevelopment Grant II: Program AssistanceApproval Document. Project Paper. VolumeI. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

USAID. 1990. Niger Agriculture SectorDevelopment Orant II: Program AssistanceApproval Document. Project Paper: TechnicalAnnexes. Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

15. Project Title: Natural ResourcesManagementProject Number: 696-0129Country: RwandaProject Years: 1989 to 1994Project Cost: $7,700,000

The goal of the Natural ResourcesManagement project in Rwanda is to sustainlong-term agricultural production. Theproject's purpose is four fold: reduce soilerosion on Rwanda's hillsides; promotesustainable use of the country's wetlands;protect natural forests; and enable greatercoordination by the Government of Rwanda ofactivities affecting the natural resource base.The project works toward this goal at twolevels. At one level, the project: undertakesspecific measures to increase the awarenessamong Rwandan decision makers of theimportance of natural resource conservation;strengthens the government's capacity toeffectively control the use of natural resourceand protect the natural resource base; andimproves coordination among variousgovernment agencies responsible forenvironmental management.

At another level, the project supportsseveral discrete areas within the naturalresource sector. These activities include themanagement of small marais (wetlands),

particularly, the promotion of fish culture inthe marais; soil conservation and agrofol'estryin the highlands of northwestern Rwanda; andthe conservation of the remaining afromontaneforests in the country.

The project is upgrading maraismanagement by training 30 technicians in ruralengineering and developing a SO-hectare modelmarais to serve as a training lab and a site forindepth study of marais hydrology, soilscience, agronomy, marketing systems, andsocioiogy. In support of this effort, the projectintends to finance researeh by the RwandanInStitute of Agronomic Sciences and theNational University of Rwanda. the results ofwhich will be applied to the pilot marais. Inaddition, technical assistance and training willbe provided to the Ministry of Agriculture'sDivision Amenagement Hydro-Agricole whichis responsible for marais development inRwanda.

Building on the success of an ongoingFish Culture project (696-0112), the projectsupports integrated fish culture in the marais.By providing technical assistance, training,researeh, extension and various constructionactivities, the project seeks to promoteintegrated aquaculture in the marais and thustries to expand the economic benefits of fishfarming to a greater number of rural farmers.

To reduce hillside erosion in fivecommunes in Ruhengeri Prefecture (Makingo,Nlculi, Butaro, CYeru, and Nyamugali), theproject is carrying out soil conservation as wellas agroforestry research and training. Further,activities such as creation of demonstrationcenters and nurseries, and communal forestryare also financed. All of the activities underthis component are implemented by a U.S.NGO in cooperation with various Rwandangovernment agencies.

The African Wildlife Foundation. theDigit Fund and Wildlife Conservation

40

International are working with thegovernment's Office Rwandais du Tourisme etdes Pares Nationaux and the Directeur Generaldes FOl'ets to protect Rwanda's two mostimportant afromontane forests: Pare Nationaldes Volcans and Nyungwe National Forest,This is being accomplished with assistanceprovided under USAID's Natural ResourcesManagement Support (698-0467) project.

The final component of the project isimproving the Ministry of Planning'senvironmental planning and coordination byfunding long-term technical assistance andlocal training.

References:

USAID. 1989. Rwanda - Natural ResourcesManagement. Project Paper. Washington,D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

USAID. 1990. USAIDlRwanda: BriefingBook. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

J6. Project Title: PVOINGO SUpPO"Project Number: 685-0284Country: SenegalProject Years: 1990 to 1998Project Cost: 515,000,000

The project's goal is improving thestandard of living of poor Senegalese, while itspurpose enables indigenous NGOs, NGOassociations and community groups, eitheralone or in collaboration with U.S. NGOs, toplan, design and implement sustainabledevelopment activities. The emphasis of theproject is twofold. First, the project financesself-sustaining, local-level activities initiated bythe beneficiaries in priority areas such asagriculture, natural resource management,primary health and family planning, small- andmicro-enterprise development, and non-formal

education. Second, the project providescollaborative institutional support to a widemoge of NOOs, NGO associations and NOOconsortia in Senegal.

A near-term result of the institutionalstrengthening efforts of the project is theutilization of a participatory approach withNOOs and the project management unit, aswell as between the unit's staff and itsconsultants.

During the first year, several keyactivities were completed around thedevelopment and testing of threemethodologies which became the base foranalysis of grant proposals and determinationof institutional strengthening octivities itself.The methodologies include:

I) Beneficiary impact: A two- to four­day participatory process based on thetechniques of rapid rural appraisal that involvesthe local population, the NOO and the projectmanagement unit staff. This resulted ininformation used in the evaluation of theactivity proposed by the NOO as well as abetter understanding at all levels of the needsof the local population. Finally, the NOO andthe local population were given access to atechnique that will help improve their futurecollaboration.

2) Institutional diagnosis: An intensivetwo- to three-day analysis involving allmembers of the NOO staff addressing thefollowing NGO management aspects: 'carted'identite', organizational mission, internal andexternal environment, management, internaloperations, human, material and financialresources, and services provided/results. Thisresulted in information for and feedback to theNGD on its overall strengths and weaknessesas well as the data needed to assess its capacityto manage its proposed activity. This willserve as a basis for ongoing institutionalstrengthening activities with the NOD and as

41

input in improving communitywide NOOinstitutional strengthening activities.

3) Financial certification: A process toassess the capacity of the NOO to manage thefinancial aspects of the proposed activity inconjunction with the institutional diagnosis.This resulted in providing a basis for futureinstitutional support activities with the NOO.

Each of these three methodologieswere tested with three NODs whose feedbackwas positive. Further, three workshops wereconducted during the first year. The first, aplanned quarterly offering to interested NOOs,addressed project design and proposal writing.The other two were presentations by theproject management unit staff on the utilizationof the above methodologies.

Developing systems and proceduresnecessary for starting the implementation of thegrants program were given priority during thefirst year. A series of meetings (involvingNOOs, government officials and technicalsupport groups) helped to establish theselection and eligibility criteria for grants.This process was followed by preparing aninformational manual for distribution toorganizations interested in submitting

.proposals. Nea!'ly 22 proposals were reviewedby the project management unit, of which apreliminary selection of eight proposals wasmade for field review by the unit's InternalReview Committee. The USAID Mission willmake the final decision based on the internaland field analyses of the project managementunit.

The initial year accomplished its majorobjectives. NOOs who took part in variousstart-up activities are utilizing informationgained through the process to improve theirown operations.

References:

USAID. 1990. PVOINGO Support Project.Project Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

USAID. 1992. Senegal PVOINGO SupportProject: First Annual Activity Report.Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

17. Project Title: Planning and Assessmentfor Wildlife ManagementProject Number: 621·0171Country: TanzaniaProject Years: 1990 to 1992Project Cost: 52,500,000

The Planning and Assessment forWildlife Management (PAWM) project is athree-year initiative that began in 1990. It is ajoint effort by two U.S.-based NGOs, theAfrican Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and theWorld Wildlife Fund (WWF). The project isconceived as one component of an overallprogram of assistance by AWF and WWF.The overall program includes AWFs ProtectedAreas: Neighbors as Partners communityconservation project around selected Tanzanianwildlife areas; AWFs Vehicle Maintenanceproject in the Selous Game Reserve; andWWFs Selous Game Reserve Rehabilitationprogram.

The project's goal is to conserve theTanzanian wildlife by promoting economicdevelopment in the wildlife sector as part ofthe nation's Economic Recovery Program. Theproject has two major objectives: assistTanzania's Wildlife Division in developingwildlife sector plans; and strengthen thecapability of the Wildlife Division of theMinistry of Tourism, Natural Resources andEnvironment. The projeC'~ provides theWildlife Division with technical assistance,training and material support.

42

The 1992 mid-tenn evaluationhighlights the following accomplishment. Theproject made significant efforts towarddeveloping policies and plans for the WildlifeDivision. These policies and plans are markedby their outstanding technical quality. Suchprogress was achieved despite difficulties inproject direction caused by the project'scomplexity, and the need for considerably morework than anticipated to acquire and analyzedata from primary sources.

The project staff are being trained tostrengthen the institution of the WildlifeDivision. However, this training was initiallyconsidered to be a narrow view of institutionalstrengthening because little emphasis wasplaced on various foons of training intended,namely short courses, study tours and on-the­job training, primarily due to factors beyondthe control of the project team. Further, theprogress towards capacity building was moredifficult than expected because the project wasunable to adequately compensate the ProjectAnalysis and Planning sub-section staff of theWildlife Division, and assigned fewer staff tothe project itself. Since then, however, it isreported that training activities have beenplanned and undertaken successfully.

References:

USAID. 1982. Arusha PopulationlLand UsePlanning: Tanzania. Project IdentificationDocument. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

18. Project Title: Small Project SupportProject Number: 660·0125Country: ZaireProject Yean: 1988 to 1994Project Cost: 512,000,000

The project provides support for small­scale development activities in agriculture,health and transport infrastructure. Working

through NOOs based primarily in the regionsof Bandundu and Shaba, the project stressessustainable community development. The goalis to raise the standard of living of the ruralpopulation of these regions. Specificinterventions are aimed at increasing theincome and improving the welfare of ruralcultivators, increasing their access to potablewater and health care, opening up channels ofcommunication and providing trainingopportunities for community developmentgroups in the rural areas. The project isaccomplishing these objectives by fundingdiscrete sub-[)rojects proposed andimplemented by NOOs working in the targetedareas.

COfJC;Jrrentiy. the project is alsofunding activities that complement and buildon other USAID-supported activities in theBandundu and Shaba regions of zaire. Toillustrate, an activity to upgrade water sourcesin central Shaba is significantly benefitingwomen and is permitting them more time toparticipate in agricultural extension programspromoted under this project. Thus, therationale for the project is twofold: first, itincreases the impact of other developmentactivities by providing input and building onthe output of those projects; second, byworking with successful community basedNOOs, the likelihood of sustainabledevelopment is probable.

Despite its newness, the project hasinitiated a number of actions in Bandundu andthese activities have expanded to the region ofShaba. In addition, the integrated a~cultural

activity under the project has enabled U.S.Peace Corps volunteers to work as agriculturalextensionists. The activity's purpose is tocoordinate vegetable gardening, small animalhusbandry and reforestation along with fishfanning. This integrated activity alsoemphasizes proper soil cultivation and plantingtechniques needed to prevent soil degradationand erosion. In the same vein, the project's

43

Technical Assistance Team, in cooperationwith the government's Department of Plan,conducted two training sessions. The pwposeof these sessions is to work with indigenousNOOs in the identification of possible sub­project activities.

The project was amended in 1990 toinclude environmental activities to addressheightened concerns over the environment.Accordingly, the project identified a .hunber ofpotential sub-projects that could be funded. Asan example, several NOOs have expre~sed

interest in the development of small-scalehydro.electric facilities. Such a typa!)fenergy project can be of enormous importancein reducing the demands placed on I!;:: f",re~>ts

by an increasing population. Grea···: ·\I'.phasiswill be placed on these sorts of aetivdes as aresult of the increased funding that accruedfrom the project amendment.

References:

USAID. 1988. Small Project Support.Project Paper. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

USAID. 1990. Small Project Support Project.An Amendment. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development.

19. Project Title: Natural ResourcesManagementProject Number: fi90-0251-11Country: Zambia; Soutll Africa RegionalProject Yean: 1989 to 1995Project Cost: $10,091,000

Thi:l project is the zambia componentof USAID's South Africa regional NaturalResources Management (690-0251) initiative.The project suppons the AdministrativeManagement Design (ADMADE) for gamemanagement areas through a grant agreementwith the Republic of zambia and a cooperative

agreement with the U.S.-based World WildlifeFund (WWF). Working through theADMADB program, WWF and the NationalParks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) of zambiaare helping local people participate in themanagement and benefit from game hunting inthe four NPWS command areas (Lain Kafue,Bangweulu, Luangwa, and Northwest).

ADMADB is an integrated wildlifeconservation and community developmentprogram established as a ministerial policy in1987 and administered by a directorate withinthe zambian NPWS. The goal of ADMADEis to conserve wildlife and increase humanwelfare by using revenues generated fromwildlife use to fund wildlife management andcommunity development projects. Thezambian Natural Resources Managementproject supports the ADMADE program byproviding funding for commodities (vehiclesand office equipment), salary increases,training and technical assistance.

The 1992 mid-term evaluation showsthat the project is meeting its objectives bydemonstrating that wildlife can be a profitableland use, and by promoting institutions fornatural resource management and thedistribution of its benefits. The project hasalso made progress in increasing local welfareby increasing the participation of women andby returning benefits from wildlife use to localcommunities. However, the project has notestablished self-sustaining wildlife managementprograms or influenced the government toprovide proprietorship of wildlife to localcommunities. Although some areas havegenerated enough revenue from safari huntingto pay for the recurrent costs of management,these areas have also benefitted from capitaland technical assistance from external sources.Therefore, it is unlikely that the project willdemonstrate that local communities canmanage wildlife by themselves, but it isindicating that communities can manage localdevelopment projects.

44

The cornerstone of ADMADE'spositive effects appears to be increasing localemployment, training and deploying wildlifemanagement statT, decreasing illegal hunting ingame management areas, and convincing localresidents to support wildlife conservation.

Under the auspices of the ADMADEprogram, efforts are being made to establishwomen's clubs in villages. The mid-termevaluation points out that such clubs, whichgather to produce salable goods such as foodand clothing, were previously formed withoutany association to ADMADE. These groupsrequire greater assistance to function properly.

References:

DeGeorges, P.A. 1992. ADMADB: AnEvaluation Today and the Future Policy Issuesand Direction. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agencyfor International Development.

USAID. 1992. Midterm Evaluation of thezambia Natural Resources ManagementProject. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency forInternational Development.

20. Project Title: Natural ResourcesManagementProject Number: 690-0251·13Country: Zimbabwe; South Africa RegionalProject Yean: 1989 to 1995Project Cost: 510,091,000

The project, which is part of USAID'sSouth Africa regional Natural ResourcesManagement (690-0251) project, aims topromote natural resource utilization andmanagement by communities on marginal landsin Zimbabwe. It sustains wildlife, increasesvillage incomes and improves national andlocal capabilities in wildlife resourceconservation. The project uses anentrepreneurial approach to development, basedon wildlife management, using market forces to

achieve economic, social and ecologicalsustainability. Four communal land areas inZimbabwe are targeted for implementingproject activities: Tsholotsho, Hwang~,Bululima Mangwe and Binga.

The Zimbabwe Trust (ZimTrust), anindigenous NGO, strengthens local institutions,enabling them to assume completeresponsibility for wildlife resource managementand utilization. ZimTrust specifically helps:the district councils to train and employ locallyrecruited wildlife monitors and other technicaland management personnel, and constructsupport infrastructure (e.g., fences and wateringposts); improve the accounting andmanagement abilities of village, ward, anddistrict level institutions (including wildlifecommittees); enhance the role of women incommunity development by promoting wildliferesource production activities (e.g., beekeeping,basketmaking and soapmaking) and bystrengthening women's organizations, primarilythe Association of Women's Groups; andprovide training to local institutions inplanning and implementing project activities,including conservation education through theDepartment of National Parks and Wild LifeManagement's extension and interpretationprogram at the Korodziba base station.

A sub-project activity is assisting theDepartment ofNational Parks to develop itscapacity to manage the country's elephantpopulation. The major responsibilities of thedepartment include: surveying and monitoringelephants, their habitats and the project area'scarrying capacity; managing the elephantpopulation, increasing or reducing the numberof elephants, or controlling their movements, asneeded; and protecting elephants from illegalhunting by equipping and maintaininganti-poaching units. A 30,OOO-square-kilometerarea encompassing the zambezi National Park,Matetsi Safari Area, Kazuma Pan NationalPark, Hwange National Park, Forest Areas, andHwange and Tsholotsho Communal Lands has

4S

been targeted for this purpose. In addition, theagency is coordinating elephant managementactivities with Botswana's Department ofWildlife and Natural Parks.

The University of Zimbabwe's Centrefor Applied Social Sciences (CASS) undertakesresearch and advisory activities. Appliedresearch (both baseline surveys and in-depthlongitudinal studies) is conducted inproject-specific topics; the results of researchare widely disseminated and used in advisingvillage, ward and district councils in projectimplementation.

Another sub-project activity facilitatescooperation and information exchange at tbenational and regional levels. As part of thiseffort, the Department ofNational Parks,ZimTrust and CASS personnel hold dialoguesand make site v.isits. At the regional level, theSouthern African Development Community'sSector Coordinating Unit for Forestry,Fisheries and Wildlife in Malawi has assumedresponsibility for information dissemination.

References:

USAID. 1989. Natural ResourcesManagement. Project Paper. Washington:U.s. Agency for International Development.

APPENDIX B

47

Table B1. Ongoing food-assisted ggroforestry proiects in Africa

CountrY NBO Name of projectCllpe Verde Agricultural CooperatiV. D.v. Int.maUonal Monetization

Eritrea Lutheran World Relief Relief DlItrlbutlon

Ethiopia Food For the Hungry Intemillonal A1aba-$iraro SoliConservation-Affor.staUon

Ethiopia Food Forthe Hungry International Gonder RellefJDlvllopmlnt

Ethiopia World VIsIon Relief and Development Adama Integrated RuralDevelopment

Ethiopia World VISion Relief and Development Amoute GurandB EnvironmentalRehabilitation

EthlOpil World VISIon Relief and Development Anlsokll I EnvironmentalRehabilitation

Ethiopia World ViIIon Relief and Development Damotlll Affor.sbitlon, Soli andWater Conservation

Ethiopia World ViIIon Rell.f and Development Kilte Awlaelo Agricultural Project

Ethiopia World Vlllon Rellif and Development Omolheleko POlt-Rell.f RuralIntegrated Development

Ethiopia World VISion Relief and Development Shone EnvlronmentlllRehabilitation

Ghana Adventist Dev.'opment and ReliefAgency Community Collaborative ForestryInltlltiVe

Kenya Catholic Relief Services Food-Far-Work and General Relief

Kenya World Vlllon Rell.f and Development Morulem Irrioatlon Scheme

Man World VISion Relief and Development . D.velopment of Int.grated RiceProject

Man World VISion Relief and Development Menaka Calls

Source: Owubah, C.E. 1993. Food Aid in Africs: Issues Affecting pva NstUfS' ResourceInterventions. Washington, D.C.: Food Aid Management.

48

!able 82. NGO food-assisted projects that yndertake tree planting in Africa

Country NOO Nam. of proJ'ctc.peV.rd. Agricultural Cooptl'8tlv. DIY. Int.mlltional Mon.llzatlon

ErIINa Luth.,.n World R.lief R.II.f DlItrlbutlon

Ethlopil CARE Faod-For-Work

Ethiopia Catholic R.II., S.rvlces Food·For-Work

EthlopM Food Forthe Hungry Intemational A1abaoSlraro SoliConaeMltion-Af(orestation

Ethiopia Food For the Hungry Int.mational Ch.haJWenchl Agrofor.1try

Ethiopia Food Forth. Hungry Intemationa' Gond.r R.llefJD.velopm.nt

Ethiopia World VIIlon Rell.f .nd Developm.nt Adlml Int.grated RuralDev.lopm.nt

Ethlopil World VIIlon Relief and D.velopment Amout. Guranda Envlronm.ntalRehabilitation

Ethiopia World Vl;lon Rell.f and Dev.lopm.nt Antsokla I Environm.ntalRehabilitation

Ethiopia World VIsIon Relie' and D.velopm.nt Anllolda II EnvironmentalRehabilitation

Ethiopia World VISIon Relle' and Development Damota II Afforeltation, Soil andW.ter Conl.rvation

Ethlopl. World VIsion Rell., and Development KIlt. AwI.elo Agricultural ProJ.ct

Ethlopl. World VIsIon Relle'lnd Developm.nt Omoaheleko POlt-Rell.,RuralIntegrated Development

Ethiopia World VIsIon R.lle'lnd D.velopment Shone EnvironmentalR.habilltation

Ghan. Adventist Oevelopment and R.lle'Agency Community Collaborative ForestryInllfl.e

Gh.na TECHNOSERVE Pilot Mon.tizatlon

K.~ Catholic Relle' Servlels Food-For-Work and General Relle'

K.~ World VisIon R.lie' and Developm.nt Morulem Irrigation Scheme

Mad.galear Catholic Reli., Servicn Food-For-Work

Mozambique Adv.ntist Dev.lopment .nd Rille'Agency Food·For-Work

Sudan Save the Children Food·For-Work

Source: Owubah, C.E. 1993. Food Aid in Africa: Issues Affecting pva Natura' ResourceInterventions. Wlshington, D.C.: Food Aid Man.gement.

49

Tabla 83. Ongoing food-assisted soil conservation proiects in Africa

CountrY NGO Name of projectEthiopia Food For the Hungry Intemltlonal Gonder Rell.fJDev.lopmlnt

Ethiopia World ViIIon Reli.f and Dev.lopment AnWolda I EnvironmentalRehabilitation

Ethiopia World ViIIon Relief Ind Development Dlmotlll Afforestation, SoU andWater Con.ervallon

Ethiopia World VIsIon Relief and Development Shone Envlronrn.ntllR.habllitltlon

Ghlnl Adventist Development and Relief Agency Community Collabol1lttve ForestryInitiative

Kenya World VisIon Relief and Development Morulem Irrigation Sch.me

Source: OWUblh, C.E. 1993. Food Aid in Africa: Issues Affecting PVO N.tursl ResourceInterventions. Washington, D.C.: Food Aid Management.

so

HNlJ..NOTES

1. Department of the E~nvirorunent of the United Kingdom Government. 1988. Our Common Future: APerspectiveby the United Kingdom on the Report 0/ the World Commission on Environment and Development. U.K.:Government of the United Kingdom.

2. Webster, J. 1993. Conserving Biodiversity in ..vnca: A Review 0/ the USAID Africa Bureau's BiodiversityProgram. A Draft. Washington, D.C.: The Biodiversity Suppon Program, p. 54.

3. Ibid., p. 54.

4. A similar study conducted by the Forestry Support Program in 1992 indicates 14 additional natural resourcemanagement projects in Africa as baving NGO involvement. However, the implementors ofthese projects, by virtueof USAID's coding method, include private contractors and consulting finns (see Hickey, MJ. 1992. SummaryReport: Environmental Sector Activities ofPVOsINGOs. Washington, D.C.: Forestry Support Program, USDA ForestService, pp. 79.)

5. Ibid., p. 5.

6. Streeten, P.P. 1987. "The Contribution ofNon-Governmental Organizations to [)cvelopment," in DeveJopment:Seeds a/Change, Vol 4: 92-95.

7 • Steidlmeier, P. 1993. "The Business Community and the Poor: Rethinking Business Strategies and Social Policy,If

in the American Journal o/Economics and Sociology, Vol. 52 (2): 209-221.

8. Rostow, W.W. 1960. The Stages 0/Economic Growth. New York: Cambridge University Press.

9. Harrison, P. 1980. The Third World Tomorrow. New York: Penguin Books.

10. HOUgh, J.L., and M.N. Sberpa. 1989. "Bottom Up vs. Basic Needs: Integrating Conservation and Developmentin the Annapuma and Micbiru Mountain Conservation Areas ofNepal and Malawi," in Ambio, Vol. 18 (8): 435-441.

11 . World Bank. 1991. The African Capacity Building Initiative. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

12. Brett, E.A. 1993. "Voluntary Agencies as Development Organizations: Theorizing the Problem of Efficiencyand Accountability," in Development and Change, Vol. 24: 269-303.

13. Helmicb, H. 1990. "New Partnerships in Development Cooperation," in the Directory a/Non-GovernmentalDevelopment Organizations in OECD Member Countries. Paris, France: Organizalion for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, p. 33.

14. Muchiru, S. 1987. "The Role of African NGOs as a Tool for Change," in Development: Seedso/Change, Vol.4: 1I2~lIS.

15. The definitions stated in this section are derived from the publication Economics and Biological Diversity:Developing and Using Economic Incentives to Conserve Biological Resources by McNeely, J.A. 1988. Oland,Switzerland: The World Conservation Union, pp. 3 & 4.

51

16. Fernandes, E.C.M., and P.K.R. Nair. i9R6. "An Evaluation of the Structure and Function of TropicalHomegardens," in Agricultural Systems, Vol. 21: 27!1··310.

17. Otto, J. 1992. "U3AID and PVOsINGOs in Natural Resource Managem~nt in Africa: Elements of anAssessment from the U.S. NGO Perspective," in Non-Govemment41 Organizations and Natural ResourceManagement In Africa: A Discussion of Issues and Priorities. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, ForestrySupport Program, p. 2.

18. Mullen, L., and Helin, W.H. i992. Proceedings ofa Conference Oil: Non-Governmental Organizations andNatural Resource Management In Africa. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Forestry Support Program, p.2.

19. PACT. 1990. Partnership and Popular Partic:ipation in Natural Resource Management in the Sab!;:. Proceedingsof a Conference at Levis, Quebec (November 13-16, 1990). Washington, D.C.: Private Agencies CollaboratingTogether, Inc., p. 9.

20. This section is largely drawn from Otto, J.,lU'd Drabek, A. 1992. Deslg~lSfor Collaboration: A Study ofPVOINGO Umbrella Projects In Africa. The Studies ofthe PVOINOO Initiatives Project. Arlington, VA: Datex, Inr-.,pp. 142.

21. Much of this section is based on the study by Owubah, C.B. 1993. Food Aid in Africa: Issues Affecting PVONatural Resource Interventions. Washington, D.C.: Food Aid Management, pp. 34.

22. Owubah, C.E. 1992. The Effectiveness of Food-far-Work PrDjects: Case Studies of Woodlots in Ghana,~thiopia, Guatemala and Peru. A Master's thesis. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, pp. 99.

23. Brown, M., and Wyckoff-Baird. B. 1992. Designing Integr'atrd Conservation & Development Projects.Washington, D.C.: The Biodiversity Support Program, pp. 63.

24. Wells, M.• Brandon, K., and Hannah, L. 1992. People and Parks: Linking Protected Area Management withLocal Communities. Washingt('n, D.C.: The World Sank. p. ix.

25. This example is drawn from: The Zimbabwe Trost. 1990. The Zimbabwe Trust, the Department ofNationalParks and Wild Life Management and the Campfire Association. Harare; Zimbabwe: The Zimbabwe Trost, pp. 1-20;and Erdmann, T.K. 1992. An Analysis ofTen African Natural Resource Management Practices. Washington. D.C.:USDA Forest Service, Forestry Support Program. pp. 109.

26. This example is adapted from: Erdmann, T.K. 1992. An Analysis of Ten African Natural ResourceManagement Practices. WWiogton, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Forestry Support Program, pp. 109.

27. Projects supported by USAID with local currency failed to appear dwing the database searches. TheRuwenzori Mountaineering Service project is a case in point

28 • For an elaboration OD debt-for-development, see USAID. 1990. "Tenns of Endowment: A New A.I.D.Approach to institutional Development." Innovative Development Approaches Series, No.3. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Agency for International Development, Center for Development Information and Evahwion, pp. 19; and USAID.1989. "A.I.D. Announces Debt for Development Initiative." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Agency for InternationalDevelopment.

52

29. CIDA. 1992. Appropriate Partnerships. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Agency for International Development, PI'.3.

30. Department of the Environment of the United Kingdom Government. 1988. 01'. cit., p. 27.

31. Dijk, M.P. van. 1987. "Collaboration B"tween Government and Non-Governmental Organizations," inDevelopment: Seeds olChange, Vol. 4: 117-121.

32 • CEC. 1988. Reportfrom the Comml.~slon 10 the Council on the Co-operation with European Non-GovernmentalDevelopment Organizations. Particularly In the Area oICo-Flnanclng. Doc. ref. VlII/143/8B-8S. Brossels, Belgium:Commission of the European Communities.

33 • The information presented in this section is obtained from: World Bank. 1992. Cooperation Between the WorldBank and NGOs: 1991 Progress Report. Washington, D.C.: The Wor.ld Bank, International Economic Relati13nsDivision, 1'1'.34.

34. "The Bank's NOD initiative turned out to be part ofan international wave of interest in NODs. The dramaticspread of democracy...has led to mor~ favorable government attitudes toward citizens' groups in many countries.More generally, the experience with ineffective public-sector programmes and tight fiscal constraints has madegovernments aware of their limitations and more interested in what NODs can contribute." World Bank. N.D. TheBank and NODs: Recent Experience and Emerging Trends. A Draft. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, p. I.

35. Bebbington, A., and J. Farrington. 1992. "Private Voluntary Initiatives: Enhancing the Public Sector'sCapacityto Respond to NOD Needs." Paper presented at the World Bank Agriculture Symposium, (January B-IO, 1992). U.K.:The Centre for Latin American Studies of Cambridge Univel'$ity and the Overseas Development Institute, p. 1.

36 • Ibid., p. 2.

37. Slater, D. ed. 19~5. New Social Movements and the State in Latin America. Amsterdam: CEDLA; and Annis,S., and P. Hakim. ec1s. 1988. Direct to the Poor: Grassroots Development In Latin America. U.K.: Lynne Reiner.

38. Lehmann, A.D. 1990. Democracy and Development In Latin America. Economics and Politics and Religionin the Postwar Period. U.K.: Polity Press.

39. This case study is extracted from: NdiweDi, M. 1991. "People'$ :t'uticipation in the Development ofAgricultural Technologies: The Experience of ORAP," in Involving Farmem in Rural Teduwlogles: Case StudiesojZlmbabwtlJn NGOs. Agricultural Administration (Research and Extension) Network Paper 25. U.K.: OverseasDevelopment Institute, pp. 54.

4 o. This case example draws most of its infonnation fro",: Anon, G. 1991. "Natural Resources Development:KENGO's Case Experience 1981-1990," in Institutional Aspects o/Environmental Research and Extension in Kenya:TIre Department 01 Forestry and Kenya Energy and E"vironment Organizadons. Agricultural Administration(Research and Extension) Network Paper 22. U.K.: Overseas Development Institute, pp. 30.

41. UNCED. 1992. "Strengthening the Role of Non-Governmental Organizations: Partners for SustainableDevelopmeot," in Agenda 21, Chapter 27. Advance Copy. Conches, Switzerland: United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Developmen:, pp. 5.

S3

42. Romeijn, P. 1993. "A OlobaJ University: Developing a Worldwide Forestry Community," In the JourlUll ofForestry, Vol. 91 (10):31·33.

43. Booth, W. 1992. "Issues and Priorities: International Organizations Support for NOOs and NRM In Africa,"in Non·Governmental Organizations and Natural Resource Management in Africa: A Discussion of Issues andPriorities. Washington, D.C.: USDA Forest Service, Forestry Support Program, p. 3.