October 31, 2011
1 USAID/Liberia Final Evaluation of the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program
EVALUATION
Final Evaluation of the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP)
LIBERIALiberia Forest D
evelopment A
uthority
1USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
FinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestry
Program(LRCFP)
October31,2011
2USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
PrefaceandAcknowledgements
Attentiontotheimportanceofforestshasincreaseddramaticallyinrecentyears.Inadditiontoprovidingvaluablecommodities,forestsarenowseenascriticalformitigatingtheimpactsofglobalclimatechangeaswellasmaintainingotherkeyecosystemservices.Intermsofdevelopment,forestsmakemajorcontributionstorurallivelihoodsespeciallyinhinterlandswhereagriculturalmarketsareweak.Betterforestgovernancecontributestoimprovedgovernanceoverall,reducesconflictandretainseconomicvalueinthehandsoflegitimatelocalandnationalactors.NewresearchhighlightedinarecentarticleinSciencefindsthatthereisagreaterlikelihoodofaforestprovidinghighersubsistencelivelihoodbenefitstolocalpopulations,andalsohavinghigherlevelsofbiodiversity,whenlocalforestusershavearighttoparticipateinforestgovernancebymakingrulesoverthemanagementanduseoftheforest.Thisresearch,conductedbyresearcherswiththeInternationalForestryResourcesandInstitutions(IFRI)ResearchProgramlooksattherelationshipbetweenakeypairofsocialandecologicaloutcomesfromforestsinhuman‐dominatedlandscapes‐theextenttowhichforestscontributetothesubsistencelivelihoodsoflocalpopulations,andtheconservationofforestbiodiversity‐todetermineifitispossibletogetlivelihoodbenefitsfromforestsandconservebiodiversityinthesameforestsimultaneously."Participationrightsforlocalforestuserswasakeyfactoringettingawin‐winsituationinourresearch,"saidDr.ArunAgrawal,IFRIcoordinator."Similarly,wefoundagreaterlikelihoodofaforestbeingbelowaverageforbothsubsistencelivelihoodsandbiodiversitywhenlocalforestusersdonothavethisright."Communityforestryisanimportantapproachtoachievingtheseoutcomesbutitischallengingtoimplement.Thereneedstobeclearpoliticalwill,technicalassistanceatalllevelsandclarityaboutrightsandresponsibilities.Theprocessisneverstraightforwardgiventhestakesinvolvedforallactors.Negotiatingboundaries,rules,enforcement,monitoring,benefitsandotherissuescantakeyearsandinmanycasesnevergetcompletelyresolved.Ontopofthesecomplexissuesthereistheintersectionoflandrightsandindividualpropertyrightswithcollectiverightstotheforestspace.Individualsandhouseholdswantandneedtoderivebenefitsandfeelsecurethatbenefitswillcontinueovertimeyetitisalsonecessarytomanageforcollectivegoals,suchascontinuedecosystemservices.InLiberia,anumberoffactorsincreasedthecomplexityofpromotingcommunityforestry;theseincludepost‐conflictmigrationandlanddisputeconcerns,lackofexposuretocommunityforestry,aheavyemphasisoncommercialforestryandtheoverallinstitutionalchallengesofrebuilding.AddtothemixinrecentyearstheemphasisonfasteconomicgrowthintheagricultureandextractiveindustrysectorsandonecanbegintoglimpsethechallengesfacingtheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram(LRCFP).WhileLRCFPfacedmultiplechallengesitalsohadadvantages,suchasstrongMissionandUSGsupportfortheprogram,USAID’sextensiveexperienceincommunityforestryandcommunitybasednaturalresourcemanagement(CBNRM)anditsemergingbodyofpracticeinlandtenureandpropertyrights(LTPR)inrelationtoforestmanagement.TheLiberiaForestryInitiative(LFI)hadlaidthegroundworkstrengtheningoftheForestryDevelopmentAuthority(FDA)and,mostcritically,forestcommunitiesandothercritical
3USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
actorsintheforestsectorrecognizedthelegitimacyofcommunityforestryanditsnecessityinLiberia.LRCFPandthisevaluationhavetobeseeninthiswidercontext.ThelessonsfromLRCFPareusefulnotonlytoLiberiabuttothelargegroupofactorsgrapplingwithhowtobettermanageforests.Keymessagesforthewideraudienceinclude:
Itispossibletolaunchandoperationalizecommunityforestryinpost‐conflictcountries
Todosorequiresengagingwithawiderangeofstakeholdersatboththenationalandcommunitylevelsconsistentlyandovertime
Capacitybuildingandcross‐sitevisitsbuildpoliticalwillandbuyin Conflictmitigationstrategiesshouldbeincorporatedfromtheoutset Livelihoodsupportrequirescarefulanalysisandlinkstoforestmanagementand
conservationobjectives Alandscapestrategyisneededtoaddressissuesofdisplacementandcross‐border
pressures Adaptivemanagementisimperativeinsuchhighlyfluidenvironments
EvaluationTeamDianeRussell,EGAT/NRM/B,SocialScienceandBiodiversityAdvisorAndrewTobiason,EGAT/NRM/B,BiodiversitySpecialistKennethHasson,USAID/Liberia,AgricultureOfficerDavidM.Miller,Consultant,RuralandCommunityDevelopmentSpecialistPaulDeWit,Consultant,LandTenureandPropertyRightsSpecialistThankstoDanielWhyner,LRCFPCOTRAndLRCFPsupportersovertheyearsUSAIDLiberia:PamelaWhite,PatriciaRader,McDonaldHomer,MichaelBoyd,SharonPaulingUSAIDWashington:ScottBode,GregoryMyersUSDAForestService:MatthewEdwardsen
4USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Contents
PrefaceandAcknowledgements................................................................................................................2Acronyms.............................................................................................................................................................6ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................................8Keyprogramlevelaccomplishments..................................................................................................8Keysitelevelaccomplishments.............................................................................................................9Keychallengesfacedbytheprogram..............................................................................................10Incompletelyrealizedobjectives.......................................................................................................10KeyimplicationsforfutureinvestmentincommunityforestryinLiberia......................11
SectionI OverviewoftheEvaluationPurposeandObjectives..............................................14Structureofthereport...........................................................................................................................14Methodology...............................................................................................................................................14FitwithUSAIDEvaluationPolicy(January2011)......................................................................15
SectionII OverviewoftheProgram..............................................................................................16Thedevelopmenthypothesis..............................................................................................................16Developmentcontext..............................................................................................................................16Programdesign.........................................................................................................................................17Keyactors....................................................................................................................................................18Phasesandcoursecorrections...........................................................................................................19
SectionIII Management.......................................................................................................................23ManagementBackgroundandEvolution.......................................................................................23ManagementResults...............................................................................................................................25Programlevelresults.........................................................................................................................25Budgetingandfinancialmanagement........................................................................................26Staffing.....................................................................................................................................................27Subcontractors.....................................................................................................................................28
MonitoringandEvaluation...................................................................................................................34OverallProgramMonitoring..........................................................................................................34Monitoringofspecificactivities....................................................................................................35
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................37Implicationsforfutureprograms......................................................................................................37
SectionIV CommunityForestryInstitutions..............................................................................39Background.................................................................................................................................................39Thecontextforcommunityforestry...........................................................................................39Implementationofthecomponent..............................................................................................40
Results...........................................................................................................................................................41Nationallevelresults.........................................................................................................................41Sitelevelresults...................................................................................................................................42
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................42Challengesoriginatingatthenationallevel.............................................................................42Challengesoriginatingatthelocallevel....................................................................................45
Sustainability..............................................................................................................................................48Implicationsforfutureprograms......................................................................................................52
SectionV LandTenureandPropertyRights...................................................................................54Background.................................................................................................................................................54TheoriginandearlyevolutionoftheLTPRcomponent.....................................................54Thecontext:landtenureandpropertyrightsandinstitutionsinLiberia...................55
AnalysisoftheCRLandRegulations................................................................................................56TheCommunityRightsLawwithRespecttoForestLand.................................................56
5USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
TheRegulationstotheCRL.............................................................................................................57Implementationofthecomponent....................................................................................................59Timeline..................................................................................................................................................59Descriptionofimplementation......................................................................................................60
Results...........................................................................................................................................................63Policylevelresults..............................................................................................................................63Sitelevelresults...................................................................................................................................63
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................64Challengesatthenationallevel.....................................................................................................64Challengesatthelocallevel............................................................................................................66
Implicationsforfutureprograms......................................................................................................66SectionVI LivelihoodsComponent.................................................................................................69ComponentBackground........................................................................................................................69Evolutionofthecomponent...........................................................................................................69Descriptionofcomponentactivities...........................................................................................70
Results...........................................................................................................................................................71Policylevelresults..............................................................................................................................71Sitelevelresults...................................................................................................................................71
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................71Sustainability..............................................................................................................................................73Implicationsforfutureprograms......................................................................................................74Forthebridgingperiod.....................................................................................................................74ImplicationsforUSAID.....................................................................................................................75
SectionVII BiodiversityConservation.............................................................................................76Background.................................................................................................................................................76Thetheoryofchange.........................................................................................................................76USAIDbiodiversitycriteria:fromcompliancetobest‐practice.......................................76
Results...........................................................................................................................................................80Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................83Sustainability..............................................................................................................................................84Implicationsforfutureprograms......................................................................................................84
SectionVIII CommunicationsandAwareness...............................................................................86Background.................................................................................................................................................86Results...........................................................................................................................................................86Programlevelresults.........................................................................................................................86Sitelevelresults...................................................................................................................................87
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies.......................................................................87Annexes..............................................................................................................................................................89Annex1LRCFPWorkplanfromQuarter14..................................................................................89Annex2ResultsFrameworkandLRCFPWorkplanActivities,Quarter10......................92Annex3DocumentsReviewedfortheEvaluation.....................................................................93Annex4EvaluationScopeofWork...................................................................................................96Annex5PartialListofPeopleInterviewed...................................................................................99Annex6EvaluationTeamBiographies........................................................................................101Annex7EvaluationItinerary...........................................................................................................103
6USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Acronyms
ACDI/VOCA AgriculturalCooperativeDevelopmentInternational/Volunteersin
OverseasCooperativeAssistanceAGRHA ActionforGreaterHarvestAML ArcelorMittalLiberiaARD ARD,Inc(nowTetraTech/ARD)ASNAPP AgribusinessforSustainableNaturalAfricanPlantProductsBOTPAL BotanicalProductsAssociationofLiberiaCFDC CommunityForestryDevelopmentCommittee(createdby
communitiesaffectedbytimberconcessions)CFMB CommunityForestryManagementBodyCI ConservationInternationalCJPS CenterforJusticeandPeaceStudiesCFMP CommunityForestManagementPlanCMC Co‐managementCommitteeCOP ChiefofPartyCOTR ContractOfficer’sTechnicalRepresentativeCPOP CommercialPalmOilProducerCRL CommunityRightsLawwithRespecttoForestLandsDQA DataQualityAssessmentENNR EastNimbaNatureReserveETOA EnvironmentalThreatsandOpportunitiesAssessmentFDA ForestryDevelopmentAuthorityFFI FaunaandFloraInternationalFFS FarmerFieldSchoolFTI ForestryTrainingInstituteGIS GeographicInformationSystemGOL GovernmentoftheRepublicofLiberiaGPS GlobalPositioningSystemIP ImplementingPartnerIQC IndefiniteQuantityContractIUCN InternationalUnionfortheConservationofNatureJFMC JointForestManagementCommitteeLC LandCommissionLPIS LandPolicyandInstitutionalStrengtheningLRCFP LandRightsandCommunityForestryProgramLTPR LandTenureandPropertyRightsMOA MinistryofAgricultureMOU MemorandumofUnderstandingMTA MidtermAssessmentNAEAL NationalAdultEducationAssociationofLiberiaNCE NoCostExtensionNBST NationalBenefit‐SharingTrustNGO NongovernmentalOrganizationNRM NaturalResourceManagementNTFP Non‐TimberForestProductPA ProtectedAreaPLACE Prosperity,LivelihoodsandConservingEcosystems
7USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
PMP PerformanceMonitoringPlanQ(Calendar) QuarterQR QuarterlyReportREDD ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandDegradationSTTA Short‐TermTechnicalAssistanceTO TaskOrderTOT TrainingofTrainersTT/ARD TetraTech/ARDUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentUSG UnitedStatesGovernmentWNNR TheproposedWestNimbaNatureReserve
8USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
ExecutiveSummary
USAIDLiberiainitiatedtheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram(LRCFP)inDecemberof2007toadvancethepolicyandpracticeoflandandforestmanagementinLiberia.Theprogramwasdesignedtoimprovethelegalandpolicyenvironmentforcommunityforestmanagement,buildthecapacityofthenationalforestserviceandcommunitiestodevelopandsustaincommunityforestryprogramsandgenerateenvironmentally‐sustainableandequitableeconomicbenefitsforruralresidents.Atthenationallevel,LRCFPsupportedthepassageoftheCommunityRightsLawandassociatedregulations,andbuiltthecapacityoftheForestryDevelopmentAuthority(FDA).Atthelocallevel,theprogramfacilitatedthecreationoffivecommunityforestsandintroducedimprovedlivelihoodpracticesinNimbaandSinoeCounties.WorkoftheprimarycontractorforLRCFPconcludedonOctober28,2011.ThepurposeofthisevaluationistoassesstheimplementationandimpactofLRCFP,identifystrategiestakentoadapttoevolvingchallengesandopportunities,anddetermineandreportontheimplicationsforfurtherinvestmentinLiberiaandforUSAIDmorebroadly.Ateamoffivespecialistsinagriculture,forestry,biodiversityandlandtenurereviewedtheavailabledocumentationandspenttwoweeksinLiberiaengagingwithnationalandcommunityparticipantsintheprogram.Althoughintenserainsandtimeconstraintslimitedaccesstocommunityparticipants,theteamneverthelessinterviewedover30communityrepresentativesand50peopletotal.PriortoreturningtotheUS,theteampresentedinitialfindingstotheUSAID/LiberiaMission.
Keyprogramlevelaccomplishments
LRCFPlaunchedcommunityforestry(CF)inLiberia.Inthefaceofsignificantchallenges,LRCFPexpandedcommunityforestryfromahandfulofcommunitylevelprojectstoanationalinitiative.Theprogramadvancedboththepolicyandinstitutionalenablingconditionsforcommunityforestry,anddirectlyresultedintheimprovedmanagementofover35,000hectaresofbiologicallysignificantforest.ItstrengthenedthecapacityoftheFDAandlocalNGOstocreateandsupportcommunityforests.BecauseofLRCFP,communityforestryhasgrownfromapoorlyunderstood,alienconcepttoarecognizedandviableapproachtoforestmanagementandbiodiversityconservationinLiberia.Facilitatedtheestablishmentofalegalandpolicyenvironmentsupportiveofcommunityforestry.LRCFPprovidedtechnicalassistancetothedevelopmentoftheCommunityRightsLawwithRespecttoForestLands(CRL),facilitateddiscussionconcerningthecontentsofthelaw,andinformeditstechnicalquality.TheprogramalsoenabledtherapidauthorizationoftheregulationsnecessarytoimplementtheCRLthroughaninclusive,informedandparticipatoryprocess.Throughoutthelifeoftheprogram,resourceswerededicatedtofosteringbroaddiscussionofcriticalpolicyissuesamongstakeholdersatthenationallevel,andbetweennationalandlocallevelstakeholders.Asaresultofthiswork,formalcommunityforests,recognizedbythegovernment,andauthorizedinlaw,arenowpossible.Builtinstitutionalcapacityforcommunityforestry.LRCFPincreasedthecapacityoftheForestryDevelopmentAuthority(FDA),localNGOsandprivatesectoractorstosupportthespreadofcommunityforestrythroughoutLiberia.Byconductingitsworkinclose
9USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
collaborationwiththeFDAandlocalsubcontractors,providingrelevanttraining,anddevelopingmanuals,LRCFPhascreatedacadreoffieldagentsanddecisionmakerscomfortablewiththeconceptofcommunityforestryandskilledinmanyoftherelevanttechnicaland“soft”themes.Effectivelyimplementedamulti‐leveldesign.Theprogramdrewuponanapproachofdualengagementtoreinforcecommunicationandcollaborationbetweenthenationalandsub‐nationallevelsofgovernance.LRCFPusedknowledgeandrelationshipsgainedinpilotcommunitiestoinformpolicyandinstitutionaldevelopmentatthenationallevel.Italsosupportednationallevelpolicyandinstitutionaladvancestoreinforcefieldactivitiesandsettheconditionsfortheirreplication.LRCFPdemonstratedthepotentialsynergiestobecreatedthroughthesimultaneousandstrategicimplementationofactivitiesatcommunity,county,andnationallevels.Maintainedhigh‐qualitymanagementpracticesinachallengingcontext.Overthelifeoftheprogram,primecontractorTetraTech/ARD(TT/ARD)implementedacomplexandinnovativeprograminachallengingcontext.Theevaluationidentifiednomajorworkplanning,financialmanagement,reportingorstaffingissues.Withtheexceptionofonecontractor,TT/ARDcollaboratedsmoothlyandinclusivelywithinternationalandnationalsubcontractors.LRCFPachievedorsurpassedallbutonePMPtarget.LRCFPsetthecontextforfurtherinvestmentinCFinLiberia.LRCFPdemonstratedthegreatpotentialforcommunityforestryinLiberia.Thecountry’svastforestresources,fluidstateoflegalandinstitutionalrebuilding,andruralcommunitycoherencepresentfertilegroundsforgrowth.Furthersupportcouldachieveresultsinthegovernance,economicgrowth,andbiodiversitygoalscriticaltothecountry.DuetoLRCFP,Liberiapossessesthebasiclegalandpolicyframework,institutionalresources,andpilotcommunityforestschemestoserveasabasisforfurtherinvestment.
Keysitelevelaccomplishments
Launchedpilotcommunityforests.Infourimpoverishedremotecommunitiesrecoveringfromcivilwar,LRCFPovercameaclimateofdistrustandsimmeringconflicttofacilitatethecreationoffunctioningforestmanagementinstitutions.EachofthefivecommunityforestsformedandformalizedbytheprogramisnowofficiallyrecognizedbytheFDA.WiththesepilotsLRCFPraisednationalandlocalawarenessoftherangeofvaluesintrinsictoforests,andincreasedrecognitionofcommunityrightswithregardtoforestresources.Throughthemover10,000hectaresofbiologicallysignificantlandareunderimprovedmanagement.Establishedpatternsoflocalrepresentation.LRCFPenabledcommunityrepresentativestoattendednumerousworkshopsandparticipateinworkinggroupsandcommitteesatbothnationalandcountylevels.Throughthissupportprovidedtopilotcommunityinstitutions,LRCFPaccustomednationalandcountylevelgovernmentofficialstoreceivinginputfromcommunityrepresentativesondecisionsthatimpacttheirlives.Italsohelpedlocalrepresentativeslearnhowtoeffectivelyvoicetheirconcernstogovernmentdecisionmakers.Brokeredtheco‐managementoftheEastNimbaNatureReserve(ENNR).LRCFPovercameahistoryofconflicttobringtwolocalcommunitiesandtheFDAintoagreementonboundariesandtheprincipleofco‐managementofthisreserve.
10USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
IntroducedNTFPandagriculturalpractices.LRCFPalsointroducedtheagriculturalandforestrypracticesnecessaryforcommunitymemberstofarmandexploittheirforestsmoresustainably.Thisintroductionofimprovedagriculturalpractices,palmoilandcassavaprocessingenterprises,andNTFPharvestinganddomesticationskillsproducedimmediatebenefitstothecommunities,establishedabasisforfurtherdevelopmentofincomegenerationactivities,andgeneratedlessonslearnedrelevanttoothercommunitiesinLiberia.
Keychallengesfacedbytheprogram
Toughcountrycontext.ThedevelopmentcontextinwhichUSAIDimplementedLRCFPposedchallengesthatdirectlyimpededtheachievementoftheprogram’sintendedresults.Liberiaisapost‐conflictcountrywithaseverelackofhumancapacity,weakinstitutions,andseriouslydisruptedruleoflawstructures.Powerfulnationalandinternationalcommercialinterestsviefortheland,timber,carbonrights,andmineralresourcesofthesameforestlandscommunitymembershaveclaimed,inhabitedandreliedonforcenturies,yettheresourcepoorgovernmentlacksthecapacitytomanageforestrightsandresourcesinatransparent,efficient,andequitablemanner.Theextremeremotelocationandlowlevelofdevelopmentofthepilotcommunitiesalsoposedconsiderablebarrierstobuildingtheentrepreneurialandmanagerialcapacitytotakeoverownershipofthecommunityforestryprocessandstrengthenagriculturalandforestproductvaluechains.
Twotracktreatmentofcommunityforestryandlandtenurebythegovernment.AdistinctlegalandinstitutionalseparationbetweenLTPRandcommunityforestrypredatedLRCFP.AlthoughLRCFPwasspecificallydesignedtoworkacrossthisgap,factorseventuallyinhibitedtheprogramfrombridgingthisdivide.ThedraftingoftheCRL,whicheventuallyexcludedlandrightsfromitsscope,beganpriortothelaunchoftheprogram,andtookplaceinahighlychargedandpoliticizedmanner.LRCFPwasoneofmanystakeholders,eachofwhomhadlimitedinfluenceonthefinaloutcome.Theprogram’snecessaryandcloseassociationwiththeFDAalsohamperedLRCFP’sabilitytoaddresslandtenurebyworkingacrosstheseveralministriesresponsibleforlandallocation.Finally,thedelayintheestablishmentoftheLandCommission,andthepressingdemandsplacedonthatbodyonceestablished,inhibitedLRCFPfromintegratingsecurelandtenureintothecommunityforestryprocessthroughworkwiththatbody.FDA:aconstrainedcollaborator.LRCFPwasalsolimitedbythefactthatitwasgroundedinaresource‐poorinstitutioncomprisedofastaffseverelylimitedinnumbers,training,andcommunityforestexperience.Further,theFDAhistoricallyfocusedonfacilitatingandregulatingcommercialforestryandtookanauthoritarianapproachtowardstheprotectionofforestareas.ProgressonFDAcapacitytoappreciateandpromoteCFwasachievedinthefaceofafirmskepticismtowardstheabilityofcommunitiestomanagetheirownforests.Episodicprogramfunding.Initiallydesignedasatwoyearprogramwiththeoptionforathirdyear,USAIDeventuallyextendedLRCFPthreetimes,toatotaldurationofthreeyearsand10months.Anadditional“bridgingperiod”ofreducedscopehasbeenapprovedtocontinuemanyoftheprogramactivitiesforanadditionaleightmonths.Thischoppyfundingprocessinhibitedlongtermplanning,andlimitedorrushedtheimplementationofactivitiesthatcouldnotbequicklyrealized.
Incompletelyrealizedobjectives
11USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Amodelforthelocalcreationofsustainablecommunityforestschemeswasnotestablished.LRCFPdidnotsucceedindevelopingamodelthatcouldbeadoptedbyothercommunitiesunsupportedbyresourcessimilartothosetheprogramprovidedpilotcommunities.TheregulationstotheCRL,andthe“howto”guidanceprovidedbytheprogramdescribeproceduralandtechnicalstandardswellabovethecurrentcapacityoftheaverageunassistedcommunitytomanageandtheFDAtosupport.Ongoingtenureinsecurityofpilotcommunities.EarlyintheprogramUSAIDandLRCFPmodifiedtheinitialobjectiveofassuringpropertyrightsfornaturalresourceusers.Atthetimeoftheevaluation,variouspriorclaimssupportedbylandlawandhigh‐levelGOLagreementscontinuedtothreatentheclaimsofpilotcommunitiestoforestlands.Inaddition,theregulationstotheCRL,thedraftingofwhichLRCFPfacilitatedbutdidnotcontrol,exposecommunitiestotheunlikelybutpossibleriskoflosingthemanagementrightstotheirforestsunderseveralconditions,includingnon‐compliancewiththemanagementplan,FDAdecisiontoterminatetheagreementonthebasisofhighersocialandpublicbenefits,andexpirationafterthemanagementperiod.Thebiodiversityapproachwascompliantbutinsufficientoverthelongterm.WhilecompliantwithUSAID’sstandardsforuseofbiodiversityfunding,LRCFPactivities,althoughnecessarytobetterconservethebiodiversityofthetwolandscapesinwhichtheprogramwasimplemented,maynotbesufficientovertimetoimprovetheirbiodiversity.
Agriculturalpracticesintroducedrisknotbeingsustained.Adelayedstarttointroducingnewcultivationandprocessingpractices,andthefreeprovisionofresourcesandtransportationbyLRCFPlimitthenumberofpracticesthatarelikelytobesustainablyadoptedbyfarmers.Theuseofgrantstopromotelivelihooddevelopment,abandonedayearandahalfintotheprogram,forestalledtheintroductionofaneffectiveapproachtointroducingimprovedagriculturalpracticesandpalmoilandcassavaprocessingenterprises.StrengtheningofNTFPvaluechainslimited.FieldworkdevelopingNTFPvaluechainsbeganinearnestonlyinquartereightoftheprogram.Bythetimeoftheevaluation,participantshadexperiencedonlyonesuccessfulseasonofNTFPdomesticationandtwoseasonsofharvesting.Inthistimeperiodtheprogramwasunabletodemonstratetheenvironmentalsustainabilityofharvestingpracticesandtheeconomicviabilityofthemarketingmethodsintroduced.Monitoringandevaluationnoteffectivelyemployed.TheinitialtwoyeardesignofLRCFPmadeunjustifiablethemonitoringofimpactsthatwouldonlybeseenoverthelong‐term.However,theprogramcouldhavemoreeffectivelymonitoredcommunication,livelihood,awarenessraisingandtrainingactivities.Conductingandusinginternalevaluationsandtheeffectiveuseofthemonitoringdatathatwascollectedalsowouldhavestrengthenedtheprogramimplementation.
KeyimplicationsforfutureinvestmentincommunityforestryinLiberia
ContinuesupportforNimbaCountycommunities.LRCFPpilotcommunityforestswillverylikelyrequirecontinuedyetmuchlessintensivesupporttoassurethe
12USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
institutionalizationofthepracticesintroducedbytheprogram.OngoingengagementinthesecommunitieswillalsoenableUSAID,FDA,andtheirpartnerstocontinuetodrawlessonsfromtheirexperiences.ContinuetosupportSinoeCountypilotcommunities.AlthoughUSAIDhasmadethestrategicdecisiontofocusonothercounties,LRCFPinvestments,andpotentialimportantlessonsregardingcommunityforestryriskbeinglostiftheMissiondoesnotremainengaged,atleastindirectly,inthesecommunities.ContinuetoworkwiththewholeoftheGOLtosecurethelandrightsofcommunities.Communitiescannotfullyengageinthemanagementof“their”forestresourceswhilefacingtheriskoflosingaccesstotheirlandbase.RecentprogressonlandtenurebytheGOLcreatesasetofopportunitiestoprovidecommunitieswithsecuretenureunavailabletoLRCFP.Progresswillrequirecollaborationacrossthegovernment.OngoingprocessesoutsideofthemandateoftheFDAthatmaystronglyimpactthetenureofcommunityforestsincludetheREDD+preparednessprogram,landlawreform,andthedevelopmentofconcessionpolicy.AlongwiththeFDAandtheLandCommission,theMIAandMLM&Ewillcontinuetoplayanimportantroleintheallocationofconcessionsandrightsinland.Simplifythemodel.FurtherinvestmentincommunityforestryinLiberiashouldfocusonreducingthebarriersforcommunitiestoestablishandmaintaincommunityforests.ThefivecommunityforestsdevelopedwithLRCFPsupportfollowedaprocessthatexceedsthecapacityofcommunitiestoestablishandmanagetheirown.NoristheFDAlikelytosoonbeabletoadequatelyfulfilltheroleitiscurrentlydesignated.SupportreviewandrevisionoftheregulationstotheCRL.TheCRLregulationsshouldbereviewedwiththeintentionoftheirrevision.Theproceduralhurdlesintheregulationsactasabreakonthewidespreadadoptionofcommunityforestry,andthesecurecontinuationofagreementsoncetheyareapproved.ThetechnicalrequirementsandproceduralconstraintsofthecurrentregulationseffectivelyserveasbarrierstocommunitiestoengageinrightsgrantedbytheCRL.Adoptalandscapeapproach.Tobetteraddressthedisplacementofactivitiesbeingdiscouragedtoareasoutsideofcommunityforests,broadenprogramscopetoincludethecompletemixofforestandnon‐forestresourcescommunitymembersdependupontomeettheirlivelihoodgoals.Developastrategytoaddressthepotentialforelitecaptureandmarginalization.Despitethevirtualimpossibilityofcompleteunderstandingofcommunitypowerdynamics,thepotentialofcommunityforestrytocreatepermanentshiftsinresourceallocationdemandsanexplicitstrategy,impactmonitoring,andfailsafemeasures.ReinforceFDAcapacitytosupportanddefendcommunityforests.TheFDAneedstostrengthenitscapacitytoprovidetechnicalassistance,butjustasimportantisitscapacitytoadvocateforandsupportcommunityforestry.Withoutastronggovernmentaladvocate,giventhesignificantlygreaterresourcesdedicatedtoconservationand,especially,commercialusesofforestland,communityforestrywillremainamarginalplayeronthelandscape.Thisextendstoimprovingthecountry’scapacitytotrainpeopleincommunityforestry;USAIDshouldcontinuetosupporttheFTItoprovideshortcoursesinCF.
13USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Continuetoaddresstheforestryissuesfacedbycommunitiesaffectedbycommercialtimberconcessions.ContinuedworkoncommunityrightswithregardtotimberconcessionswillbroadentheFDA’scapacitytoworkwithcommunities,andmayintheshortrunimpactmorecommunitiesthantheprocessofscalingupauthorizedcommunityforestsfromtheexistingpilotcommunities.Coordinatewiththedecentralizationprocess.Asthecountrymovestowardsestablishingdemocraticallyelectedbodiesoflocaljurisdictions,helpLiberiapreparetofoldcommunityforestmanagementinstitutionsintothebroaderlocalgovernmentstructure.Revisitlivelihoodactivitystrategy.Futurelivelihoodactivitiessupportedshouldaddressthreatstobiodiversity,suchaschain‐sawing,commercialhunting,andcharcoalproductionthroughthecreationofalternate,sustainable,livelihoods.Formalizationofthesevaluechainsmayalsoprovideasourceofrevenuestobecapturedbycommunityforestinstitutions.
Continuebiomonitoringandadaptcommunityforestplanstotheresultsofthismonitoring.ImplementationbytheFDAandcommunitiesincommunityforestsandENNRwillneedtechnicalassistanceandadaptivemanagement.Buildingontheparticipatorythreatsanalysisandmonitoringforesttracksandplotsarewaysthatcommunitiescanbedirectlyengaged.
EngagefullywithconservationNGOs.ProgressinCFrequirescoordinationwithLiberia’sstrongconservationcommunity.HarmoniouscollaborationwilldependonacommondefinitionofCFandthelandscapeapproachused,aswellasmethodsfordemarcationandmapping,andcriteriafortheselectionoftrainees.
14USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionI OverviewoftheEvaluationPurposeandObjectives
USAIDLiberiainitiatedtheLandRightsandCommunityForestryPrograminDecemberof2007toadvancethepolicyandpracticeoflandandforestmanagementinLiberia.Theprogramwasdesignedtoimprovethelegalandpolicyenvironmentforcommunityforestmanagement,buildthecapacityofthenationalforestserviceandcommunitiestodevelopandsustaincommunityforestryprogramsandgenerateenvironmentally‐sustainableandequitableeconomicbenefitsforruralresidents.WorkoftheprimarycontractorforLRCFPconcludedonOctober28,2011.
ThepurposeofthisevaluationistoassesstheimplementationandimpactofLRCFP,identifystrategiestakentoadapttoevolvingconditionsandopportunities,anddetermineandreportontheimplicationsforfurtherinvestmentinLiberiaandforUSAIDatlarge.Theobjectivesoftheevaluationformtwobroadcategories:documentationofresults,accomplishments,challengesandproblems;andassessmentoftheefficiencyandeffectivenessofprojectmanagement.Theyarepresentedindetailintheevaluationscopeofwork,Annex4.
Structureofthereport
FollowinganoverviewofLRCFP,sectionsfocusonsixaspectsoftheprogram:management,communityforestry,landtenure,livelihoodopportunities,biodiversity,andcommunicationandawareness.
Methodology
Documentreviewfortheevaluationwasconductedpriorto,during,andaftertwoweeksinLiberiaduringwhichteammembersengagedininterviewswiththeCOTR,FDAstaff,NimbaCountyofficials,andrepresentativesofNimbaandSinoeCountypilotcommunities.TeammembersconductedatleastoneinterviewwitharepresentativeofallLRCFPcontractgroups:TT/ARD,ACDI/VOCA,AGRHA,CI,NAEAL,exceptforRutgers,CJPS,VirginiaTech,andASNAPP.TeammembersalsometwithrepresentativesoftheLandCommission,ArcelorMittal,andtheForestryTrainingInstitute.TheteamconductednumerousinterviewswithLRCFPTT/ARDandACDI/VOCAstaff.PoorroadconditionsresultingfromheavyrainslimitedthenumberofcommunitymemberstheteamwasabletointerviewinNimbaCounty.NordidtimeconstraintsallowteammemberstotraveltoSinoeCounty,althougheightrepresentativesfromtheNitrianandNumopohpilotcommunitiesgraciouslytraveledtoMonroviaforinterviewswiththeevaluationteam.TheevaluationteamconsistedofUSAID/EGATBiodiversityandSocialScienceSpecialistDianeRussell;USAID/EGATBiodiversitySpecialistAndrewTobiason;USAID/LiberiaAgricultureOfficerKennethHasson;consultantandNRMSpecialistDavidM.Miller;andconsultantandLandTenureandPropertyRightsSpecialistPaulDeWit.Individualteammembersfocusedondifferenttopics.DianeRussellfocusedonprogrammanagement,M&E,andcommunication.AndrewTobiasonfocusedonbiodiversityandsite‐levellandtenure.KennethHassonfocusedonlivelihoodsactivitiesandagriculturalactivities.PaulDeWit
15USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
focusedonlandtenureandpropertyrights.DavidMillerfocusedoncommunityforestry.Despitethisdivisionoflabor,teammembersconductedmostinterviewsinpairs,andsharedresultsthroughdailydiscussions.
PriortoreturningtotheUS,theteammemberspresentedfindingstotheUSAID/LiberiaMission.Intheweeksafterthefieldwork,eachteammemberproducedafirstdraftsectiononhis/hertopic.DavidMillereditedthedraftsectionsandassembledandproducedthefinaldocument.Annex9presentstheteam’sitinerary.
FitwithUSAIDEvaluationPolicy(January2011)
Theevaluationteamincludedtheappropriatemethodologicalandsubjectmatterexpertise.Itproceededonthebasisofawrittendesignthatincludedascopeofworkforeachteammember,anitinerary,keyinformants,andkeyquestionsforeachstakeholdergroupandwassharedwithMissionandimplementingpartnerstaff.Thelargesize,experienceandtechnicalexpertiseoftheevaluationteamroughlycompensatedforthelimiteddurationofthetimeinthefieldforthisevaluation.Whilenonationalcounterpartsparticipatedintheevaluation,whichwasbelatedlyrecognizedasaweakness,theteamwasabletoincludeanewUSAIDForeignServiceOfficer(KenHasson)withtheaimofimprovinghisexposuretothecountryandtoevaluationmethodologies.
Theevaluationassessedresultsagainstprogramworkplansandobjectives,takingintoconsiderationunforeseencircumstances.Thedatacollectionandanalyticmethodsusedtodothisbroughtobjectivitytothefindingsandreducedtheneedforevaluator‐specificjudgments.Totheextentpossible,evaluationfindingsarebasedonfacts,evidenceanddata.Whiletranscriptsofinterviewswerenotproduced,mostinterviewswereconductedinpairs,withindividualevaluatorstakingnotes.Totheextentpossible,thisevaluationidentifies,inthetext,thesourcesofinformationuponwhichfindingsarebased.Becauseinterviewscomprisedaprimarysourceofinformationfortheevaluation,opinionswereasignificantsourceofdata;opinionsthatcouldnotbeverifiedwereeitherexcludedfromthefindingsofthereportorpresentedassuch.Theevaluationcollectedandworkedwithgender‐sensitiveandsex‐disaggregateddatawhereavailable.TheimplicationssectionofthisreportpresentsspecificrecommendationsforbothUSAID/LiberiaandUSAIDgenerally.ThefinaldraftofthisreportwillbesubmittedbyUSAID/LiberiatotheDevelopmentExperienceClearinghouse(DEC)anddisseminatedwithinandoutsideUSAIDastheMissiondeemsappropriate.
16USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionII OverviewoftheProgram
Thedevelopmenthypothesis
TheLRCFPdevelopmenthypothesismaybestatedas:Forestmanagementwillbeimprovedbyincreasingtheauthorityandresponsibilityofcommunitiestomanageforests.Thetransferofforestmanagementtolocalbroadbasedrepresentativeinstitutionswillincreasethetransparencyandequityofforestresourceuse.Expansionoftheroleplayedbypeoplewhoselivelihoodsdependdirectlyuponcontinuedforestproductivityandecosystemserviceswillincreasetheconsiderationgiventosustainabilityinforestmanagementdecisions.Strongerrightstoproducerswhoexploitforestresourceswillalsoincreaseinvestmentinthoseresources.Thebenefitsofthisapproachwillspreadbeyondlocalcommunities.Strengthenedcommunityforestrywillimprovethepracticesofthelocaltimberindustryandreinforcevaluechainsinoverlookedandnewnon‐timberforestproducts.Itwillalsoincreasegovernmentrevenuethroughincreasedtaxesandfees.
Developmentcontext
WhenTT/ARDwasawardedtheLRCFPtaskorderinDecemberof2007onlyfouryearshadpassedsincetheconclusionofLiberia’sfourteenyearsofcivilwar.Thecountrywasfastrebuildingfromdevastatingcivilstrifethatleveledinfrastructure,pre‐emptedtheeducations,livelihoods,andcareersofageneration,dismantledthecountry’sinstitutions,andleftalegacyofdistrustandlatentconflict.Aspartoftherebuildingprocess,thegovernmentwasrevisitingbasicprinciples,andplanningextensivereforms.AGovernanceCommissionhadrecentlybeenestablishedtohelpdesignamoreinclusive,participatory,justandaccountablesystemofgovernment,andaLandCommissiontolookatfundamentalquestionsoflandownershipwasintheoffing.AsLRCFPenteredthescene,nationalexpectationsfortheforestsectorwereveryhigh.Theprivatesector,thegovernment,andthemembersofLiberia’scommunitiesweredependingontheproduction,processingandsaleoftimberandotherforestproductstohelplaunchtheeconomy,resourcethegovernment,andincreaseincomes.Thecountry’scapacitytofoster,supportandregulatethisgrowthinaneven‐handedmannerstoodinstarkcontrastwiththeseexpectations.Indeed,thegovernmentwasintheprocessofrebuildingtheforestrysectorfromscratch.JustpriortoLRCFP,theUSGsupportedtheLiberiaForestInitiative(LFI,)whichhelpedusherinthe2006NationalForestryReformLawand,thatsameyear,Liberia’sNationalForestryPolicyandImplementationStrategy.Thenewlawandpolicyrepresentedadramaticshiftawayfromthecountry’shistoricemphasisoncommercialforestry.Thelawemphasizedtransparency,accountability,andcivilsocietyempowermentandthepolicyarticulatedthe“3Cs”approachwhichproposedthatthecountrypromoteCommercialforestry,CommunityforestryandforestConservationactivitiesinanintegratedandbalancedmanner.Toprovideaninstitutionalhomeforthesenewgovernmentalresponsibilities,theLFIthenhelpedreorganizedthecountry’sForestDevelopment
17USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Authority,whichhadbeenestablishedin1976tohelpgovernthecountry’scommercialforestrysector,tobettersupportthis“3Cs”philosophy.Sonewwastheideathatthestatewouldassurecommunitiesrightsintheforest,thatitdidnotexistinlaw;the2006lawrequiredthatwithinoneyeartheFDApresenttothelegislatureforconsiderationa“comprehensivelawregardingcommunityrightswithrespecttoForestLands.”Thisfundamentallaw,thefirstsolidbeginningsofalegalandregulatoryframeworkforcommunityforestryinLiberiawasexpectedtobesoonpassedasUSAIDdevelopedLRCFP.Ambiguity,frailtyandreformcharacterizedtheadministrationaswell.Evenifthelegalandregulatoryframeworkshadbeencomplete,theadministrationlackedsufficientstaffandresourcestoeffectivelyimplementthem.Andevenifstaffwasavailableinsufficientnumbers,theycouldnotbetrainedinthecountry’sdevastatedtraininginstitutions,theUniversityofLiberia’sCollegeofAgricultureandForestryandtheForestryTrainingInstitute.Thegovernmentlackedtheresourcestoinformtheruralpublicofnewregulations,andtheirnewrightsandresponsibilities.Further,thegovernmenthadyettoclearlycoordinatetheactionsofministriesresponsibleformanagingforestlanduse‐‐forexample,concessionsallocatedbytheMinistryofLands,MinesandEnergy(MLM&E)overlappedcommercialtimberconcessions.Regardingthedevelopmentcontextatthelocallevel,Liberia’scommunities,composedofrelativelycohesivepopulationsdeeplydependentupontheirforests,havehistoricallymanagedtheirrelationshiptoforestresourcesthroughinstitutionswithlocalrepresentation,enforcedrulesofuse,andmechanismsfordisputeresolution.However,ahistoryofinequitablegrowthhasleftthecountry’sforest‐dependentcommunitiesunpreparedforcontemporaryformsofmanagement.LRCFPfoundcommunitymemberslargelyunschooledandpossessingalimitedcapacitytoestablishenterprises,negotiatebureaucratichurdles,managelegalinstruments,orsuccessfullynegotiatecontracts.Ahistoryofharshtacticshadcreatedseveredistrustofthenationalgovernment,especiallytheFDA.Toundertakecommunityforestry,membersofLiberia’scommunitieswouldneedtoovercometraditionalconstraintsbasedongenderandage,settledivisivetenureclaims,aggressivelygaintechnicalandentrepreneurialskills,andmasterthefunctioningofnewinstitutionscreatedtorepresenttheirinterests.LRCFPwasattemptingtodevolvesignificantmanagementauthoritytolocalcommunitiesinanunstableandweakenedcontext;theprogramfacedconsiderablehurdles,includingapotentialforlocaloreliteco‐optationandrenewedconflict.
Programdesign
USAID,workingwiththeUSForestService,designedLRCFPasatwo‐yearefforttoadvancecommunityforestryinLiberia.Thedesignproposedatwo‐prongedapproach,workingatboththenationalandcommunitylevels.Atthenationallevel,LRCFPactivitiesweretofocusonimprovingtheinstitutional,legalandpolicyframeworkforcommunityforestry.Thiswastoincludethestrengtheningofcommunitytenureconditionsonforestlands.Effortsatthislevelwerealsointendedtobuildthecapacityofthegovernmentanditspartnerstopromoteandsustaincommunityforestry.Thecommunitylevelprongoftheapproachconsistedpilotactivitiesintwocountieswhichwouldinformnationalefforts,anddevelopamodelreplicableacrossthecountry.Communitylevelactivitiesconsistedofboththe
18USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
promotionofforestmanagementinstitutions,andtheintroductionofactivitiestoincreasetheeconomicopportunities.Thedesigncomprisedthreeobjectives,whichformedthethreecomponentsoftheprogram.Intheirfinalform:
Component 1—Objective: Legal and policy framework developed and strengthened to support community management and sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity conservation, particularly forests. Component 2—Objective: Land tenure and property rights systems developed and strengthened to assure property rights for all natural resource users/owners. Component 3—Objective: Management of community forests and conservation of their biodiversity improved, and economic opportunities increased for communities and other user groups.
Annex2presentstheLRCFPResultsFramework,revisedcomponentstatements,andthemajorLRCFPWorkplanActivitiesasofJuly2010,Quarter10oftheprogram.
Keyactors
ContractorsPlaceIQCContractorsTT/ARD primarycontractorACDI/VOCA subcontractorConservationInternational subcontractorVirginiaTechUniversity subcontractorWorldResourcesInstitute subcontractorLRCFPsubcontractorsRutgersUniversityASNAPP subcontractor ActionforGreaterHarvest(AGRHA) LiberiansubcontractorCenterforJusticeandPeaceStudies(CJPS) LiberiansubcontractorNationalAdultEducationAssociationofLiberia(NAEAL)LiberiansubcontractorGovernmentofLiberia ForestryDevelopmentAuthority(FDA) LandCommission(LC)ForestryTechnicalInstitute(FTI)UniversityofLiberiaCollegeofAgricultureandForestry(UL‐CAF)PilotCommunitiesandForestsNimbaCounty ForestSize
19USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
ZorCommunity.Twoclans,18villages 1,137haGbaCommunity.Twoclans,12villages TBDha(potentially14,000)ZorandGbaCommunities(JFMB) Bleihforest,638haZorandGbaCommunities(CMC) ENNR13,000+haSinoeCounty ForestSizeNumopohCommunity,36villages 7,267haNitrianCommunity,22villages 959ha
Phasesandcoursecorrections
Projectdurationandextensions:Althoughinitiallydesignedfortwoyears,LRCFPhasthusfarreceivedextensionstocontinueactivitiesuntilMayof2012,afouryearsixmonthduration.USAIDsignedthetwoyearTaskOrderwithTT/ARD,Inc.inDecember2007,withaoneyearoptionperiod.FollowingtheMidtermAssessment(MTA)inJuly2009,theoriginalenddatewasextendedfromDecember2009toMay16,2010throughano‐costextension.InMay2010,USAIDextendedtheprogramperiodthroughDecember2010withadditionalfunding.InJuneof2011,USAIDapprovedafurthereightmonthcostextensionofLRCFPthroughOctober2011.Inexpectationofafollow‐onproject,a“bridgeperiod”granttoACDI/VOCAfromOctober2011throughMay2012willcontinuemanyoftheactivities.ModificationstotheTOandPMP:USAIDmadetwosubstantiveadjustmentstotheStatementofWork.TaskOrdermodificationnumbertwo,signedinthethirdquarteroftheprogram,changedthefirstprogramobjectivetoincludetheterm“biodiversity”andtotakeaccountofthepredominanceofbiodiversityfundinginLRCFP.Atthattime,languagewasalsochangedtogreatlyreducetheemphasisonLTPRintheprogram,giventhedelayintheestablishmentoftheLandCommission.PerformanceMonitoringPlan(PMP)modification.Inprogramquarter14,USAIDacceptedrevisionstothePMPinitiallydiscussedpriortotheendoftheprogram’sfirstyear.Intheoriginaldesignoftheprogram,pilotactivitiesweretotakeplacein10communityforestsand,implicitly,10villages.Duringimplementation,programstaffquicklyrealizedthatthecountry’sforestsaremanagedatthemulti‐villageclanlevel.Withthemodification,thetargetwasreducedtofivecommunities,andthenumberofforestlandmanagementbodiesfromeightalsotofive.ThecommunitieswithwhichLRCFPeventuallyworkedcomprisedovereightytownsandvillages.PMPtargetsforhectaresunderimprovedmanagementwerealsosurpassed.Falsestartwithgrantsinlivelihoodsactivities.IntheinitialworkplantheTT/ARDproposedtosupportthecreationoflivelihoodopportunitiesinpilotcommunitiesthroughagrantsprocess.However,assessmentsofthepilotcommunitiessoondeterminedthataninsufficientnumberofgroupswiththecapacitytomeetUSAIDgrants‐under‐contractrequirementsexistedinthepilotcommunities.Afterthemidtermassessmentinquartersixnotedthelackofprogressinthegrantsprocess,LRCFPabandonedtheapproachinquartersevenandrefocusedlivelihoodsupportthroughanapproachemphasizingin‐kindresourcesandtraining.
20USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Reorientationoflivelihoodactivities.Anoveremphasisonagricultureandthefalsestartusinggrantscontributedtoalatestartaddressingforest‐basedlivelihoodactivities.OncethemidtermassessmentnotedthisdeficiencyLRCFPincreasedworkonNTFPvaluechains.IntheeighthquarterLRCFPconductedanassessmentofpotentialNTFPvaluechainsandbeganworkondevelopingfourofthem.SupportfortheEastNimbaNatureReserve.LRCFPreceivedrequestsfromtheFDAtoworkwithcommunitiesaroundtheENNRintheearlymonthsoftheprogram.Membersofthenearbycommunitiesclaimthatthereserve,createdthroughanactoflegislaturein2003,overlappedwiththeircustomarylands.In2008FDAagentswerechasedfromtheENNRbycommunitymemberswieldingmachetes.AlthoughENNRdidnotfigureintheinitialLRCFPdesign,staffincludedtheactivityinworkplansandeventuallyinvestedconsiderableeffortinconflictmitigationandbuildingacollaborativeframeworkbetweentheFDAandNimbacommunities.Throughthiseffort,LRCFPeventuallyhelpedestablishthecountry’sfirsteverco‐managementconservationagreement.TheFDA,theco‐managementcommittee,andLRCFPstaffweredevelopingtheco‐managementplanatthetimeofthisevaluation.CollaborativeForestManagement.InitialassessmentsinNimbaCountyrevealedthatthetwocommunities,GbaandZor,claimedoverlappingownershipintheBleihforest.TheLRCFPdesigndidnotincludeestablishingthecollaborativemanagementofforestsbytwocommunities.AswiththeENNR,theprograminvestedconsiderabletimeinconflictresolutionandnegotiationsandeventuallydevelopedinstitutionstojointlymanagetheforest.LRCFPwasfinalizingthemanagementplanfortheBleihforestatthetimeoftheevaluation.Supportforcommunitiesaffectedbycommerciallogging.USAIDdesignedLRCFPtofocusoncommunityforestry.Supportforthecompensationofcommunitiesnearlargetimberconcessionsdidnotfallwithinthereachoftheprogram’sinitialobjectives.Nevertheless,whenMissionandLRCFPstaffrecognizedanabsenceofprogressontheissue,LRCFPbegantoworkontheactualizationofFDAregulation106‐07whichrequiredthatfinancialbenefitstocommunitiesfromcommercialloggingbedisbursedtocommunitiesthroughatrust.TheprogramorganizedaBenefit‐SharingMechanismWorkingGroup,whichdefinedhowthetrustwouldwork.And,inthemonthsjustpriortothisevaluation,theFDAauthorizedthe“RegulationonProcedurestoAccessandManageFundsonBehalfofAffectedCommunitiesbyCommunityForestryDevelopmentCommittees.”TheNationalBenefitTrustBoardmetforthefirsttimeontheFridaypriortotheevaluationteam’sarrival.LRCFPalsoprovidedtechnicalassistanceinthereviewofSocialAgreementsbetweencompaniesandcommunities.
TimelineofProgramImplementation
Q1 12/07‐03/08 Mid‐December2007theTaskOrderawardedtoTT/ARD. ProgramLaunchWorkshop InitialparticipationondraftingofCommunityRightsLaw InitialcontactwithFDAandcommunitiesQ204/08–06/08 NimbaCountycommunitiesselectedandprofiled
21USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Q307/08–09/08 VirginiaTechtrainingassessmentproduced WRI“bestpractices”inCFreportproduced Co‐managementofBleihproposedandagreeduponinprinciple ENNRco‐managementalsoagreedtoinprinciple FDAstaffsecondedtoLRCFP LRCFPstaffcommitstosupportingSocialAgreementswork TORmodifiedtoalignwithbiodiversityfundingandchangeLTPRobjectivesQR4 10/08–12/08 Officesopenedintwocounties GrowingconcernovergrantsinlivelihoodscomponentQR5 01/09–03/09 ForestManagementBodiescreated ProfilesofSinoecommunitiescompleted NTFPworkplannedtobegininQ7,duetogrowing/harvestseasonsQR6 04/06‐06/09 AssessmentofSocialAgreements MidtermAssessmentQR7 07/09–09/09 FirstCOPdeparts.Secondarrives. FDAstudytourinCameroon. ReassessmentofgrantsprogramQR8 10/09–12/09 CommunityRightsLawsigned LandCommissionauthorized FarmerFieldSchoolsbegun ASNAPPsub‐contractandassessment ReconfigurationofinstitutionstomeetcriteriaoftheCRLbegun Fourvaluechainsselected
QR9 01/10–03/10 DevelopmentofregulationstotheCRLinitiated ENNRdemarcationbegins ConsultationonBenefitsSharingTrust FirstlandtenureexpertresignsQR10 4/10–6/10 Agreementsignedonco‐managementofENNR Extensionapproved Secondlandtenureexperthired
22USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
QR11 7/10–9/10 ENNRco‐managementagreementsigned UL‐CAFandFTIAssessmentscompleted BiodiversitythreatsanalysesundertakeninvillagesQR12 10/10–12/10 ProcessforincorporationofCAsinitiated Eightmonthextensionto8/11granted ThirdCOParrivesQR13 1/11–3/11 LandCommissionersvisitpilotcommunities.Workshopsheld NimbacountyCFMBconstitutionsregistered Sinoecountydemarcationbegun CassavamillsintroducedtocommunitiesQR14 4/11–6/11 AuthorizationofCRLregulations Authorizationofthe“RegulationonProcedurestoAccessandManageFundson
BehalfofAffectedCommunitiesbyCommunityForestryDevelopmentCommittees” RadioshowsandnationalTVfeaturesbegin Projectdonatesvehicles,radios,andmotorcyclestoFDAconservationdepartment Boundarydemarcationcompletedinallfiveforestscompleted Zoningandinventoriesconductedinallfiveforests MOUswithcassavamillsandoilpalmpressessigned Fourcassavamillsintroduced
QR15 7/11Twomonthextensionthrough10/11approved BridgeperiodgranttoACDI/VOCAfrom10/11to6/12approved
23USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionIII Management
ManagementBackgroundandEvolution
LRCFPisaTaskOrder(TO)underthePLACEIQC.ManagedbyTetraTech/ARD(TT/ARD),theconsortiumincludestheUSbasedinstitutionsACDI/VOCA,ConservationInternational,VirginiaTechUniversity(VTU),andWorldResourcesInstitute(WRI)aswellasthreeLiberianNGOs:theNationalAdultEducationAssociationofLiberia(NAEAL),theCenterforJusticeandPeaceStudies(CJPS)andActionforGreaterHarvest(AGRHA).TheTOwasawardedin2007foraninitialperiodoftwoyears.TheMTAinJuly2008recommendedthatUSAIDexerciseitsoptiontoextendforathirdyear.Aseven‐monthextensionwasapprovedinmid‐2010.Attheendof2010,anothereight‐monthextensionbroughttheprojecttoitsfinalclosingdateofAugust31,2011.TheCOTRgrantedafinaltwomonthextensionuntilOctober28,2011.Thusaprojectinitiallydesignedfortwoyearsstretchedoutoveralmostfouryears.A“bridgeperiod”granttoACDI/VOCAfromOctober2011throughMay2012willcontinuemanyoftheactivitiesandhopefullyalignwiththeawardingofanewproject.Overthefouryears,thetotalbudgetforthisTOwas$104million.LRCFPoperatedthreeoffices—amainofficeinMonroviaandfieldofficesinNimba(Sanniquellie)andSinoe(Greenville)andhadapermanentstaffofaround36individuals.ThroughouttheLifeofProject(LOP),DanWhyner,ForestryAdvisoratUSAID/Monrovia,servedastheContractingOfficer’sTechnicalRepresentative(COTR)withBrianAaronastheleadContractingOfficer.
ManagementTimeline
Q1 12/07‐03/08 Mid‐December2007,TaskOrderawardedtoTT/ARDQ204/08–06/08 LandCommissionnotestablished.CRLdelayed.TT/ARDrequestsTOmodification Realizationthatcan’tfocusonjustafewtownsatcountylevel NimbacommunitiesselectedandprofiledQ307/08–09/08 TT/ARDsupportsninepage“framework”CRL.TheLegislatureapproves32page
version ContinuednegotiationsinNimbaandexplorationforpilotcommunitiesinSinoe Co‐managementofBleihproposedandagreeduponinprinciple.IdeaofENNRco‐
managementintroducedtotheFDA. TwoFDAstaffsecondedtoLRCFP MidtermAssessmentreportcompleted ModificationofTORtoalignwithbiodiversityfundingQR4 10/08–12/08
24USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
OfficesopenedinSanniquellieandGreenville
QR5 01/09–03/09 SinoeofficeopenedQR7 07/09–09/09 FirstCOPIanDeshmukhleaves.SecondCOPAllenTurnerarrives.QR8 10/09–12/09 CRLsigned LCauthorized ASNAPPsubcontractawarded.NTFPandassessmentconducted SOWforSTTAworkingonsocialinclusion,equity,gender Fourmonthsleftincontract,waitingforextensiontobeconfirmedQR9 01/10–03/10 STTAongender Sevenmonthextensionnotyetapproved JamesMurombedzi,internationalLTPRtechnicalstaffresigns2/10 Trainingingendercapacityskilldevelopmentto19peopleinthepilotcommunities.QR10 4/10–6/10 SupportprovidedFDAtodevelopatemplatecommunityforestmanagementplan Extensionapproved.SecondinternationalLTPRstaffSolomonMombeshoraon
board. TeamfromTT/ARDarrivestoassurecompliancewithUSAIDregulations.Mostpart
ingoodshapebutmadesomechangesinaccounting.Staffevaluationsconducted.Staffputonannualsixmonthcontracts.
QR11 7/10–9/10 Biodiversitythreatsanalysesundertakeninvillages Extensionthrough8/11proposedQR12 10/10–12/10 ENNRco‐managementcommitteeformed Eightmonthextensionto8/11granted SecondCOPAlanTurnerreplacedbythirdCOPVaneskaLitzQR13 1/11–3/11 CommunityforestdemarcationinSinoeCountybegins
25USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
QR14 4/11–6/11 FinalapprovalofCRLregulations USAIDprovidesfundingthroughLRCFPtoenablethedonationofvehicles,radios,
andmotorcyclestoFDAinsupportofconservationactivitiesinthefoursectoroffices
AgainthroughUSAID,LRCFPprovidescomputerstoFTI Boundarydemarcationinallfiveforestscompleted Zoningandinventoriesconductedinallfiveforests10/28/11 EndofTT/ARDmanagementofLRCFP11/1/11‐5/30/12 Bridgingproject(grant)implementedbyACDI/VOCA.SOWtobedeveloped Likelyadd‐onactivities:Treecrops(coffee,cocoa) Mostlocalstaffagreestocontinueemploymentwiththebridgingactivities
ManagementResults
ProgramlevelresultsOverallmanagementrelations.StaffofboththeprimecontractorandsubcontractorscommendedTetraTech/ARD’s(TT/ARD)participatoryandinclusivemanagementstyle.Theyvalued,inparticular,thetechnicalassistanceandcoachingmadeavailablebyTT/ARD.AGRHADirectorKemayahnoted,“ARDdoesnotforceustodothings.Wedon’tseea‘verticalstyle’ofmanagement,butaflatstructure.”FDAManagingDirectorWogbeh,thekeypartnerforLRCFP,remarkedthatFDAhas“verycordial”relationshipwithLRCFP.
Contractor‐USAIDrelations.LRCFP’sthirdCOPVaneskaLitzfindsCOTRDanWhynertobehighlysupportive,wellinformedandmaintainingexcellentrelationswithpartnersandotherstakeholders.TheevaluationteamwastoldthatDanmadethetimetomeeteveryweekwiththeproject,sothatissuesandquestionsdidnotbuildupandcouldbetackledimmediately.Thismanagementstylecontributedgreatlytotheflexibleadaptivemanagementapproachneededintheprojectandcountrycontext.Whenanissueemergedataworkshoponthenationalbenefitsharingtrusthedealtwithitextremelywell,skillfullyavoidingconflictandmisunderstanding.Adaptivemanagement.OverallLRCFPasaprojectexhibitedahighlevelofadaptivemanagement.ThisadaptivespiritwasillustratedintheLRCFPresponsetotheMTAfindingsonlivelihoodsandgender.Regardinglivelihoods,asdocumented,LRCFPsignificantlyrevampeditsstrategyasaresultoftheMTAandotherinputs.Althoughtimeconstraintslimitedeffectiveness,thestrategyisnowpointedintherightdirection.LRCFPalsorespondedtotherecommendationintheMTAtodevelopagenderstrategythroughSSTAonthetopictoconducttrainingofstafffromFDAandNGOs.Asaresult,theFDAreportsthattheyhavemadeanactiveeffortcultivateandrecruitwomenprofessionals.For
26USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
example,womenweretrainedandparticipatedinbiomonitoring.AwomanledoneoftheFDAinventoryandzoningteams.InformationalsosuggeststhatLRCFPhashadanimpactontheroleofwomeninpilotcommunities.ConstitutionsrequiregenderrepresentationonCAs,andatleastonewomanonCFMBs.ManagementcommitteesoftheFFS,NTFP,andcassavaandpalmoilproducergroupsalsoincludewomen.LRCFPstaffandcommunitymemberssuggestthatwomenhadnotheldsuchpositionsofauthorityinthepast.(Genderbalancedstaffingneverthelessremainsanissueandisdiscussedbelow.)
Workplanningandreporting.FromtheCOTR’sperspective,trustandmutualunderstandingcharacterizedtheworkplanningprocess.Therewerethusnobigsurprisesintheworkplanastheytalkeditthroughbeforetheofficialdraftcamein.Thenumberofthingsthatwentagainstexpectations–delaysandnewopportunities‐‐requiredthislevelofcommunicationtoallowprogrammanagementtoadaptefficiently.UnderstandingandtrustbetweenTT/ARDandtheCOTRwassufficientlysolidthatitwasnotstrainedwhen,towardstheendoftheprogram,TT/ARDwasrequestedtomakeadeparturefromplansandincludedarequestforvehiclesforFDAinacostmodification.
Atthesitelevel,accordingtotheNimbastaff,workplanningwasacollaborativeeffortamongLRCFPstaff,subcontractorsandcommunities.Staffidentifiedinitialactivitiesandnextstepswiththecommunityandbudgetedthemout.Theythenreturnedtothecommunitytoreviewthebudget.OfficemanagersinturnsubmittedtheworkplanandbudgettoMonroviaforreviewandfinalization.Whilethecommunitywasnotprivytothewholebudgettheydidgetexperienceinbudgetingthroughthisprocess.
ClearanddetailedreportingprotocolswereobservedattheNimbaoffice,andattheprogramlevel,theCOTRreportedhavingnoproblemswiththetimeliness,quality,anddetailofreporting.OnthefewoccasionsTT/ARDhadtopresentreportsslightlylate,theyinformedtheCOTR.Quarterlyreportsandworkplansreviewedbytheevaluationteamwerethorough,clear,andprovidedadetailedhistoryofprogramactivitiesandprogress.ContractsOfficeoverload.LitzidentifiedoneconcernregardingtheloadonUSAID/Liberia’sContractsOffice.ThefactthatLRCFPprioritiesregularlyadaptedtochangingconditionsresultedintheneedforadditionalSTTAonrelativelyshortnotice.ThenecessaryapprovalofdailyratesfortheseSTTAcandidatesplacedadditionalburdensonanofficethatwasalreadystrainingunderaheavyworkload.ThistaskisnottypicallydelegatedtoCOTR,butperhapsauthoritycouldhavebeenextendedtohimunderthecircumstances.
Budgetingandfinancialmanagement. TheCOTRreviewedvouchersandaskedquestionsonvouchers.Keyexpensesincludedbanktransfers,Internetcosts,housing,andtransport/vehiclewearandtear.MaintainingcountyofficescostmuchlessthantheMonroviaoffice.ThelocalsubcontractsundertakeninLRCFPalsoprovedtobecost‐effective;whiletheyrequiredTT/ARDoversight,theywereperformance‐basedandtargeteddeliverablestoachieveresultsefficiently.Ontheotherhand,theCOTRnotesthatitisveryexpensivetoworkinLiberiaandTT/ARDmaynothavefullygraspedtheextentofthesecostsgoingintotheprogram.Thedecisiontochangethescopeoffieldsitesfromfourvillagestothemuchlargerclanareasresultedinfurtherunanticipatedcostsintransportationandlogistics.
27USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Itishardtodeterminevaluerelativetocostforotherdeliverables.Ingeneral,workshopsandmeetingswereexpensive,duelargelytothecostoftransportingpeoplelongdistancesinacountrywithoutpublictransport.TheimpactwasfeltintheprocessofpubliccommentandconsultationontheregulationstotheCRLregulations.(Also,noticesweresentouttomanynewspaperswhichincreasedthenumberofpeople,andraisedcostsbeyondexpectations.)Incontrast,outreachandradiotimewereinexpensive,yetimpactswerenotthoroughlyevaluatedbytheproject.LRCFPstudytoursprovedusefulandrelativelyinexpensive.OntheCameroonstudytour,theFDADirectorforgedalliancescommunityforestryactorsinthatcountry.LCCommissionerBrandyalsoreportshavinggainedinsightsonthattrip.LRCFPsupportforLCCommissionerstoconductworkshopsinthepilotcommunitiesprovidedcommissionerstheirfirstopportunityintheirpositionstolearnfirsthandabouttenureinthepilotcommunities.USAID'sdecisiontodonatetrucksandmotorcyclesfornationallevelprotectedareamanagementaswellasfourcomputersandinternetaccesstotheFDAallfilledcriticalgapsincapacityandwillimprovebiodiversityconservation.However,allbutoneofthevehiclesareuseinareasoutsidetheLRCFPpilotcommunities,makingthisalessthanstrategicformofsupportfromtheperspectiveoftheprogram.ThehighlevelofpettycorruptioninLiberiarequiredLRCFPtomanagefinancesstrictlyandbeconstantlyvigilant.Managementreportedthateverynewexpensecreatedopportunitiesforpadding.TT/ARDhasbeencarefultomonitorthisandinstitutedazerotolerancepolicyonfinancialtransactions.Onoccasiontheyhavesuspendedstaffforpresentingfalsereceipts.TT/ARDhasdiscussedtheissuefranklyandsharedtheirpolicywithUSAID.IntheNimbaOffice,EdwardPaye,thefinancemanager,hasadegreeinaccounting.OfficeManagerNuahBiahwasanagriculturalservicesmanageronafarmandlearnedbookkeepingandfinancesinthatjob.Allfinancialtransactionsarerecordedandverifiedonprojectforms.MoneyandaccountingmaterialsarekeptunderlockandkeyundercontrolofMr.Paye.JoshuaWilliams,financialmanagerbasedinMonrovia,comestoNimbaeverytwotothreemonthstoconductaudits.LRCFPhasalsoworkedwithcommunitymemberstostrengthenfinancialmanagementskillsandsystems.Thestaffprocuredfoodandmaterialsalongsidecommunitymembersandsite‐basedstafftohelpthemlearnhowtomanagefinances.AccordingtoNimbaOfficeManager,NuahBiah,therehavebeennoproblemsoffraud.
StaffingGiventhedifficultyofworkinginruralLiberiaandthechallengesofthetechnicalareassupportedbyLRCFP,theprogramsurprisinglyexperiencedhighpersonnelratesofsatisfactionandretention.TheevaluationteamwitnessedgenuinecommitmentandenthusiasmbytheNimbaofficestaff.ItisalsoatestamenttoLRCFPmanagementthat,withtheexceptionofthefirstinternationalSeniorLandTenureSpecialistandthefirstOfficeManagerintheNimbaOffice,theprogramlostonlylow‐performingindividuals.LRCFPhaspaidrelativelyhighsalariesforitsseniornon‐Americanstaff.RetainingthisstaffmayposeaproblemforACDI/VOCAduringbridgingperiodespeciallyinthepresenceofthenewlyawardedFEDproject,thoughthathasnotappearedtobeaproblemtodate.Other
28USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
incentives,suchascapacitybuildingandcomputertraininginparticular,appeartobeapossibleusefulmeanstostrengthenemployeeincentivesinLiberia.
Genderissuesinstaffing.LRCFPhashadlimitedsuccessinhiringwomenstaff.NowomenappliedwhentheprogramrehiredforthelivelihoodsandM&Epositions.CurrentlytheCOPandtheAdministratoraretheonlywomenonTT/ARD’sstaff,whileawomanholdsoneoftheCJPScommunityorganizerpositions;afemaleGISanalystfromFDAledfieldteams,andfemaleFTIstudentsparticipatedinthedemarcationofforests.AsrecommendedintheMTA,aproactivestrategyofidentifyingandmentoringwomenisneededtofillthesegaps.
ShortTermTechnicalAssistance(STTA).AccordingtoCOPLitz,LRCFPhasstruggledwithSTTAinLiberiadueverylowlevelsofcapacityofpotentialTAcandidateswhohavesufficientknowledgeofthecountryandpre‐existingtrustbylocalstakeholders.Longerconsultations,suchastheeightmonthsPeterDeWaardhasspentinthecountry,workmuchbetter.Nevertheless,theprogramfrequentlyusedSTTAtocontributetotheteam’sexpertise,especiallywhentheprogrammovedinnewdirectionsorconfrontedstubbornissues.Forexample:
LRCFPcalleduponaconsultanttoassistinworkoutsideinitialscope,addressingSocialAgreementsandthemanagementofaffectedcommunitybenefits.ThesereportsandthisassistanceenabledtheprogramtoestablishtheNationalBenefitSharingTrustBoard.
BriefhomeofficesupporttoaddressconflictmanagementissuesintheNimbapilotcommunitiesprovidedoutsidefacilitationandmovedtheprogramforwardduringaverytenseperiod.
GIStrainingprovidedthroughSTTAlaunchedandenabledthedemarcation,inventory,andzoningofthecommunityforests.
Assistanceincommunityprofilingearlyintheprogramhelpedtheprogramrealizetheneedtomovefromavillage‐basedapproachtoaclan‐basedone.
Thealternativeproteinsstudyhasinformedprogramdesign.Forexample,ithasclarifiedforthelivelihoodsteamquestionsaboutlivestockmanagement.
Inothercases,theprogramusedSTTAlessstrategically. TheprogramdidnotusetheresultsoftheinitialassessmentofNTFPsand
eventuallyrelieduponasecondassessmentandtechnicalassistanceofASNAPPtoimplementfieldactivities.
LRCFPcouldhavetakengreateradvantageofinternationalexperiencetoraisegovernmentalandNGOawarenessoflandtenureissuesrelativetocommunityforestry.
SubcontractorsIntegratedprogrammingcanbecarriedoutbyoneinstitutionorthroughaconsortium,aswasdoneinthiscase.Thereareclearlytradeoffsandtransactioncostswhenaconsortiumimplementsaprogram.InthecaseofLRCFPitseemsthattheconsortiumstructuregenerallyworkedwell.COTRDanWhynerattributessomechallengeswiththesubcontractorstothenatureoftheIQCthatputintoplaceafixedgroupofinstitutions.Heandthecontractorwereconstrainedtoworkwithintheexistingconsortiumratherthanreachingouttothebestpartneravailable.Timelinesandincrementalfundingalsoreducedflexibility.Intheend,mostsubcontractorperformanceissueswereresolved,withtheexceptionoftheongoingchallengeswithConservationInternational,discussedbelow.
29USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
InternationalSubcontractorsACDI/VOCA.InthefirststagesofLRCFP,ACDIdidnotembraceCFasabusinessandthelivelihoodapproachdidnotdirectlysupportCFobjectives.TheMTAidentifiedthisasasignificantissue.Atthattime,virtuallynoresultswerevisibleinthefield.InthetwoquartersaftertheMTA,theprogramabandonedthegrantsapproach,andbegantoimplementthefieldactivities.FurtherintotheprogramUSAIDdecidedthatimplementingthelivelihoodscomponentthroughSTTAwasnotcost‐effectiveandapprovedanexpatriateLTTAposition.WiththearrivalofPeterDeWaard,managementissuesdecreasedandbetterresultswereproduced.TheACDIrepresentativeworkedwellwiththeTT/ARDCOP,andthelivelihoodsteamtookonnewfocusandadoptednewapproachesandnewtools.Thelong‐termpresenceaddedenergyandexperiencetothelivelihoodactivitiesandLRCFPingeneral.Theseeffortsrepresentasignificantturnaroundintheperformanceofthissubcontractor,buttheycomelateintheproject.TT/ARDsubcontractedAGRHA,whosestaffimplementstheFarmerFieldSchool(FFS)activitiesthatACDIsupervises.Despitetheseindirectlinesofresponsibilitynomajorissueswerereportedtotheevaluationteam.ACDIdidnotbringanyissuestoTT/ARDforresolution.ACDImanagessevenprojectsinLiberiawithonlythreeCOPsandfourexpatriatestaff.TheCOPsoftheseprogramscoordinateandshareinformation.DeWaardisworkingwithotherspecialistsontreecrops,forexample.TheseexchangeshavebroadenedDeWaard’sperspectivesofpossiblelivelihoodsoptionsinLRCFP,suchascocoaandfishfarming.ASNAPP.TT/ARDdirectlysubcontractedwithGhanabasedAgribusinessinSustainableNaturalPlantProducts(ASNAPP)afteratriptoGhana.ASNAPPwasanexcellentchoicetohelpdevelopmarketsfornon‐timberforestproducts(NTFPs).Concreteevidenceforthisimprovementistheincreasefrom700kgto9,000kgofGriffoniaexportedoveroneyear.ASNAPPhasconductedtheinitialassessmentandconductedtrainingwhileACDIandAGRHAperformedthefollowupsupport.Evaluatorssensedthattheambiguityofthisdivisionofresponsibilitiesmayhavecausedfrictionbetweenthetwoorganizations.Further,Rutgersmakesproprietaryclaimsoncompoundstheydiscover,whichmayalsoincreasetension.VirginiaTechandWRI.NeithersubcontractorperformedsubstantialworkforLRCFPsincetheMTA.Nonewasplanned.Whiletheiranalyticalresourcescontributedtotheinitialimplementationoftheprogramitwasnotnecessaryduringthelatterportion.ConservationInternational(CI)TheevaluationteamfoundthattheunderperformanceofCIasasubcontractorwasaseriousadministrativechallengeforLRCFP.TherewereseveralfactorstoconsiderinassessingtheperformanceofCIandofTT/ARDastheprimecontractormanagingCI:
TheresponsibilityofTT/ARDtoassureperformanceofasubcontractor.
30USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
ThefactthatCIisanestablishedinstitutionwithinLiberiawithitsownagendaandsetofpartners.
ExistingrelationshipsbetweenCIandUSAID.Forexample,CIhasprovidedanoverallframeworkforconservationintheUpperGuineaforestregionthatUSAIDadopted.WithinLiberia,CIisimplementingaprojectinandaroundSapoNationalPark.
ThelackofattentiontoCIperformanceintheMTAduetootherpressingconcerns,littletimetomeetwithCIandbeliefthatmisunderstandingscouldbeaddressedbychangesinthefocusofthesubcontractagreement,whereclearlythereweremorefundamentalproblems.LackofcoordinationandclaritypersistedinthecaseofCIaftertheMTAwhereasmuchimprovementwasmadeintheACDI/VOCAsubcontract.InthatcaseduringtheMTAthelivelihoodsteamledbyACDI/VOCAspenthalfadayhashingoutproblemsandpossiblesolutions.
ThechangesinpersonnelinbothLRCFPandCI.Withthesefactorsinmind,thebottomlineisthatCIsignificantlyunderperformedasasubcontractorinLRCFP.Deliverableswerelateandhadtobereturnedforimprovement.Therewaspoorcommunicationandlackofclarityonwhatwasexpectedaswellasonlogisticsandtrainingapproaches.Astheprime,TT/ARDbearsresponsibilityforoverallperformanceofLRCFP.TheywereveryconsciousthatCI’sunderperformanceandlackofintegrationposedavulnerabilitytotheiroverallgoodmanagementandresultsrecord.DeadlinesweresetandTT/ARDprovidedoversightonthedeliverables.Howeverthehardworkonbothsidesseemstohavecomeattheendoftheproject,toolatetosignificantlyimprovethedeliverablesandtherelationship.Thisunderperformanceledtoalessthanstrategicapproachtobiodiversityconservation,asdetailedinthesectiononbiodiversity.TT/ARDtooksomeimportantstepstoimprovetheLRCFPbiodiversityapproachbyconductingaparticipatorythreatsanalysis(recommendedintheMTA)butitisnotclearthatthiswasdiscussedwithCIorlinkedtothebiomonitoringactivities.Biomonitoringapproachesclashed,leavinginquestionhowtoproceedinawaythatisbothlocallysustainableandintegratedwithregionalbiomonitoringprotocols.TT/ARDstruggledtodeterminetherightapproachtomanagingCI,giventheorganization’sinternationalstatureontheonehandanditslackoflocalstaffcapacityontheother.TheremayhavebeenshiftingviewpointsonwhattodoamongtheLRCFPCOPs,orjustnotenoughattentiontotheissueuntilthefinalyear.Belowwepresentsomeofthekeyperformanceandtechnicalissuesandrecommendsomenextsteps.Thesenextstepswillonlybefeasible,however,ifCIsignificantlystrengthensitscapacityinLiberia.TT/ARDreportedthatduringtheLOPCIdidnotintegratewellintotheconsortiumandthisproblem(alsoidentifiedbyCI)togetherwithlackofstaffcapacityandweakhomeofficesupportresultedinpoorcommunication,substandarddeliverablesandmisseddeadlines.Forinstance,adeadlineforafinalreportonAugust15,2011wasmissedandthefinalreportthatwasdeliveredneededtobesubstantiallyrewritten.AccordingtoCI,theirbudgetwascutwithoutnoticewhenAllanTurnercameinasCOP.Inaddition,theywerenotinvitedtopartnermeetingsuntilCITechnicalDirectorJessicaDonovanattendedthe13thpartnershipmeeting.ItisnotclearifthesemeetingswerelargelyforlocalpartnersbutJessicabelievesACDIattendedatleastsomeofthemeetings.LRCFPmanagementadmitsthattheyhavesomeresponsibilityforthepoorintegration.
31USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Therehasthusbeenlittlecross‐fertilizationbetweenCIandotherLRCFPpartners,withtheexceptionofinteractiononthedevelopmentoftheCRL.CIdifferedontechnicalgroundswiththeprimecontractoronsomeactivitiesanddeliverables.Forinstance,TT/ARDandCIhaddifferencesofopinionandmisunderstandingsoverbiomonitoringtrainingandmethodology.CItookthepositionthatallinstitutionsshouldusethemethodologypromotedbytheWildChimpanzeeFoundation(WCF)throughouttheregion.TT/ARDsupportedtheuseofaGPS‐basedmethodologythatwasusedinforestdemarcationandbuiltontrainingalreadyconductedundertheprogram.ReportsontheCIbiomonitoringworkinNimbaprovideinsightintotheorganization’sperformance.CIproposedtoconductmonitoringintheZorforest,butstoppedafter14days.AlthoughtheyrequestedfurthertimetocompletemonitoringoftheBleihforest,theydidnotcompletethetask,samplingonly19plotsoutofaninitial36planned.TheLiberianNimbaOfficemanagersecondedtoLRCFPfromFDAmonitoredthetrainingofcommunitymembersandfeltthatthescientistsconductingthetrainingdidnotlistentocommunitymembers,andthattheapproachusedunderminedtrust.CIontheotherhandfeltthatsometraineesidentifiedbyTT/ARDwerenotqualifiedandthatlogisticalsupportwasinadequate,hamperingoperations.Boxes1and2illustratedifferencesofopinionandapproachbetweenCIandotherLRFCPpartners.TT/ARDreportsthatCIdidnotdeliverthesurveydesign,butCIthoughtitwasdelivered.TT/ARDwantedamethodologybutthenatureofthedeliverablewasunclear.Ingeneral,deliverablesinthecontractwerenotcleartoCI.CIalsofeltthattherewasnorealcounterparttoworkwithonbiodiversityactivitiesontheTT/ARDsideandthislimitedcommunications.ThetwogroupsalsodifferedintheiroverallapproachtothereservesinNimbaCounty.CIsupportstakingaparticularlandscapeapproachforboththeEastandWestNimbaNatureReserves.TT/ARDandothersubcontractorsbelievethatthisapproachwouldgivetoomuchcontroltotheFDAand,althoughitwouldbeaco‐managementsystem,wouldprovidefewerrightstothecommunities.BasedonexperiencewiththeBleihandZorforests,TT/ARDsupportedanapproachthattheybelievegrantedmorerightstocommunities.TheyalsobelievethattheLRCFPapproachisalandscapeapproach.Thebottomlineisthattherehasnotbeenanaccordonwhatalandscapeapproachmeansandimpliesforlocalactors.Ontheadministrativeside,CIperceivedthatTT/ARDwasmovingquicklyandpushingeveryoneondeliverablesinthePMPastheendoftheprojectneared.Thispressurecouldcontributetomiscommunication.Forinstance,JessicaDonovanthoughtthebiomonitoring
BOX1:Perspectives from the Nimba Office on the CI biomonitoring work
LRCFP said time was running out to finish the biomonitoring but CI asked for more time
Zor forest biomonitoring was planned for 30 days but stopped after 14 days
CI requested more time for the Bleih forest but only did a portion
CI sampled 19 out of 36 planned sampling plots
It was necessary for the Nimba Office Manager Biah to monitor community member work despite the presence of two scientists CI sent to train community members
CI was late in submitting their report; it had not come out at the time of the evaluation
The CI approach would not provide real rights to local community members.
32USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
reportwasgoingtowaituntilshehadrevieweditaftervacationbutitwentoutfromtheofficeallegedlyduetopressurefromTT/ARD.Itwasnotsupposedtobethefinalreport.NowCIfeelstheyhaveaddressedtheissueandwillcomeupwithproducttheystandbehind.TherehasbeenimprovementsinceVaneskaLitz’sarrival.CIdidnotfeeltheywerereallyengagedintheworkuntilthefinalmonthsoftheprogramwhentherewasmuchmoreinteraction.BorwenSayonwasattendingmeetingsatthetimeoftheevaluation.Bothpartiesshouldhaveprioritizedacomprehensivereviewofthetermsofreferenceofthesubcontract,thelevelofeffortneeded,personnelandtraineequalifications,standardsandmethodologiestoassurethatthedeliverablescouldbeproducedontimeandbeofsufficientquality.Itseemsthatperformanceandtechnicalissueswereaddressedinapiecemealfashion.Onthepositiveside,TT/ARDfoundmuchvalueinCISTTASeanGriffin’sworkonlanduseassessmentsandmappingtounderstandforestcover.LRCFPstafffeelsthatengagingwiththeconservationsector(CI,FFI)isessentialforCFtoadvanceinLiberiaastheyhaveastrongvoiceandindependentresources.AlargerdiscussionabouttheCIapproachinNimbaisneededasitisunclearhowtheydefineandsupportCFaroundWestNimba.TheNimbaOfficeManagerfeelsitisessentialtolistentotheGbapeopleintheprocessandthatCI’sapproachisunderminingtrust.Similarlythereisconfusionandcontradictioninthedefinition
of“communal”forestsaspromulgatedbyFaunaandFloraInternational(FFI)aroundSapoNationalPark(SNP).TheevaluationteamfindsthatalthoughtheTT/ARD‐CIrelationshipwasdysfunctionalthroughouttheLOP,thereishopeforexpandedcollaborationbetweenCIandanysuccessortoLRCFP.Theteamdocumentedtheissuesabovefortherecordbutthefollowupismuchmoreimportant.Futurepartnershipshouldreston:
Consensusontheimportanceanddefinitionofcommunityforestry AgreementonalandscapeapproachinNimba,throughoutLiberiaandacross
nationalboundaries
BOX2:CI perspective on biomonitoring and the management plan for ENNR
The Sinoe team was not trained because they did not come to participate in the ENNR demarcation
The management plan for ENNR was not in their subcontract
TT/ARD managed the demarcation; CI was very little involved
LRCFP consultant John Waugh held a meeting on ENNR, but there was no follow up
Miguel Morales of CI developed an Action Plan for ENNR earlier
Funding cuts prevented CI from doing biomonitoring for ENNR; the number and identity of people to be involved was not clear
Only six people showed up first (AML funded) training
Transects were supposed to go be conducted for a month but lasted two weeks
Trainees, selected by other contractors, had no literacy skills or equipment
CI was asked to do data analysis although they had understood it was to be done by other contractors
CI feels that if they have more time to get involved with communities, they will be more independent to do the monitoring
More integration is needed in addressing threats to biodiversity and solutions
Northern Nimba needs to be looked at a single landscape from both FDA and community perspectives
The “leakage” issue is of central importance, and requires a landscape approach and cross‐border focus
33USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Harmonizingofbiomonitoring,demarcationandmappingmethodologies Jointtrainingapproachincludingclearcriteriaforindividualsselectedfortraining Collaborativeworkplanning Clearscopesofworkwithdetaileddeliverables
LiberianSubcontractorsThethreeLiberiansubcontractors,AGRHA,CJPSandNationalAdultEducationAssociationofLiberia(NAEAL)broughtdifferentskillsandexperiencebutworkedcloselyandsmoothlyasateam.TheyhadpreviouslycollaboratedtogetheronaMercyCorpsproject.CJPSalsoworkedontheUSAID‐fundedCommunityConservationCorps(CCC)projectinandaroundSapoNationalPark.Theirstrengthswerecomplementaryandresultedinawell‐roundeddevelopmentpackage.Thesubcontractorssoughtassistancefromeachotherwhenneeded.ForinstanceintheGbacommunity,waterandsanitationwerekeyissuesinthepeacebuildingeffortandCJPSturnedtoAGRHAforhelp.Thesubcontractorsalsodevelopedanintegratedtrainingmanual.Allsubcontractorshavestaffinthepilotcommunities.NeitherTT/ARDnorUSAIDreportedsignificantdelayintheachievementofdeliverables.Keytothequalityoftheirperformancewasthequalityoftheirpersonnel,asnoneoftheinstitutionsarestronglyresourced.NAEAL.LRCFPadoptedtheNAEAL“aspirationallearning”approach.Giventhesizeoftheirorganization,itisreasonablethattheorganizationwouldhavecertainweaknesses.Inthiscase,NAEALtrainershadlimitedinvolvementinLTPRanddidnotconductmuchtrainingontenurerelatedtopics.Also,fieldlevelstaffhadlimitedcapacityinoutreachandcommunications,andhadtorelyonsupportanddirectionfromtheirMonroviaoffice.CJPS.Thislocalsubcontractorperformedmuchoftheheavyliftingindevelopingrelationshipswithcommunitiesintheearlyyearsoftheprogram.IninterviewsDirectorJosephHowardexpressedanuancedappreciationoftheoriginsofconflictinLiberia,andstrategiestoaddressthem.EvaluationteammembersfoundthatinNimbathisknowledgewassharedbystaffinthefield,asinterviewswithhisex‐staffmemberDominiqueKwemedemonstratedaclearunderstandingofinstitutionalandpowerrelationshipsinthosepilotcommunities.InSinoe,CJPSconductedconflict/stakeholdermappingandestablished“peacecommittees”withtheFMCsandotherbodies.AGRHA.AGRHAtrainersbeganestablishingtheFarmerFieldSchools(FFS)duringtheharvestinNimbainOctoberof2009,givingthemlessthantwoyearstoworkpriortheevaluation.Forthelimiteddurationoftheiractivitiesthetwotrainersproducedsignificantresults.FFSparticipantsappreciatedtheAGRHAtrainersinNimbaCountyandtheirlessons.Farmersspokeknowledgeablybothaboutthepracticestheyhadlearnedandappliedtotheirfields,andaboutthelargerpurposeoflearningtheseskills,theimportanceoflimitingtheirexploitationofforestsandlimitingtheexpansionoffieldagricultureintoforests.IninterviewswiththeevaluationteamthetrainersprovedtobebothtechnicallyproficientandawareofandresponsivetotheneedsoftheFFSstudents.Theyhadasharpsenseofwhatstudentswouldcontinueaftertheirsupportleft,andwhatpracticesneededongoingsupportandexperimentationtobeadopted.Andtheywerededicated;oncetheprogramwasdecentralized,trainingfortheFFSsrequiredconstanttravelbybothtrainers.BothtrainershadcertificatesinagricultureandhadworkedondevelopmentfordonorssuchastheEU,WorldVision,andIITAinNigeria.Theonesignificantgapintheirtrainingwas
34USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
NTFPs.NeitherhadworkedwithNTFPsbefore.TheirNTFPtrainingcamesolelyfromvisitsfromASNAPP.
MonitoringandEvaluation
OverallProgramMonitoringThissection,likeothersectionsofthisreport,identifiesalargenumberofpossiblechangesthatcouldhavebeenmonitoredbyLRCFP,includingtrainingoutcomes,socio‐economicchangesincommunities,biodiversityindicatorsandothers.Astheseabsencesaredescribed,thereadershouldkeepinmindthatLRCFPwasinitiallydesignedasatwo‐yearpilotprogramandtherewaslittleexpectationthatsignificantchangeswouldoccurandcouldbemonitoredoverthistimeperiod.LRCFPachievedorsurpassedallbutonePerformanceMonitoringPlan(PMP)target.AccordingtotheCOTR,thePMPmadepeoplethinkaboutwhatconstitutessuccessinalltheelements.ThePMPinformeddecisionsandhelpedtheprogramtostayontarget.Atthesametime,itdidnotserveasastraightjacket.AsLRCFPevolved,theLRCFPteamworkedwiththeMissiontocautiouslyrefineindicators.Overthecourseoftheprogram,however,staffdidnotroutinelydiscussindicatorachievementandM&Eingeneral.TheuseM&Edatawasnotsystematicallyincorporatedintotheprogramdecisionmakingprocess.USAIDconductedaDataQualityAnalysis(DQA)butitisuncleariforhowDQAfindingsweretransmittedtoLRCFPstaff.TheUSAID/LiberiaM&EprojectcurrentlyconductstheDQAsforallprojectssothereisevenmoredistancebetweendataqualityissuesandthefield.ProgramM&Equalityimprovedinrecentmonthswithnewexpertise.M&EspecialistPeterMahwasonthejoblessthanayearbutgreatlyimprovedtheM&EsystemthroughhisowndiligencesupportedbyreviewandrecommendationsfromconsultantMikeRichards.Priortohisarrival,theprogramhadnostandardizedformatfordataanddoublecountedbeneficiaries.NordidtheprogrammaintainthePMPsystemsufficiently.IthastakenconsiderableeffortforMahtoimprovethesystemandcollectthenecessarydata.
MahtookanumberofstepstoimprovethePMPinthelastfivemonthsoftheproject.He:
standardizeddatacollectionformsatbothsites; trainedofficerstocollectdata; addresseddoublecounting; filteredoutinformationthatwasnotuseful;and createdareportingformat.Despitetheseefforts,theevaluationidentifiedthefollowingconcernsregardingM&E: Lackofasystemtotracktheimpactoftraininginthisprogramwhichhasheavily
reliedontraining.
35USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Lackofeconomicandmarketindicatorstogaugereturnstolaborontechnologiesandlivelihoodactivities.Amongotherthings,thisinformationwouldhelptheprogramandcommunitiesdecidebetweenpotentiallivelihoodactivities.
Absenceofinternalevaluations(otherthanaudits)conductedbySTTA. Absenceofconsiderationofhowstaffandotheruserswillinterpretsophisticated
indicatorssuchaspolicyindexandpercentageofstepstowardagoal. LackofunderstandingofDataQualityAnalysis(DQA).Projectstaffcouldnotsay
whenlastDQAwasconducted. Lackofuseofmonitoringdatabyprojectstafftolearnandimprovetheprogram.Staffcouldhavereviewedandrevisedindicatorstogether,asproposedbyMah.Allfieldstaffshouldbepartofindicatorprocess.Mahalsosuggestedanumberofmeasuresthatwouldhavebeenusefulincapturingresultsoftheprogram:
• Qualitativeinformationonimpact• Expansionoffarms• Nutritionalstatus• Impactsoftraining• Ameasureofconfidenceandtrust
Monitoringofspecificactivities Livelihoodmonitoring.Datacollectedincludeschampiongroupproductionrecordsandnumberofpeopletrained.Duringthecourseoftheprogram,staffanalyzedthedataandtrends.ProgramstaffbelievesFFSsprovideincreasedeconomicbenefitforpeoplebeyondtraineesthemselves.TheprogramconsideredconductingahouseholdsurveytoverifyincreasesinincomesduetotheFFS,butwasunabletodosopriortothebridgeperiod.Suchasurveyhoweverwouldnothavebeenabletodemonstratemorethanatemporarybumpinproductionincomes,aroughindicationofpossiblelong‐termgains.Trainingmonitoring.Theprojectdevelopednostandardizedsystemforevaluatingtheimpactoftraining.InterviewsdosuggestthattrainingwasappreciatedandinfluencedbehaviorofbothcommunitymembersandFDAstaff.MembersoftheCFdivisionoftheFDA,forexample,usedskillstheylearnedthroughtheprogramtohelpestablishinstitutionsin27communitiesnearcommercialtimberconcessions,CFDCs.However,LRCFPcollectednoquantifieddatatomeasurehowmanytraineesinindividualtrainingsessions,workshops,orOJTsituationsutilizedwhattheylearned,andiftheiruseofthisinformationhelpedachieveprogramobjectives.
BiodiversityMonitoring.[SeeSectionVIIforinformationonbiodiversitymonitoring.]Monitoringdemandforcommunityforests.ProgramstafftrackedandupdatedPMPIndicator2.0.1.“NumberofrequestsmadebycommunitiestoFDAtoassistestablishcommunityforestryprograms“.Theyrecordedanupwardtrendmonthspriortotheevaluationasadjacentcommunitieshavebecomeawareoftheprogram.Recentlyadistantcommunity,locatedinGrandBassa,alsoexpressedinterest.Theprogramdidnotachievethetargetof30,andreportsonly13communities.Thistarget,inmanywaysoutsideofthemanageableinterestsoftheprogram,wasstrategicallyincludedinthePMPasanimportantelementofsustainability.
36USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Monitoringcommunicationsandawarenessactivities.Forsomeactivities,programstaffhasdirectlymeasuredimpact,thoughnotinsurveys.Forexample,inNimbaCountytheytracktheresidenceofpeoplewhocallintoanswerquestionsinthecommunityforestryradioprogramGreenBeat.Staffalsowitnessesparticipationineventsinwhichtheatergroupsspreadcommunicationmessagestoadjacentcommunities.
M&EintheNimbaOffice.ThefirstM&EofficerintheNimbaofficewasEdwardPaye,whotookontheroleinAprilof2011.Histasksappeartohavebeenlimitedtodatacollection.Payecheckedthedataandassuredquality,andfocusedonfinancialmanagementratherthantechnicalM&E,forwhichMahtakesresponsibility.Payneentereddata,thenforwardedittoMonroviaeachmonth.Heconducteddataanalysisalmosteveryday.
ExamplesofdatamanagementanduseinNimba
NumberofhectaresdeterminedbyGPSduringdemarcation
Datasentbacktothecommunityfortheirmanagementplans
CommunitymemberstrainedinsustainableharvestofGriffonia.Staffmonitorsqualityoftheapplicationofthesepractices.
GPSdatawasusedindiscussionswithArcelorMittalconcerningoverlapwith
concession
Forthemostpart,LRCFPdrawsonnarratives,casestudies,andanecdotesforreportsandcoordinationmeetings.TheNimbaOfficeassembledsomeofthisinformation,suchasastoryofwomanwhousedmoneygainedthroughGriffoniacollectiontosendherdaughtertoschool.Herfirstsalenetted$385andthatfreedherfromdebt.ConclusionsonM&EinLRCFPInsum,thePMPwasadequateandachieveditspurposeinreportingtoUSAID.LRCFPimproveddatacollectionandstrengthenedthemonitoringsystem.ItdoesnotappearthatLRCFPconductedinternalevaluations,asidefromaudits.ConsultanciessuchasMikeRichardsworkonM&Ecouldhavebeenusedtoengagestaffin
Box3:Evidence proposed by Nimba staff that LRCFP activities are leading to threat mitigation
After the community demarcated, they have rules and regulations, not open access
Community members don’t go to the forest without permission of CFMB
Farmers are growing crops in one location
LRCFP has reduced pressure on ENNR because people are using their own forests (ENNR is in between CFs)
CFMBs have their own guard who reports violations
Outsiders cleared a large portion of forest to cut trees but the community did not know them. The cleared area was not planted.
Pit‐sawing continues around ENNR and the CFs but not in the CFs
Zor forest is one of the richest forests around; its high value is now recognized by the community and others
However, the management plan needs to be operational.
Box4:Nimba staff proposals for threat monitoring
Threats have been identified with the community
Conduct transects to monitor gun shells found
Monitor new clearings in Bleih, which is all old growth
Ask people the origin of bushmeat they bring to town
Cut transects deep into forest to see impacts
37USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
understandingandbuyingintoM&E.Perhapsthatwasdone,buttheeffectswerenotstronglyfelt.Despitetheseweaknessesitwasinterestingtonotethatfieldstaffhadgoodnotionsofwhatcouldbedonetobettermonitorthreatstobiodiversity,communicationsandtrainingimpactsandlivelihoodsbenefits.Withmoretrainingandfocusonlocalutilityandcapacitybuilding,M&Ecouldprovidesignificantutilitytoanyfutureprogram.
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
Remoteconditions
TheremoteconditionsofSinoeCountyprovedamanagementchallenge.LRCFPinitiallypurchasedvehiclesthatwerenotuptothetask,andhadtoexpendsignificantfundsthatcouldhavebeeninvestedelsewhereonnewones.Sinoealsorequiredmoreresourcesthanexpectedbecausecommunitymemberswerelesseducatedandinformedandhadbeenseverelydislocatedduringthecivilwars.LRCFPalsohaddifficultyhiringstaffofhighqualitythatknewtheregionwell.
Episodicfunding
USAIDextendedLRCFPfourtimes,whichcreateduncertaintyandduplicationinprogrammanagement.Itinhibitedprogrammanagementtoundertakelongtermplanningandactivitiesthatcouldnotbequicklyimplemented,andrushedactivitiesthatwouldhavetakentimetobewellimplemented.Theprojectachievedmorethanmighthavebeenexpectedconsideringalltheobstacles,butlessthanitcouldhaveunderafive‐yearplanningcycle.EachofthethreeprojectphaseshadadifferentCOP,andcreatingacoordinatedprojectapproachincludingbrandingappearstohavebeenacontinuouschallenge.
SlowprogressbytheGOL
UnexpectedcircumstanceshaverequiredaconstantjugglingofprogramactivitiesasLRCFPhasadaptedtochanging(andunchanging)conditions.Principalgovernmentactionsthattooklongerthanexpectedinclude:thepassageoftheCRL,thecreationoftheLandCommission,and,morerecently,FDAapprovalofcommunityagreements.
Implicationsforfutureprograms
CommunityforestryinLiberia
ChallengesworkingwiththeFDA.RelationshipsandcommunicationbetweentheFDAConservationandCommunityForestrydepartmentsarenotstrong.BetterinteractiontakesplacebetweentheCommercialDepartmentandCommunityForestry.TheConservationdepartmenthasnotworkedwithcommunities.Theseweaktiesareinpartbecausecommunityforestryhasnotyetbeenacceptedbyall.FDAstaffincludingtheDirectorofResearchandDevelopmentJohnKantor,andretiredDirectorJohnWoodsarenotfullyconvincedofthefeasibilityofCF.TheyarguethatcommunityinstitutionsinLiberiaareveryweakandgiventhepowermayrapidlydegradeforestresources.
EngagewiththeconservationNGOs.ConservationcommunitymemberssuchasCIandFFIhaveastrongvoiceandindependentresourcesinLiberia.Coordinationwiththemis
38USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
essentialforcommunityforestrytoadvance.AlargerdiscussionabouttheCIapproachinNimbaisneededasitisuncleariftheysupportCFaroundWestNimba.
HarmonizeapproachesthrougharevitalizedCommunityForestryWorkingGroup.USAID/WA‐USFSSustainableandThrivingEnvironmentsforWestAfricanRegionalDevelopment(STEWARD)programwillcontinuetoworkinLiberiaandcertainlyonitsborders.ThereisconcernthatSTEWARDisadoptingadifferentapproachtolivelihoodsandtocommunityforestry.Thesedifferenceshavetobeaddressedimmediately.ThispointholdsforanyotherdonororNGOactiononCF.Alternatively,USAIDcouldhelpGOLmeetwithcivilsocietyandprivatesectorrepresentativesinaworkinggroupthatmeetsregularlyatCFsitestohashoutpolicyissues,makerecommendationsandmonitortheimplementationofrecommendations.ThisapproachwashighlysuccessfulinthePhilippinesduringtheinitialstagesofCF.
ImplicationsforUSAIDThestructureofPLACEIQC.BecauseLRCFPwasimplementedthroughanIQCtheMissionwasunabletochangesubcontractorsasnecessary.Asaresultmuchmanagementtimewasinvestedinaddressingissueswithsubcontractors.WorkingthroughtheIQCalsoelevatedcosts.OneexamplewastheLearmonthvisits.Implementingmajorcomponentsthroughsubcontractsalsocostsmore.SomepositionsrequireexpatLTTA.
39USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionIV CommunityForestryInstitutions
Background
ThecontextforcommunityforestryPriortothelaunchofLRCFP,Liberiahadalmostnoexperienceincommunityforestry.Althoughthevastmajorityofthepopulationdrewitslivelihoodsfromtheforests,thegovernment’srelationshiptothisresourcehadbeenprimarilytofacilitateandregulatetimberconcessionsand,toamuchlesserdegree,identifyandmanageprotectedforestresources.By2007nationalpolicypositedtheideaofroughparityamongthethree“Cs”oftheforestsector,butcommunityforestryneverthelessremainedlittlemorethanadiscussionpoint.Attheprogram’slaunch,theInternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN)hadexploredtherelationshipbetweencommunities,forests,andbiodiversity,ashadtheassociationoflocalNGOcalledCommunityForestryPartnership(CFP).AndanumberofLiberianNGOssuchastheSustainableDevelopmentInstitute(SDI),theLiberiaDemocraticInstitute(LDI),GreenAdvocates,andtheSaveMyFutureFoundation(SAMFU)hadpromotedtherightsofthemenandwomenofforestcommunitiesthroughadvocacy,training,andinformationcollection.Butintermsoftheactualcreationoflocalforestmanagementinstitutions,onlytheNGOFauna&FloraInternational(FFI)workingontheperipheryoftheSapoNationalParkhadfosteredthecreationofstaterecognizedcommunityforestinstitutions.InDecemberof2005theLiberiaForestryInitiative,aprogramsupportedbyUSAIDpriortoLRCFP,hadsponsoredTheFirstInternationalWorkshoponCommunityForestryinLiberiainwhichfoundingprinciplesforcommunityforestryinLiberiawerearticulatedintheMonroviaDeclaration.Yetthecountrystillhadlimitedknowledge,minimaltechnicalskills,askeletallegalframework,littlepublicawareness,andfewexamplesofcommunityforestry.TheGOLfacedchallengesatthecessationofhostilitiesin2003that,despiteprogress,continuedtocreateanunstableanddifficultenvironmentforcommunityforestryin2008.Theeconomyremainedfeeble,andthegovernmentwasstillbarrenoffinancialandhumanresources.Perhapsequallyimportant,thepowerbalancebetweentheurbanpowereliteandruralcommunitieshadnotbeensortedout.Thehistoryoftherelationshipbetweenlocalcommunitiesandtheexteriorwascharacterizedbydistrustanddependencyfosteredbytheexpropriationofresources,andasuccessionofreliefprojects.AthinpresenceoflocaladministratorsreceivingordersfromMonroviarepresentedthenationalgovernmentandcreatedaweakinterfacewiththerichweboflocalinstitutionsthatgovernedthetownsandvillagesandmanagedpeople’srelationshiptotheirofforestsandforestresources.Fromastartingpointofvirtualignorance(exemplifiedbyawildoverestimationoflocalinstitutionalcapacityandthegrossmisunderstandingoftheunitsofforestmanagement),theLRCFPattemptedtocreatetransparent,accountablelocalinstitutionswiththeorganizationalcapacityandcredibilitytointerfacewithnationalgovernmentandrepresenttheinterestsofthemenandwomenoftheircommunities.Throughthepilotcommunities,theprogramwastoexploretheopportunitiesandchallengesfacedintheintroductionofCFinLiberiaandthroughthisexperienceidentifyandrecordtheopportunitiesandobstacles
40USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
createdbythecharacteristicsofforests,communities,theircontext,andtheirpartners.Throughpilotcommunities,theprogramwastoclarifytheprospectsandstrategiesfortheexpansionofcommunityforestrywithaneyetonationalpolicyandinstitutionalreform.
Implementationofthecomponent Atthenationallevel,fromthefirstquarteroftheprogram,earlyin2008,programstaffengagedinthedeliberationsovertheCommunityRightsLaw,whichtheyexpectedtosoonbepassed.Thissupport–intheformofhostingandcontributingtoworkinggroupsandprovidingtechnicalinput‐‐continueduntilthelawwasenactedalmosttwoyearslater,inOctoberof2009.LRCFPstaffalsobegantoexplorepotentialsitesfortheirpilotcommunitiesfromtheprogram’sfirstmonths.TheFDAdirectedtheirfocustoNimbaCountybecausetheFDAitselfhadcomeinconflictwithcommunitymemberswhileestablishingtheEastNimbaNatureReserve(ENNR).ProgramstaffalsobeganbuildingrelationswithmembersoftheSinoeCountycommunities.Soonaftertheseinitialcontacts,programstaffrealizedthattheintendedtown‐basedapproachwouldnotwork,andenlargedtheirdefinitionofthesocialunitstheywouldworkwithtotheclanlevel.Bytheendofthesecondquarter,thetwoNimbacommunitieswereselectedandprofiled.BythethirdquarteroftheprogramcommunitymembershadagreedinprincipletothecollaborativemanagementoftheBleihforestandwerereadytoexploretheideaoftheco‐managementoftheENNR.TwoFDAstaffhadbeensecondedtotheprogram,andshortlythereafter,inquarterfour,programofficesinSanniquellie(Nimba)andGreenville(Sinoe)wereopened.Programstaffreportsthattheyencounteredsignificantresistanceandstonewallinginthecommunities,andverytenserelationsbetweentheFDAandcommunities,andbetweencommunities.Forthisreasontheprogramprovidedstaffandcommunityleaderstraininginconflictmanagement,andheldnumerousconflictmitigationmeetingsandworkshops.Bythebeginningofyeartwo,theprogrambegancreatinglocalForestManagementBodies(FMBs)inNimba,andthenextquarterbegantodevelopconstitutionsfortheFMBs.TheprofilesoftheSinoecommunitieswerecompletedbythistime.Despitetheseconcretebeginnings,LRCFPcontinuedtobeconcernedabouttheFDAcapacityandoverallcommitmenttocommunityforestry.Quarterlyreportsixstates,“LRCFPwillneedtomakesurethatallofFDAissquarelybehindcommunityforestryandtheLRCFPapproach:supportisneededfromallFDAunits.”InNimbadisagreementsoverrightstoforestlandswerearisingwithArcelorMittalLiberia(AML)inwesternNimbaCounty,whiletheFMCsandFDAsignedaletterofcommoninterestconcerningENNR.Inthebeginningoftheprogram’sthirdyear,LRCFPsupportedpublicawarenessraisingontheCRLandreorganizedtheFMBstoaccordwiththeconditionsoftherecentlypassedlaw.MembersofCommunityAssemblies(CAs)wereelectedbythecommunities,andtheCAselectedmembersoftheirExecutiveCommittees,andestablishedCommunityForestManagementBodies(CFMBs).CFMBs,guidedbytheExecutiveCommittees,representtheinterestsoftheCAonadaytodaybasis.TheprogramintroducedthemtocountyofficialsinNimba(Sinoecamesixmonthslater)andbegantoinvitethemtomeetingsofthenationalCommunityForestryWorkingGroup.
41USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
BySeptember2011,quarter11oftheprogram,theco‐managementagreementforENNRwassigned,andtheForestManagementBodiesofthecommunitiesweredevelopingrulesforthemanagementoftheirforests.TheprogramalsocompletedassessmentsofthecapacityoftheUniversityofLiberiaCollegeofAgricultureandForestryandForestryTrainingInstituteatthispoint.LRCFPcontinuedtoraiseawarenessoftheCRLandsupportthedevelopmentoftheregulationsinthefinalquarterofthesecondyearoftheprogram.TheENNRco‐managementcommitteewasformed;andoverthenextmonths,theconstitutionswerefinalizedandCAsincorporatedwiththeMinistryofInternalAffairs.Byquarter14,thequarterpriortothisevaluationinAugustof2011,theCRLregulationswereapprovedbytheFDA,anddemarcation,zoningandinventorieswerecompletedinallfiveforests.Bythetimeoftheevaluation,allcommunitieshadsubmittedrequeststoestablishcommunityforeststotheFDA,andtheFDAhadapprovedallexcepttheGbarequestinwesternNimbaCounty.Draftsformanagementplansforallcommunitieswerewellunderway,butnonehadbeensubmittedtotheFDA.
Results
Nationallevelresults Increasedunderstandingandappreciationofcommunityforestry.LRCFPnotonlysupportedtheenactmentofnewlegislationanddevelopmentofregulationsenablingtheimplementationofthoseregulations,theprogramhasalsofacilitatedthecreationoffivecommunityforestsunderthenewframework.Inthisprocess,complementedbycommunicationactivities,governmentofficialsatthenationalandlocallevels,aswellascommunitymembersandthegeneralpublichavebeengivenreal‐lifeexamplesofcommunityforestryinaction.Increasingthevoiceofcommunitymembersinnationalpolicy.Byregularlyinvitingrepresentativesofcommunityinstitutionstonationallevelmeetings,andbringingnationalleveldecisionmakerstothecommunities,LRCFPhashelpedthegovernmentincorporatecommunityconcernsandperspectivesintothedevelopmentofpolicyandregulations.Ithasalsointroducedapatternofbehaviorthatcouldbecontinuedinthefuture.Communitymembershaveparticipatedinbothmeetingsonspecificregulations,suchastheNationalBenefitSharingTrustWorkingGroup,andmoregeneralmeetings,suchastheCommunityForestryWorkingGroup.IncreasedFDA,localNGOandprivatesectorcapacitytoworkwithcommunitiesandsupportthecreationofcommunityforestryinstitutions.ByconductingitsworkinclosecollaborationwiththeFDAandlocalsubcontractors,andprovidingrelevanttraining,LRCFPhasraisedtheknowledgeoftheseinstitutionsaboutCFandintroducedrelevanttechnicalandsoftskills.Iftheyarefinalizedandusedintraining,thetwo“HowTo”manualsproducedwillhelptokeepthisinformationavailabletopractitionersinLiberia.ProgressonthecreationoftheENNR.LRCFPworkedwiththeFDAandcommunitymemberstoovercomeahistoryofconflictovertherightstotheresourcesinthereserve.Whilethemanagementplan,andthusthespecificrightsandresponsibilitieshadnotbeendeterminedatthetimeoftheevaluation,theprogressmade,includingthesigningofanagreementtoco‐managetheforestsignificantlymovesforwardthestatusofthisnationalreserve.
42USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Assessmentofthecapacityoftwonationalforestrytraininginstitutions.TheassessmentsoftheFTIandCAF‐ULhaveestablishedabaselineforfurthersupporttothesetwoinstitutions.
Sitelevelresults
LaunchedCFinpilotcommunities.LRCFPsuccessfullyworkedwithfourcommunitiestoestablishfivecommunityforests.Thisentailedsignificanttrainingacrossawiderangeofthemes,fromconflictmitigation,toliteracyandmanagementskills,thecultivation,processingandmarketingofNTFPs,andconductingforestdemarcation,inventoriesandzoning.Theprogramnotonlyincreasedlocalsenseofthevalueoftheirforests,buthelpedestablishthenecessaryinstitutionsandskillstoassertrightsandmanagethoseforests.Whileprogramreportsandinterviewssuggestthattheseinstitutionsarecurrentlyrobust,theyarestillneverthelessatthebeginningstate.NomanagementplanhadbeensubmittedtotheFDA,andnocommunityhaddemonstratedacapacitytocontinuewithoutprogramsupport.
IncreasedlocalawarenessoftheCRLandtheregulations.MembersoftheCAsandCFMBsinterviewedforthisevaluationwereawareoftheexistenceoftheCRLandtheregulations.Mostwereversedinthedetailsofthelawandregulations,andevenpeoplenotabletodiscussprovisionsindetailhadafirmgraspoftheirbasicpurpose.
Pilotedalternatefundingmechanismsforcommunityforests.Throughtheintroductionofpalmoilpressesandcassavamills,undertheconditionthatMOUsbesignedstatingthatCFMBswouldreceiveaportionoftherevenueofthemachines,LRCFPprovidedanadditionalsourceforlongtermfundingforCFinstitutions.Timewilldeterminewhetherthisinnovativerelationshipwillstrengthenorweakenthesustainabilityofthemillsandpresses.
Networkedcommunityandcountyinstitutions.LRCFPhasundertakentolinkcommunitieswithcountyofficials.ThishasnotonlyraisedtheunderstandingoflocalofficialsofCF,buthasprovidedlocalcommunitiesameansandchanneltotapintocountyresources.InNimbaCountyCFMBmembershaveparticipatedinmeetingsoftheCountyDevelopmentSteeringCommittee,andtheEconomicRevitalizationPillarofthePovertyReductionStrategy.CFMBrepresentativeshavebroughttotheattentionofthesecommitteestheincursionsoffarmersfromacrosstheborderinGuineaintotheforestsofnorthernNimba.Atthetimeoftheevaluation,CFMBmembersandlocalcountyrepresentativeswereplanningajointvisittothesitesasaninitialsteptoaddressthesituation.
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
AnumberofcharacteristicsofthecontextinwhichLRCFPwasimplementedposedseriouschallengestothecreationofstable,strongandequitablecommunityforestinstitutions.Someofthesewereknownfromtheoutset,butmostaroseorwerediscoveredduringtheimplementationoftheprogram.
ChallengesoriginatingatthenationallevelSlowandcontesteddevelopmentoftheCRL.TheMissionandLRCFPstaffinitiallybelievedtheCRLwouldbepassedinthefirstmonthsoftheprogram;iteventuallypassed22months
43USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
later.WhileLRCFPprogresseddifferentlyasaresult,itdidnotcometoahalt.Fromthebeginningoftheprogram,LRCFPstaffengagedintheongoingnationallevelprocessesandalsoadvancedworkwiththecommunities.Astimewenton,theprogramdrewonthislocalexperiencetoestablishcredibilityandprovideinformedsupporttotheCRLdraftingprocess.Thedelaysneverthelessbroughtcertaincosts.Oncethelawpassed,staffwasrequiredtospendtimereformingwiththeinstitutionstheyhadhelpedestablishtocreatenewstructuresthatconformedtothenewlaw.Moreimportant,hadtheCRLpassedearlier,theregulationswouldhavebeendraftedearlierandtheirapplicationfurthertestedandintegratedintothecreationandmanagementofpilotcommunityforests.
Initialmisunderstandingofforestownership.Asstatedabove,attheoutsetofLRCFPprogramstaffintendedtoworkwithindividualvillagesand“their”forests.Itquicklybecameapparentthatclans,orgroupsofclans,manageforestsinthepilotareas.Clustersoftownsandvillagescomposeclans.Oncethiswasrealized,programstaffrevisedtheirapproachtoworkatthislevel,vastlyincreasingthenumberofvillagesinvolved.Ratherthanworkingwithfivevillagesasinitiallyplanned,theprogramworkedwith88.Thenewapproachalsoincreasedtheamountofforestlandinvolved.Followingthevariousextensions,theinitialEOPtargetfor“numberofhectaresunderimprovedNRMmanagement”wasraisedto8,000hafrom3,000ha.Theprogramhasbrought10,000haofforestunderimprovedmanagement.IfGbacommunityforest(14,000ha),andENNR(13,000ha)areincludedthetotalwillbe37,000ha.Finalization,approval,andimplementationofmanagementplanswillfurtherreinforcethisprogress.Thetensionbetweenadministrativestandardsandcommunitycapacity.GiventheverylowlevelofdevelopmentofLiberia’sruralcommunities,seeminglysimplerequirementsforauthorizationmayinfactposesignificantbarriers.LRCFPstaffhasbeenawareofthisissue.Thereviewofcommunityforestrybestpracticesconductedbytheprogramin2008,“LessonsLearnedElsewhere”statesthat,“LiberiawilldowelltoensurethattheCRLandanyimplementingregulationsandguidelinesreflectcommunityinterests,capacity,andownershipincommunityforestmanagement.”Later,astheCRLwasbeingdrafted,programstaffarguedagainstalonger“prescriptive”versionofthelawwhichsetout,“[t]ime‐consumingandcomplexproceduresthatmayexceedcommunitycapacityormanageableinterest”(LRCFPQuarterlyReport3).Eventuallyashorter“framework”lawwasenacted.Buteventhislawand,especially,theregulationsdevelopedtoimplementitandtheprocessLRCFPemployedinthepilotsites,arenotwithinthecapacityofLiberia’scommunities.Itisnormalforrequirementstobemoredetailedastheyprogressfromlaw,throughregulationstoguidance.Inthiscase,theyalsobecamemorechallengingtoimplement.TheCRLspecifieswhatappearstobeaverylowthresholdforcommunities,declaringamongitsprinciplesthat“Allforestresourcesoncommunityforestlandsareownedbylocalcommunities.”TheCRLalsoexcludestheFDAfromtheregulationoftheseresources(Section2.2.b).Whilethelawimposesresponsibilitiesoncommunities,principallytoestablishcertaininstitutionsanddevelopforestmanagementplans,theregulationsestablishstiffrequirementstomeettheseresponsibilities.Tobeauthorized,communitiesmustfirstsubmitawrittenapplicationandpaya$250applicationfee.Thedevelopmentofapplicationscanentailconsiderablework.Forjustthisfirststepoftheprocess,LRCFPstaffconductedaonedayworkshoptoexplainthelawandregulationsanddevelopthedemanddocumentfortheGbacommunity.
44USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
AuthorizationcomesintheformofaCommunityForestryAgreementwhichcontainsamapoftheforest,namesofmanagementbodiesandaconstitution.ThecommunitymustthensubmitaforestmanagementplanforapprovalbytheFDA.Theregulationsalsorequirecommunitiestoopentwobankaccountsandhaveannualauditsconducted.LRCFPhasdeterminedthatCAsmustalsobeincorporatedbytheMinistryofInternalAffairs.FewifanyofLiberia’scommunitieswouldbeabletonegotiatethisprocesswithoutassistance.ApartiallistofsupportLRCFPprovidedpilotcommunitiesincludes: Workshopsandtrainingtodevelopcommunitycapacityin:forestrymanagement
planning,demarcation,theCRL,zoningandinventories,relationshipbuilding,naturalresourcesuse&management,finance&procurement,conflictmediation,andNRMrulemaking;
transportationtomeetingsoutsideofthecommunity; aportionofthe$250applicationfees; theservicesofalawyertoreviewpilotcommunityconstitutionsandby‐laws; theservicesofalawyertofacilitatetheprobationofconstitutionsandby‐laws;and thedraftingofthecommunitymanagementplans.
TheLRCFP2008“LessonsfromElsewhere”documentdescribesgovernmentalrequirementofamanagementplanas“micro‐management”thatmayimpedethecreationofcommunityforestsandunfairlyfavorbetter‐resourcedcommunities.Thepaperarguesthat“onlythemostbasic,”informationshouldberequired.ThiscontrastswiththemanagementplansdevelopedthroughLRCFP.Theprogramdocument“HowtoCreateaCommunityForestManagementPlan”isa114pagemanualthatproposesa105line,elevenchaptermanagementplanoutline.The62pageroughdraft“NumopohCommunityForestManagementPlan”alsosuggeststhatthemodelbeingdevelopedcontainsalevelofcomplexityconsiderablybeyondtheimaginablemeansofthemembersofthefourpilotcommunities.(EvaluationteammembersweretoldthattheNumopohdocumentisadraftandthatLRCFPstaffintendstosimplifyit.)Notonlywilltheseproceduralrequirementstestthecapacityofcommunities,theywillchallengetheFDAwhopriortoauthorizingcommunitiesmustconductsocio‐economicsurveys,demarcatetheforestlandarea,consultwithadjacentcommunitiesandassistintheresolutionofanyconflicts.Theymustalsoreviewapplicationsandmanagementplans.Duringtheimplementationoftheagreement,theFDAmustmonitorandevaluatethecommunitiesandmaintainacentralregistryofthedocumentsproduced,aswellasresolveconflicts,andprovidecapacitybuildingsupportandtechnicalandfinancialadvicetocommunities.InthepilotcommunitieswheretheFDAhasperformedtheseresponsibilitiesithasdonesowithstronghands‐onsupportfromLRCFP.Asitstands,theprocessdescribedintheregulationsandimplementedthroughLRCFPsetsamodelwhichmayhinderthegrowthofcommunityforestryinLiberiaanddisadvantagecommunitiesfacedwiththerapidexpansionofcommercialconcessions.Itmayprove,ineffect,toworkagainsttheprincipalstatedintheCRLthat“Allforestresourcesoncommunityforestlandsareownedbylocalcommunities.”
Thecentralizedapproachtogovernmentadministration.MembersoftheNimbaandSinoeCFinstitutionsinterviewedclearlyfeeltheyhavegainedcontrolovertheirforestsrelativetotheFDA.Intervieweesrepeatedlystated,“Thisis[now]ourforest!”,andthatFDAagents
45USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
cannolonger“comeintoyourhousetocheckyoursoup”(toseeifyouarecookingbushmeat.)Thistransformationhasnotbeeneasy.LRCFPreportsandinterviewswithstaffindicatethattheprogramhasbeenworkingwithagovernmentagencyreluctanttoloseitsauthority.Internationalexperienceonthesuccessofcommunityforestryeffortshasneverthelessdemonstratedthatnationalpolicymustgrantsignificantauthoritytocommunitiesforthemtosucceed,includingmacro‐levelpolicylimitsoneffortsbyline‐ministriestoretaincontrolorextractbenefitsfromnewlyformedgroups(Agrawal,2007;Dietzetal.2003;Ostrom2009).LRCFPhadlimitedsuccessinthisregard,startingwiththeregulationstotheCRLwhichgranttheFDAhands‐onauthorityto:
Reviewandapprovedtheauthorizationofcommunityforests Renewagreementsevery15years ReviewmanagementplansandrequireCFMBstomodifythem Reviewdetailedprojectproposalspriortoanytimberharvestingactivities Vetoanythird‐partybusinessesformediumorlarge‐scaletimberoperations Imposefines,suspensionsandsanctionsonpersonsandforestcommunities Revokeauthorizedstatusofcommunities
Withregardtothispowertorevokeauthorization,the“LearningfromExperiences”documentproducedunderLRCFP(December2008)expressesconcernthatitmay,“leadtofragileandrevocablerights,andcancreateuncertaintyandinsecurityintheCFandManagementAgreement.”TheregulationspositthattheFDAhasthecapacitytoplayasupportive,objectiverolerelativetocommunities,providingtechnicalassistanceandstrengtheningthesustainablemanagementofforestsunbiasedbypowerfulgovernmentalorprivateinterests.Asexperienceinothercountrieshasshown,includingthosereviewedintheLearningfromExperiencesdocumentproducedunderLRCFP,thisisunlikely.
Powerfulpoliticalinterests.ThemostcontentiouselementoftheenactedversionoftheCRL,accordingtointerviewsandLRCFPdocumentation,wastheparticipationofSenatorsandRepresentativesincommunityinstitutions.LRCFP,FDAstaff,andmembersofCFinstitutionsallexpressedthefearthatsuchnationallevelpoliticianswouldinfluencetheCFinstitutionstotheirownadvantage.Yet,despitetheeffortsofcivilsocietyinstitutions,thecommunitymembersmobilizedbythemandLRCFP,theintentionsofFDAstaff,andtheadviceofLRCFPstaffthemselves,theCRLincludestherequirementthatmembersofthelegislaturebeincludedinboththeCAandtheExecutiveCommitteeoftheCA.InterviewssuggestthatLRCFPeffortsplayedasignificantroleinthisweakeningofthepositionofnationallegislators,bothbysupportingthepublicvettingofthedraftregulations,andthroughprovisionoftechnicalandlegaladviceinthedraftingoftheregulations.WhiletheregulationsfollowtheCRLonthispoint,theyseverelyundercuttheinfluenceofthemembersoftheCountyLegislativeCaucusbyexcludingthemfromleadershippositions.ThisalsomaybeattributedinlargeparttotheeffortsofLRCFPstaff.
Challengesoriginatingatthelocallevel
46USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Existingclaimsonpilotforestlands.Inestablishingcommunityforests,LRCFPhashadtoworkwithcommunitiestoclarifytenurerelationships.Thesechallengesconsiderablysloweddowntheprogressoftheprogram;theyalsosetthestageforimportantachievements.ThecollaborativemanagementoftheBleihforestbytheZorandGbacommunitiesrepresentssignificantsuccessinthisregard,asdoestheco‐managementagreementoftheENNR,whichhadbeenalocusofconflictbetweencommunitieswellpriortothelaunchofLRCFP.Anumberofindividualclaimsanddeedshavealsobeennotedandaddressedbytheprogram.TheoverlappingclaimsoftheGbacommunity,ArcelorMittalLiberiaandtheFDAinnorthernNimbaCountyremainthemoststubborn,unresolved,example.
Biophysicalconstraints.LRCFPhasfacedanumberofchallengesinestablishingsuccessfulcommunityforestsresultingfromthenatureoftheforeststhemselves.1)Themostobviousbiophysicalfactoristheabsenceofclearphysicalboundaries–suchasstreamsorridges–betweenforests.Thishascosttheprogramtimeasstaffworkedwithcommunitiestomitigateconflictoverthelimitsoftheircontrol.2)Shiftingcultivationpresentsanotheryetmoresubtleboundaryissue,asitblursthedifferencebetweenforestandagriculturalland,creatinginforestsagriculturalrightsthathavehadtoberenegotiatedasfarmerslostrightsinthefallowlandsfoundinsecondaryforests.ThequarterlyreportsnotethischallengeintheBleihforestinparticular.3)Monitoringandpatrollingtheforestsmayalsoposeachallengetocommunityforestryinstitutions;ithasalreadybeenapointofdebateintherulecreationprocessinthepilotcommunities.Communitymembersidentifiedhuntingatnightasespeciallydifficulttomonitor.4)Thesmallsizeoftheforestsandthelowvalueoftheirresources–stemminginpartfromofthedistancetomarkets–havemadeitmoredifficulttodesigninstitutions“light”enoughtobesupportedbythelimitedfundingthatmaybedrawnfromthem.
Challengingcharacteristicsofthepilotcommunities.Internationalresearchhasidentifiedanumberoffactorsthatcommonlychallengelocalcommunityforestryschemes.Whiletheevaluationteamwasunabletointerviewcommunitymembers,documentationreviewandinterviewswithstaff,CFMB,CA,andchampiongroupmemberssuggestcharacteristicsthatmadefosteringhealthylocalCFinstitutionsmoredifficult.
1)Levelofdevelopment.Whiledevelopmentprojectsoftentargetremoteunderdevelopedcommunities,theLRCFPpilotsites,especiallySinoe,haveattributesthatchallengeallcommunitiesattemptingtomanagecollectiveresources.Easeofcommunication,forexample,hasconsistentlyprovenimportantinternationally(Dietz,T.etal.2003).Thedispersednatureofthesecommunitiesandtheabsenceofvehiclesandall‐seasonroadsinhibitthecreationofdensesocialnetworksandaclimateoftrust.NoroadsconnecttheSinoevillagestoeachother,noristherephonecoverage.Themembersofthepilotcommunitiesself‐definethemselvesintoclanandmulti‐clangroupswithaclear,recognized,traditionofunity;theyareneverthelessgeographicallydispersed,andwereseverelydisruptedduringthecountry’scivilconflicts.TheseconditionshaveslowedtheworkofLRCFPstaffastheprogramhasstafffounditnecessarytoprovideextensivetrainingincooperationandconflictmanagement.Communityresourcestoovercomethesechallengesarealsolimited.Inadditiontosocialcapacity,acertainlevelofeducationandtechnicalcapacityalsofacilitatescommunityforestry(Agrawal2001).TheLRCFPpilotcommunitiesfallverylowonthescaleinboththeseregards,andhaverequiredextensiveinvestmentbytheprograminliteracyand
47USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
technicaltraining.ThislowlevelofcommunitydevelopmentnotonlychallengedLRCFPstaff,itwillchallengecommunitiestomanageandmonitortheirforestsinacoordinatedmannerwellintothefuture.2)Heterogeneityandpowerrelationships.“Communityforestrycanriskassertingprimacytolocalpowerelites,despitewidespreadcelebrationofitsdemocraticprinciples”(Charnley,2007).Newinstitutionsdevelopedtomanagecommunityforestscanbegreatlyweakenedbyclearsocialdivisions(Agarwal,2007).Aselitestakecontrolofthenewresourcesintroduced,existinginequalitiesbecomeexaggerated.Inrecognitionofthisfact,themidtermevaluationsuggested,thattheprogram“considerdevelopinganexplicitplanforunderstandingandmitigatingelitecapture”.LRCFPdocumentationprovideslittleinsightintopowerandwealthrelationshipsinthepilotcommunities.Thedraftcommunityprofilesproducedin2008donotaddresswealthwithinthecommunitiesthoroughlyenoughtodrawanyconclusions.Theydosuggest,however,thatstrikingvisibledifferencesinthedistributionofstatusandwealtharenotpresent.Perhapsonthisbasisprogramstaffmadetheassumptionthatnoentrencheddifferencesinwealthandpowerwerepresentinsuchsmall,remoteandunderdevelopedcommunities.Numerousstudiesgivelittledoubtthattheyneverthelessexist(Richards:2005).Potentiallysignificantsocialdivisionsinthepilotsitesinclude:
Gender.Theprogramdidnotconductextensiveanalysisofgenderrelationshipsinthetargetcommunities,opting,itappears,toassumethatgenderissueswouldbeaddressedbyquotasstipulatingwomen’sparticipationincommunityforestinstitutionsandlivelihoodactivities,andbyselectingactivitiesthatwillbenefitwomen.Althoughtheprofilesdodescribegeneraldifferencesinlandownershipbygender,aswellasgenderdivisionoflabor,thisinformationwillnotbesufficienttomonitoranychanges,eithernegativeorpositiveinwomen’sstatusasaresultoftheprogram’sinterventions.
“New”communitymembers.Nordidtheprogramaddressthestandingof“strangers”incommunities.IninterviewsmembersoftheCAsinSinoestatedthat“evenifastrangerstays1000years,hestillwillbeastranger.”LRCFPstaffreportsthatmembersoftheLandCommission,throughinteractionswithcommunitiessupportedbytheprogram,cametotherealizationthataccesstolandbynewcomerscouldbeanissue.SinoeCAmembersreportthatintheircommunities“strangers”mustaccessthecommunitythroughhisorherhost,theTownChief.Thisistrueeveninthecontextofthenewinstitutions.IfastrangerseeksapermittoharvestNTFPsinacommunityforest,hewouldhavetogothroughtheTownChief,whowouldasktheCFMB.
Differencesbetweentowns.Anyassessmentsprogramstaffmadeofthedifferencesincharacteristicsofthetownsandvillagescomposingthecommunitieshavenotbeenrecordedinprogramdocuments,anditisunclearhowseriouslythisissuewasconsidered.Importantdifferencesdoexist,however.InNumopoh,onlyfiveofthe36townsandvillageshavedirectaccesstotheforest;theremaining31townsandvillagesareclosertoeightother“unmanaged”forests.InNimbaCounty,atowncalledCamp4borderstheGbaforest,butisnotincludedintheforestcommunity.Itiscomposedprimarilyofpersonswhomovedtotheareabeforethewarstoworkthenow‐closedLAMCOmine.LRCFPstaffreportsthattheyhavelimitedaccesstofarmlandandrelyheavilyonhunting.TheaveragepopulationofthetownsandvillagesoftheNitriancommunityis30people,exceptforKabadaTownwhichhasapopulationof1125.
48USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
LinkstopersonslivinginMonroviamaybeofgreaterimportance.Theinfluenceofsuchdistantfamilymembersmayimbalanceeventhesmallest,apparentlyhomogenousvillage.Aswasnotedinthemidtermevaluation:“Throughextendedsocioeconomicprofiling,LRCFPcouldmapoutlinesofpowerandauthorityatthesites,includingpatron‐clientlinkagesthatwouldshowwherepressureforquickreturnislikelytocomefromwhencommunityforestsareallocated.”
Giventhetimeandresourceconstraints,andthechallengesprogramstafffacedinbuildingrelationshipsoftrustwithcommunitymembers,itisnotsurprisingthattheydidnotdocumentandaddressthesedifferencesmorethoroughly.Thesedifferencesmay,however,becomeimportantandleadtogreaterinequalityorinstitutionalstressiftheforestmanagementinstitutionsinthesesmallcommunitiesaresuccessfulandperceivedasasourceofsignificantwealth.
Sustainability
ThechallengespresentedabovehaverenderedmoredifficultLRCFP’staskofestablishingcommunity.Manyofthemalsothreatenthecontinuedexistenceofthepilotforests.Inthissub‐sectionwereviewanadditionalsetofchallengesthatcommonlyweakenthelongtermviabilityofcommunityforestinstitutions.Theyincludetheintegration,orlackthereof,withexistinggovernanceinstitutions;theburdensofmanagementcosts;theinternalintegrityoftheCFinstitutions;andthenatureoftherulesthatdefinethoseinstitutions.
Institutionalplurality.TheregulationstotheCRLrequirethatauthorizedcommunitiesmaintainaneffectivemanagementstructure.Forthis,theCRLrequiresthecreationofnewsingle‐purposeinstitutions‐‐CommunityAssemblies,theirExecutiveCommittees,andtheCommunityForestManagementBodies.Theestablishmentandfunctioningofthesenewinstitutionswillcreatenewcosts,coststhatwouldnotexistifexistinglocalgovernmentsmanagedcommunityforeststhroughtheadditionofpowersandresponsibilities.Inadditiontocreatingnewmanagementburdens,theformationofnewindependentmanagementbodiesriskscreatingoverlappingauthorities.Themidtermassessmentnoted,“Thereisconfusionoverlocal(countylevel)governmentroleandaccountabilityinCFandastheprogramevolvesthismayturnouttobeamajorbottleneck.”WhileweassumeLRCFPstaffwasawareoftheseconsiderations,priortotheenactmentoftheCRL,LRCFPfacilitatedcommunitiesincreatingForestManagementBodiesthattoowerenotintegratedintotheexistingstructure.ThecompositionoflocalgovernmentinLiberiahelpsexplainthisdecision,andwhytheeventualCRLdidnotgrantformallocalgovernmentinstitutionstheauthoritytomanagecommunityforests.First,wemustrecognizethatthecountry’sdecentralizationinitiativehasnotadvancedtothepointthatdemocraticallyelectedgovernmentstructuresexistatthelocallevel.Thelocalgovernmentalstructurethatdoesexist‐‐thetown,clanandparamountchiefs‐‐areelectedgovernmentofficials‐‐althoughelectionshaven’tbeenheldinoverfifteenyears‐‐theyreceiveasalaryandareaccountabletothenationalgovernment.Communitymembersintervieweddidnotdescribethemasrepresentativesoftheirinterests.
49USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Inthefaceofthisabsenceofviablelocalgovernmentinstitutionsandthehistoricaldistrustbetweenruralpopulationsandthenationalgovernment,firstLRCFPstaff,thentheCRLandtheregulations,supportedthecreationofnewinstitutionsindependentoftheexistinggovernment,despitetheadditionalcostsandpotentialconfusionsthiswouldcreate.TheCommunityAssembliesofthepilotcommunitiesdonotcontainTown,Paramount,orClanChiefs;theyarecomposedoflocallyelectedeldersandleaderselectedspecificallyfortheCAinageneralassembly.ThisadaptationtothechallengeofcreatingCFinstitutionsinthecontextofweakanddistrustedlocalgovernanceinstitutionsmaybetheonlysolutionfornow.AsLiberia’sgovernmentalreformdecentralizesgovernmentauthority,itwillbeimportantthattherolesandresponsibilitiesofinstitutionsareabsorbedintothefunctionsoflocalgoverningbodies.
Managementcosts.Thedraftoutlineofamanagementplanincludedinthedocument“HowtoCreateaCommunityForestManagementPlan”proposedeightsub‐committeesoftheCA.TheZoragreementwiththeFDAincludesfoursub‐committees,inadditiontotheCA,theCAExecutiveCommittee,andtheCFMB.Financialresourceswillbenecessarytosupportthefunctioningofthesesubcommitteesandtheirparentinstitutions.Theirmembersaredispersedacrossdozensofvillagesandtheirresponsibilitiescoveralargearrayoftopicsconcerningforests.Internationally,theabilityofcommunityforestryinstitutionstomanagebenefitsgeneratedfromtheirforestshasproventobeacriticalfactorforsuccess(Dietzetal.2003;Menzies,2007).Theregulationslistanumberofpossiblesourcesofincome.Communitiesmaydrawuponfeesandchargesfromcommunityforestactivitiesandpenaltiespaidbypeoplewhobreachcommunityforestrules.LRCFPhasprovidedanadditionalsourceoffinancingtheseinstitutionsbyplacingthecassavamillsandpalmoilpressestheprogramintroducedintothevillagesunderthemanagementoftheCAandCFMB,andincludingintheMOUswiththesegroupsthestipulationthattheCFMBreceive30%ofusefees.However,whenaskedhowtheywouldfinancetheirinstitutions,membersoftheCAsandCFMBsinterviewedhardlymentionedthesesources.Theydon’tconsiderthemsufficient.Instead,CAandCFMBmemberscitedanotherpotentialsourceofincome,basedonthefactthattheCRLandregulationsallowcommunitiestoestablishcontractswithtimbercompaniestologtheirforests.Theregulationsprovidethatcommunitiesreceive55%ofbidpremiumsand55%oflandrentalfees.Theymaybedisappointed.PendingtheGbaagreement,onlythe36townsandvillagesofNumopohhaveaforestlargerthan5,000ha.,andthatisonlyalittleover7,000ha.Despitethehopesofthecommunitymembers,largercompanieswillhavelittleinterestintheforestsofthepilotcommunities.Indeed,theregulationsmakethissupposition,andstatethat“becausesmallscalecommercialactivitiesareundertakenbycommunitiesthemselves,”loggingofareassmallerthan5,000hectaresaresubjecttolessstrictconditionsofmanagementplansagreeduponwiththeFDA.Thepilotcommunitiesarelikelytobeobligedtoscale‐backtheirhopesandrelyonsmall‐scale“pitsawyers.”Eventhere,though,LRCFPstaffhaveproposedthatcommunitieswaitfiveortenyearsbeforeengagingintheloggingoftheirforests,andsome,thoughnotall,oftheCAandCFMBmembersinterviewedrepeatedthiscautiousplan.Thepilotcommunities,ratherthanbeingoverwhelmedbynewresources,maybechallengedtoproduceenoughresourcestosustaintheworkingoftheinstitutionsthatkeepcommunityforestryrunning.
50USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
(NB:Othercommunityforestsmaynothavethissamechallenge.WhilecommercialloggingcompaniesmaynotbeinterestedinforestsofthesizeoftheLRCFPpilotcommunities,Liberia’stimbercompaniesareinterestedbythepossibilityofloggingcommunityforests.Theregulationsdefinecommunityforestsasareasunder49,999hectares,yettheyalsodescribetheconditionsforlogginglandsupto250,000hectares.Ifpowerfulinterestsexploitthisambiguityandotherloopholesandfindtheycancreatecommunityforestsofsizesnear50,000theLRCFPmodelwillnolongerapply.AlthoughthelegislationandregulationsweredevelopedwithLRCFPsupport,communityforestscreatedatthisscalewillmostlikelynotbecommunityforestryasconceivedbytheprogramnorUSAID.)
Internalinstitutionalintegrity.Liberia’scommunityforestryinstitutionswillbeunabletoperformtheirtaskssuccessfullyiftheydonotfairlyandopenlyrepresentandrespondtotheinterestsofthemembersoftheircommunities.Anabsenceofthiscapacitywillthreatentheirsustainability(Dietzetal.2003;Menzies,2007).Programstafffacedthechallengeoffosteringauthenticinstitutions,ownedandestablishedbycommunitiesfortheirownsake,andnotontheexpectationofrewardsfromtheprogram.Andstaffneededtofostertheseinstitutionsonatimeline,meetcertainequityandgenderexpectations,andthenhelpcommunitiesrestructurethemoncetheCRLwasenacted.Programstaffapproachedthischallengebyrevivingandrepurposingexistinginstitutions,thenformalizingthem.TheLRCFPprofilescitenumeroustownandclan‐basedinstitutions.Thequarterlyreportsindicatethatthreeofthecommunities,allexceptZor,hadexistingcommunityforestmanagementinstitutionspriortotheprogram.Forexample,theNitrianDevelopmentAssociation,createdin1937,managedaforestinthatcommunitywithsupportfromtheSocietyforConservationofNatureofLiberiapriorto2000.Alsonotedwerethelittleunderstood“secretsocieties”thatmayformanimportantforceinlocalpowerstructuresand,accordingtotheNitrianprofile,playa“keyroleinforestmanagementandconservation.”AlthoughLRCFPstaffdidnothavethetimeandresourcestofullystudyanyoftheseinstitutions,theyconsiderednoneofthemtobeparticularlyvibrant,andbelievetheFMBslargelyreplacedtheminpersonnelandresponsibilities.WiththeenactmentoftheCRL,LRCFPworkedwithcommunitiestocreatetheirCAsandCFMBsfollowingtheguidelinesofthelaw.TheoriginalFMBmemberswereelectedbythecommunities,whiletheCFMBmemberswereselectedbytheCA.RepresentativesoftheSinoecommunitiesreportedthatthisresultedinamoderatechangeinmembership.OfthetenCFMBmembersinthetwocommunities,sixwerepreviouslymembersoftheFMBsofthetwocommunities.CAsarenewinstitutions,requiredbylaw.Theirmembersareelectedbysecretballotingeneralmeetingsofthecommunities.CAmembersinterviewedreportthattheirAssemblyiscomposedofelders,womenleaders,andleadersofyouthgroups.Giventheserequirements,willtheCAsandCFMBsrepresentandrespondtotheneedsofthecommunities?Willtheydistributeforestresourcesequitably?Theevaluationteam,whointheendwasabletovisitonlyoneofthecommunities,andspokeonlywithprogramparticipants,didnotfindindicationstothecontrary.InterviewswithcommunitymembersinNimbaCountyindicatedthattheCFMBsareexpectedtousetheirresourcestosupportpublicworks,suchasclearingcommunityroads.Thisindicatesacertainacceptanceoftheinstitution,althoughmoreresearchwouldbenecessarytoanswerthequestiondefinitively.Ontheotherhand,LRCFPclearlydrovethecreationoftheinstitutionsofthepilotcommunities,tothepointofseekinglegalassistanceindraftingtheirconstitutions.When
51USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
askedwhytheTownChiefacceptedthesenewupstartinstitutions,oneAGRHAtrainerwhohadworkedcloselyinoneofthecommunitiesfortwoyears,respondedthattheCFMBwasrespectedbecauseitattracteddonors,NGOs,andgovernmentofficials.LRCFPcreatedamodelwiththeexpectationthatitbereplicated.Butitwasnotamodelforcommunitiesthemselves.Indeed,themanual“HowtoEstablishCommunityForestManagementInstitutions”isafacilitator’smanual.Itassumesthatanoutsiderwillfosterthecreationoftheseinstitutions,notsomeonefromthecommunity.Itisquestionablethatexternalagentscanfosterlegitimatelocalinstitutionsinthisway.Inthelongterm,theprocessthatcreatesthemmaydecreasetheircapacitytoremaingroundedandstable.
Locallyenforceable,easilyunderstoodcommunityrules.Theoriginandqualityofrulesmakeadifferenceinthesustainabilityofcommunityforestryinstitutions.“Rulesthatareeasytounderstandandenforce,locallydevised,takeintoaccountdifferencesintypesofviolations,helpdealwithconflicts,andhelpholdusersandofficialsaccountablearemostlikelytoleadtoeffectivegovernance”(Agarwal,2007).LRCFPstafftookpainstoworkwithcommunitiestodeveloptheruleswrittenintotheconstitutionsandforestmanagementplansofthepilotcommunities.Justasforestmanagementinstitutionsexistedpreviously,allofthecommunitieshadrulesregardinguseofforestresourcespriortoLRCFP’sarrival.Communityprofilesindicateanumberofthese,includingthefactthatthatNitrianhada“forestreserve,”andchargedpitsawyers20%ofthevalueoftimbertheyextractedfromotherforests.Workshopsinthecommunitieshelpedarticulateandreviserules.(SeeSectionVIII,Communications,forfurtherdetails.)Intheprocessofdevelopingtheco‐managementplanfortheENNR,co‐managementcommitteemembersconductedasurvey,tolearnusesoftheforestandhelpthemdecideouthowtocompensateforthoseuses.The“Resourceharvestinganduserulesandpenalties”fortheNitriancommunityreviewedforthisevaluationconsistofbansonhuntingorharvestingspecificanimalsandproducts,seasonallimits,andlimitsonmethods.Theyappearclear,uncomplicated,andsimilarinnaturetorulesfoundinotherforestcommunities.At24pages,theconstitutionfortheZorCommunityAssemblyreviewedforthisevaluation,presentsamorecomplicated,lessself‐evident,setofrules.Nevertheless,itappearsthatinmakingtheserulesLRCFPstaffhavetoalargeextentsucceededin“formalizingtheinformal.”Yet,sofar,onlytheirfirstiterationhasbeenproduced.Muchyetremainstobedonetoraisecommunityawarenessoftheirnewrulesandtestthemthroughtheirapplication.Theymustbetranslatedbackfromlegaldocumentstolocalknowledgeinaformavailabletotheselargelyoralcultures.Sofar,theyarenotwellknown.Ininterviewsforthisevaluation,CAandCFMBmemberswerewellawarethattheyhadconstitutions,butastheprogramreacheditscloseatthetimeoftheevaluation,theywereabletociteonlyafewofthevarious“resourceharvesting”rules.Indeed,evaluatorsencounteredonerule,abanonpoisoningfish,oversixtimesinseparatesituations,tothevirtualexclusionofanyotherrules.(Informantswerenotquestionedontheirknowledgeoftheirconstitutions.)Infact,manyCAandCFMBmembersinterviewedwerenotawarethatforestmanagementrulesevenhadbeenwrittendown,orthatFDAapprovedmanagementplanswererequiredofthecommunities.Peoplewillneedtounderstandtheserules,ifonlytoadaptandmodifythemovertime.Veryfewsetsofrulescanremainstaticandnewlydevelopedsetsofrulesinrapidlychangingcontextsoftenneedextensivetinkering.Unfortunately,muchofthatmalleabilityhasbeenremovedbecausetheseruleswereprintedoncomputersandapprovedbyboththeFDAandLRCFP.Communitiesareunlikelytorewritethesedocuments,giventhattheydidnotwritetheminthefirstplace.Thesustainabilityofthese
52USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
systemsofruleswilldependonanongoingbalancebetweenlocaloriginsandarticulation,presumablybyoutsiders,sothattheycancontinuetobe“locallydevised.”
Demographicchangesmaydestabilizecommunityforestinstitutions.Populationgrowthovertimemayincreasepressureonagriculturallandandforestresourcesandchallengemanagementinstitutions,especiallyifitresultsinincreasedcross‐borderincursionsfromGuinea.Otherdemographicchangesmayhavegreaterimmediateimpact.SinceNovember2010over150,000IvorianrefugeeshavealsocrossedtheborderintoNimbaCounty.Whilemanyoftheserefugeesstayincamps,manyalsoresidewithfamilyandfriends–someofwhomtheyhostedasrefugeesfromLiberiawhenthetableswereturned.AccordingtoLRCFPstaff,arefugeecamp–theZorgoweeRefugeeCamp‐‐wasinitiallyestablishedinoneofthepilotcommunities,beforeitwasresettled.Suchdramaticchangesinpopulationincreasepressureonforestresourcesandthedemandtoclearforestforagriculture.
Tenureclaims.(DiscussedinSectionV)
Implicationsforfutureprograms
Continuetosupportpilotforestsandcontinuetouseasmodelsandsourcesoflessonslearned.WhileLRCFPhasmadesignificantprogressinsupportingthedevelopmentofcommunityforestsinthepilotcommunities,muchworkisnecessarytosupportthecommunitieswhiletheyinstitutionalizethenewchanges.Atthetimeofthefinalevaluation,managementplanshadnotbeenfinalized,submittedtotheFDAforapproval,orpresentedintheirfinalformstothecommunities.Further,itmaystillbenecessarytoprovidecommunitiessupportifeliteinterestsfromeitherwithinouroutsideofthecommunityattempttogaincontroloverforestmanagement.
Revisionoftheregulations.ThefindingsofthisevaluationsuggestthatUSAIDshouldconsiderinitiatingaprocessofreviewingtheregulationsforpotentialrevision.TotheweaknessesintheregulationsdescribedinthenextSectiononLTPR,inthissectionwehaveidentifiedtheproceduralhurdlesintheregulationsasabreakonthewidespreadadoptionofcommunityforestry,andthesecurecontinuationofagreementsoncetheyareapproved.GiventheclearlackofcapacityoftheFDAtomanagetheforest,theglobalresearchontherelativesuccessofcommunitiestomanagetheirownforestswhengiventheleewaytodeterminetheirownrules,thetechnicalrequirementsandproceduralconstraintsserveeffectivelyasbarrierstocommunitiestoengagingrightsgrantedintheCRL.ReinforceFDAcapacitytosupportanddefendcommunityforests.FutureUSAIDsupportforcommunityforestryinLiberiamustaddressthischallenge.Morethantechnicalcapacity,theFDAneedstodefineandestablishitsroleasanadvocateforcommunityforestsandforestcommunities.Withoutastronggovernmentaladvocate,giventhesignificantlygreaterresourcesdedicatedtoconservationand,especially,commercialusesofforestland,communityforestrywillremainamarginalactivityinthelandscape.Whileastrategyof“threeCs”suggestsequivalencebetweencommercialforestry,conservation,andcommunityforestry,equilibriumishardlybeingimplementedontheground.Amongotheractivities,futureCFfundinginLiberiashouldcontinuetoworkwithFTI,helpingtobuildFDAsupportforandcapacityinCFthroughmoreshortcourses.
53USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Worktoreduceproceduralbarriers.FurtherinvestmentincommunityforestryinLiberiashouldfocusondevelopingmeanstoreducethebarriersforcommunitiestoestablishandmaintaincommunityforests.Asexplainedabove,communitiesnotreceivingprogramsupportwillnotbeabletoimplementtherigorousmodelrequiredbytheregulations,andimplementedbyLRCFPwithoutsubstantialsupport–asituationwhichonlycreatesabiastowardscommunitieswithsignificantsupport,potentiallyfromtimbercompanies.
Developrealisticsystemsforforestmanagement.Inadditiontoenablingcommunitiestomoreeasilygainrightstoownandmanagetheforeststheyhaveusedandoccupiedforcenturies,futureworkoncommunityforestryinLiberiashoulddeveloprealisticsystemsforforestmanagementthataresimpleanddirectenoughforcommunitiesandtheFDAtoimplement.Managementplansshouldbebasedonopencommunitydeliberations,draftedbyCFMBmembers,understoodandagreeduponintheirentiretybytheCommunityAssembly.Giventheoralnatureofthecommunities,onemightexpectthatmuchoftheplansbetransmittedorallyandcommittedtocommonunderstandinginthatform.Giventhatliteracyislimitedinthesecommunities,plansshouldbeabrief,direct,andsimpleaspossible.(AsnotedinthebestpracticesinCFdocument,the2004FAOdocument“ExperienceswithDevelopingSimplerForestManagementPlans”providesguidanceandexamples).
Buildlocaldocumentationcapacity.Allofficialdocuments(constitutions,managementplans)havebeendraftedbyLRCFP.BeginbuildinglocalcapacitythroughNAEALsupporttoteachpeopletodocumenteventsatthelocallevel.Thiswouldhelppeacebuildingaswellasstrengthenlocalownershipofinstitutions.(NAEALcanbeginworkingonthisinthebridgingperiod.)
Furtherexplorationofthechainsawingandhuntingvaluechains.Thesetwomostprevalentmeansofextractingwealthfromtheforestsofthepilotcommunitiesarepotentialsourcesoffinancingforcommunityinstitutions.ChainsawingRegulation115‐11,recentlypromulgatedbytheFDArequireschainsawerstoobtainapermitfromtheFDAtoworkincommunityforests.FutureUSAIDinvestmentinCFinLiberiashouldincludeefforttoclarifytheroleofthesetwovaluechainsincommunityforestryinLiberia.
Includeaffectedcommunitiesinthemix.Currently,manyofLiberia’scommunitiesarelosingforestrightstotimberconcessions.Despitethefactthatprogramobjectivesfocusedoncommunityforestry,LRCFPstafffounditnecessaryandusefultoprovideassistancetotheFDAintheirworkondefiningandprotectingtherightsofcommunitiessituatedneartimberconcessions.TheprogramestablishedtheNationalBenefitsSharingTrustbecause“nooneelsewasdoingit.”UsingskillsprovidedbyLRCFP,theCommunityForestrydivisionoftheFDAhashelpedestablish27CFDCs.Workinthisdomainmayindeedimpactmanymorecommunitiesforfewerdonorresourcesthanestablishingcommunityforests.
54USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionV LandTenureandPropertyRights
Background
TheoriginandearlyevolutionoftheLTPRcomponentTheclarificationoflandtenureandpropertyrightsposesseriouschallengesforgovernmentsinpost‐conflictsituations.InLiberia,thestakesarehigh,asdisputesoverlandcouldprovokeareturntobroadconflict.Yetthegovernmenthashadlimitedmeanstoaddressthisproblem.Upontheconclusionofthecivilwar,theGOLhadonlyaweakandincompletelegalframeworkandscantinstitutionalresourcestorespondtochallenge.Whenestablishingcommunityforests,itisessentialthatgovernmentsprovideclearandsecurerightstocommunities‐‐rightsoverlandaswellasforests,andtrees.ThehighpotentialvalueofLiberia’sforestlandsandprojects,andexpectedcompetitionoverthoseresources,increasedtheurgencyofclarifyingthedistributionoftheserights.TheapproachtakenbytheGOLintacklinglandtenureissueshasseensignificantclarificationinrecentyears.WhenLRCFPwasdesigneditwasreasonabletothinkthattheprogram,workingwiththeFDA,couldaddresslandtenureissuesfacingcommunityforestry.TheinclusionofaspecificobjectivededicatedtoLTPRwasbothimportantandtimely.TheGovernanceCommission(GC)haddeclaredtheneedtocreateaLandCommission(LC)toaddresslandtenureandpropertyrightsissues.Foritspart,theFDAhadinitiatedtheprocesstodevelopaCommunityRightsLaw(CRL)concerningrightsoverlandandforestsatthecommunitylevel.TheLRCFPdesignassumedthatalandtenureandcommunityforestryprogramcouldworkwiththeseinitiativestodevelopasuccessfulcommunityforestryprograminLiberia,fortifiedbyalegalandinstitutionalframeworkandprocessforsecuringrightsinforestlandstocommunities.Thus,theobjectiveofComponent2wasstatedas:“LandTenureandPropertyRightssystemsdevelopedandstrengthenedtosecurerightsforallnaturalresourceusers/owners.”However,inthefirstmonthsofLRCFP,USAIDandtheprimecontractorTT/ARDrealizedthatdelaysintheestablishmentofaLandCommissionwouldimpactontheprogram’sabilitytoachievethiselementofLRCFP.ItalsobecameclearrelativelyearlyonintheprogramthatotherarmsofthegovernmentwouldresistalawgrantingFDAunilateralauthorityinthedistributionofforestland.Asaresult,TT/ARDrequestedamodificationtothedocumentdefiningtheirSOW,theprogramTaskOrder.TaskOrderModification2,signedinthethirdquarteroftheprogram,recognizedthenewconstraintsandshiftedLTPRactivitiesto“focusoninformingpolicydevelopmentwithemphasisonforestlands,supportingtheLandCommission,andassistinginpublicinformationandparticipationinpolicydevelopment.”Themodificationreplacedthegoalofcreatingsecurerightsinlandandpropertywiththegoalofstrengtheningrightsinforestaccess,use,andmanagement.LTPRissuesweretobeclarified,notresolved.Infact,Modification2definedLTPRitselfas“agreedcommunityrightstoaccess,use,benefitfromandpotentiallyownforestland.”Atthecountylevel,theobjectivewassteppedbackfromresolvingclaimstolandtoresolvingforestconflicts.QuarterlyReport3describesthisverysignificantdeflationofComponent2
55USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
thisway:“landownershipissuesareunlikelytoberesolvedduringthelifeoftheprogram.Nevertheless,codificationofcustomaryrightstoforestresources(Component1)andpilotimplementation(Component3)areasignificantstepinrecognizinglandandresourcetenure.”
Thecontext:landtenureandpropertyrightsandinstitutionsinLiberia
LiberiahasnotarticulatedanintegratedLTPRpolicy.Numerouslawsdealwithland,propertyandnaturalresources.Theyprovidesomepolicydirection,butaredisparateandoverlappingandremaintobeharmonizedintocoherentpolicy.Someofthemalsoneedtobeupdated.MajorlawsthatdealwithLTPRincludetheHinterlandLaw(1949),theAborigineLaw(1956)andthePublicLandsLaw(1973,butactuallydatingtothe19thcentury).TheHinterlandandAboriginelawsprovidecommunitiesthevaluableoptionofregisteringeitherownershipofland(Hinterlandlaw)oruserightsinland(Aboriginelaw).ThestatusoftheAborigineslawreflectssomeoftheambiguityoverLiberia’slegalframework.LegislatorsdidnotincludethislawintheLiberianCodesRevisedin1973.Thisomissionhasprovokeddebateoverwhethertheomissionwasintentional,andconstitutestherepealofthelaw,orunintentional.Thequestionremainstobetested,asnocommunityhasregisteredlandundereitheroftheselaws.Currently,thePublicLandsLawconstitutestheonlymodernlegaltoolforgroupsandindividualstoacquiresecuretenurerightsoverland,includingcustomaryland–landclaimedthroughoccupationanduseovertime.Yetthislawisalsoinflux.InFebruaryof2010thePresidentdeclaredamoratoriumonthesaleofpubliclandattherequestoftheLandCommission.InterimGuidelinesandProceduresfortheSaleofPublicLand,draftedbytheLandCommissionandapprovedinMarch2011taketheplaceofthe1973PublicLandlaw.BruceandKanneh(2011),inareviewofcurrentcivillandlawinLiberia,observethatrevisionofthewholeframeworkisrequiredas“manyofthemorefundamentallawshavebeenrenderedseriouslyinadequatebychangingconditions,needsandvalues”.Confusioncharacterizesthemandatesoftheinstitutionsthatareslowlyemergingtoaddresstheseweaknessesindefiningrightsinland.TheFDA,createdin1976,remainsweakbutisrebuilding.Itadministersrightstoforestedlands,asdoestheMinistryofLands,MinesandEnergy(MLM&E).TheMinistryofInternalAffairs(MIA),throughtheircountylandcommissioners,addresseslandadministrationatthecountylevel.TheGovernanceCommissionrecentlyinitiatedresearchindecentralizedgovernanceandlocalinstitutions.AndtheLandCommission,withthemandatetoaddressandclarifykeylandtenureissues,officiallylaunchedonlyinMarchof2010.Nordoesthegovernmentprojectastrongpresenceinlandtenureregulationatthecommunitylevel.Townchiefsalonerepresentthecentralgovernmentinvillagesandtowns.Theirpresencesimultaneouslybringsthenationalgovernmentcloseandalienatesruralcommunities.Indeed,someobserversarguethatthecentralizeddecisionmaking,muchofitrelatingtolandtenure,marginalizedlocalcommunities,andformedarootcauseofthecountry’sprolongedconflict.
56USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
AnalysisoftheCRLandRegulations
TheCommunityRightsLawwithRespecttoForestLand
TheprocesstodeveloptheCRLTheCRLdevelopmentprocesswaswellunderwaywhenLRCFPlaunchedinDecemberof2007.Programstafffoundthemselvesamidapolarizedprocessinwhichtwogroupshadformedeachwithitsownideasontheobjectivesforthelaw.Onegroup,composedlargelyofasub‐setofthecountry’sNGOs,soughttoaddressthemarginalizedpositionofcommunitiesthrougharights‐basedapproach.Onefoundationalprincipleoftheirargumentwasthatcommunitiesalreadyowntheirlandandtheforests.Landandforestareinterlinked;communitieshaveestablishedownershipoverbothoftheseresourcesthroughhistoricoccupation.Landthatisnotdeededshouldbeconsideredcommunityland,andconsequently,theCRLshouldrecognizeownershiprightsoverlandaswellasforests,andincludemechanismstoformalizethisownership.Thisstrategycreatedconflictwithgovernmentalrepresentatives,especiallytheFDA,whoarguedthatallnon‐deededlandispublicland,notcommunityland.Anothergroup,whichincludedtheFDA,andsomeconservationNGOssuchasFaunaandFloraInternational(FFI),arguedthattheCRLshouldlimititsscopetorightsinforestsandnotaddresslandownership,undertheargumentthattheCRLshouldnotanticipatethefutureworkoftheLC.TheGCwhichwaspushingforthecreationoftheLCsupportedthisposition.TheprovisionalfiveyearworkplanoftheLandCommissionincludedpolicyandlegallandtenurereformactivitiestoaddresscommunityland.ThisgroupalsoarguedthattheCRLshouldbewrittenasabroad“framework”law,whichwouldbeabletoincorporatelessonslearnedthroughpracticalexperiencethroughamendmentsatalaterstage.Theconfrontationbetweenthetwogroupstookalarmingproportions.Differentdraftsofthelawweredevelopedthroughisolatedparallelprocessesandseveraldraftsmadeittovariouslevelsofthelegislature.BoththeHouseandtheSenatepassedoneversionbeforeitwasultimatelyheldupbeforebeingsignedbythePresident.Finally,acompromiseversionpassedthelegislatureinSeptember2009,whichPresidentsignedinOctoberofthatyear.LRCFPengagedinthesedeliberationsandplayedanimportantroleenablingthelawtobepassed.Althoughsomeprogramstaffclearlyhadaposition–programquarterlyreportsdescribetheversionnotsignedbythePresidentasoverlyproscriptive–theyalsoplayedaroleinclarifyingissues,conveningmeetingsandfacilitatingdiscussionsamongthevariousactors.ThePresidentsignedtheCRLinthethirdquarterofthesecondyearofwhatwastobeatwoyearprogram.Theprogram’sdesignwasbuiltontheexpectationthatthelawwouldbepassedintheearlymonthsofLRCFP.Programstaffhadnotwaitedforthepassageofthelawtocreateforestmanagementinstitutions,andoncethelawwaspasseditprovidedalegalbasisfortheexistingpilotcommunityforests.
AssessmentofCRLContentsPassageoftheCRLputcommunityforestrystronglyontheagendaoftheGOLandtheFDA.WhereastheNationalForestManagementStrategyof2007presentedcommunityforestry
57USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
asconfinedtofewselectedareas,basedonalandsuitabilityanalysis,theCRLextendsthepotentialofcommunityforestrytoalllandsoverwhichcommunitieshaveestablishedrights.WhiletheCRLdoesnotdealwithownershiprightsoverland,whichitreferstotheLandCommission,itdoesprovideguidanceonhowcommunitiescanestablishrightstouseandmanagecertainareasofforestedland,foradeterminedperiodoftime.Notwithstandingthislimitedscope,theCRLcanbeconsideredasalawthatadvancestherightsofcommunitiesoverforestsandlandssignificantlybeyondthoseconferredbytheNFRL(2006)fortwomainreasons:
Thedefinitionof“communitybasedforestmanagement”establishesalinkbetween
communitylandrightsandcommunityforestrymissingintheNFRL.Throughthisdefinition,theCRLservesasabasisforassertingexistingcommunityrightsincommunityforestrynotdependentuponpermitbygovernment.Further,theCRLdefinitionof“communityforestland”usestheterm“ownership”tocharacterizethattenurerelationship.Thedefinitionalsostatesthat“communityforestland”isinter‐changeablewith“communityforest”whichfurthertightenstherelationshipbetweenlandandforest.Thedefinitionsof“communitylandarea”and“customaryland”alsoconveythatthecontrolofthislandisnotbypermitbutbyhistoricright.Thus,throughthesedefinitions,theCRLsuggeststhatcommunitiescanclaimrightsoverforestedlandbyestablishingevidenceoftheirtraditionaloccupationortraditionalownership.(BruceandKanneh,2011)
TheCRLalsobroadensthepotentialusecommunitiesmaymakeoftheirforestsandtakescommunityforestryoutofthenarrowsphereofself‐sufficiency.Thelawsupportstheideathatcommunitiesmayexploitforestresourcesinacommercialfashionandparticipatefullyinmarketsasentrepreneursratherthanassubsistenceactors.ThismajorshiftfromtheNFRLacknowledgesthatforestcommunitiesdependlargelyoncertainformsofcommercialexploitationforsustainingtheirlivelihoods.Ontheotherhand,thelawimpliesthatcommunitiesthemselvesarenotcapabletoengageinthecommercialexploitationofforestresourcesontheirown.TheCRLallowsforcommercialactivitiesestablishedthroughpartnershipsandthepossibleoutsourcingexploitationtocommercialentrepreneurs.
TheRegulationstotheCRL
Processtodeveloptheregulations
IncontrasttoCRL,theLRCFPplayedadefiningroleinthedevelopmentoftheregulationstotheCRL;infactittookaleadintheprocess.Thereisnodoubtthatwithouttheprogramtherewouldbenoregulationsatthismoment,andthatcommunityforestrywouldbesupportedlessforcefullyinlaw.AftertheenactmentoftheCRLtheLRCFPestablishedasub‐contractwithanationallegal/policyconsultantwhoisalsotheChairmanoftheInter‐MinisterialConcessionCommission,WillieBellehofSubah‐BellehAssociates.BellehfirstcarriedouttwostakeholderconsultationworkshopsinAprilandMayof2010.TheseforumsvettedtheCRLandsoughtinputintothedevelopmentofimplementingregulations.TheAprilworkshopreviewedthelawandanalyzedareasofconflictbetweenit,theNFRL(2006),andthe
58USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Authority’s“TenCoreRegulations”.Theworkshopidentifiedthefollowingareasofpossibleconflict:
FDApowerstoregulateforestresourceslocatedincommunityforests; theobligationofforestcommunitiestoopenlybidcontractswithcommercial
interests;and thebenefitscommunitiesaretoderivefromcommercialoperatorsoncommunity
forests.
Whileitwouldhavebeenbetterhadtheseconflictsbeenidentifiedandaddressedpriortothelaw’senactment,identificationbytheconsultantadvancedtheprocess.Inhisreview,Bellehsuggestedspecificmeansofaddressingtheseinconsistenciesintheregulations.LRCFPcontinuedworkonthedevelopmentoftheregulationswithSubah‐BellehAssociatesfortheremainderoftheprogram.ItalsoreliedstronglyontheinternationalLTPRexperttofacilitatetheprocess,andontheprogram’sthirdCOPwhoiswellacquaintedwiththeprocessoflawdevelopment.Thestepstakenareasfollows:
WorkshopinMay2010toidentifyspecificCRLissuesthatrequiredfurtherregulation.
Productionofa“zerodraft”bythenationalconsultant. DiscussionofthedraftinfourregionalworkshopsheldinOctober2010,andone
nationalworkshopinDecember2010. Productionofafinaldraftincorporatingcommentsfromtheworkshops. ApplicationofFDARegulation101‐07totheprocess.Thisregulationstipulatesthe
proceduresonPublicParticipationinthePromulgationofregulations,CodesandManuals.Itprescribesthatnewregulationsaresubjectto,amongotherthings,(i)publicnoticeinthreenationalnewspapers;(ii)discussioninthreeregionalmeetings;(iii)advertisementofregionalmeetingsonregionalradioatleasttwoweeksbeforetheholdingofthemeetings;and(iv)apublicreviewandcommentperiod.
Assessmentofthecontentsoftheregulations
Theevaluationteamhasidentifiedthefollowingweaknessesintheregulations:
1)TheydonotreflectthespiritofthelawtheyinterpretandintroducenewelementsnotfoundintheCRLitself,including: TheregulationsgrantFDAthepowertograntrightstoaccess,management,useand
benefitfromforestresourcesoncommunityforestland.ThiserodestheassertionintheCRLthatcommunitieshaverightsintheirforestsnotbypermitbutbyhistoricright.
Theprinciplesof“AuthorizedCommunity”andthe“CommunityForestAgreement”arenotdevelopedinthelawitselfandareagainstitsfundamentals.Theseconceptsevenputindoubtwhethercommunitymembersareallowedtoaccesstheir“traditionallyownedlands”ortheir“forestresourcesforwhichthecommunityhasacquiredcustomarytenureorotherformsofproprietorshiporguardianship”.
2)WhiletheCRLcharacterizesthemajorroleoftheFDAtobeoneofsupport,theregulationsgive“participation”ameaningdifferent,ifnottheconverse,frominternationalbestpractice.TheyproposeleadershiprolesfortheFDA,withsupportandconsentfromcommunities:
59USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Theregulationssubstituteasocio‐economicsurveyconductedbytheFDAfortheself‐identificationbythecommunity.Communitiesmayparticipateintheactivityandprovideconsent.Thecommunityalsohastheopportunitytoprovideinputonthefinalreport.
TheFDAconductsthesurvey,demarcationandmappingofthearea,withtheparticipationofthecommunityandotherpublicinstitutions.
3)SeveralarticlesandprovisionsoftheregulationsareinconsistentwiththeCRL,including: Inthelaw,communitiesmayallocatemedium‐scalecommercialactivitiesonanon‐
competitivebasis,whileintheregulationstheyaresubjecttothestricterprovisionsofthePublicProcurementandConcessionsAct.
IntheCRLcommunitiesreceive55%ofallrevenue/incomegeneratedfromlargescalecommercialactivities,whereasintheregulationscommunitiesreceive55%ofthebidpremiumsand55%ofthelandrentalfee.
4)Theregulationsdonotaddressthreeimportantissues: Procedurestoidentifycustomarylandsoverwhichcommunitiescanextenda
communityforestmanagementright. RightsinforestsandforestlandofcommunitiesnotunderformalCFagreementswith
theFDA.WhiletheCRLmakesbroadassertionsregardingtherightsofcommunities,theregulationsgrantrightstoaseverelylimitednumberofcommunitiesbyestablishingrequirementsconstitutingwhatittermsa“program,”towhichcommunitiesmustapplytoparticipateandwhichrequiressignificanteffortonthepartofboththecommunities,andjustasimportant,theFDA.
TheneedandproceduresforCommunityAssociationstoincorporate.(ThisabsencewasrecognizedbyLRCFPstaff,andtheincorporationproceduresincludedinthemanual“HowtoEstablishCommunityForestInstitutions.”)
BothLRCFPstaffandtheFDAareawareofsomeoftheseissues.Indeed,someoftheinconsistenciesaretheresultofanefforttomitigateprovisionsoftheCRLconsideredlessdesirable,suchastheabsenceofarequirementtoopenlybidmedium‐scalecommercialactivitiesoncommunityforests.However,althoughtheyarewellintended,theseattemptstomodifyenactedlawthroughregulationspromulgatedbyoneagencymaygivegroundstoannul,orseriouslyweaken,theregulations.“Fixing”thelawthroughtheregulationsmayalsorationalizeinaction,andweakenmomentumtowardsamendingandimprovingtheCRLitself.InterviewsofLRCFPandUSAIDstaffindicatedsomereticencetoinitiatingtheprocessformakingthenecessarychangestotheCRL,mainlybasedonperceivedriskthatthiswouldopenthedoortopoliticiansinterestedinfurtherweakeningthecurrentlaw.WhiletheregulationsthemselvesareflexibleandcanbeamendedbytheFDA,itisdoubtfulthattheAuthoritywillundertakethistaskinthenearfuture.Indeed,LRCFPhasalreadyprintedanddistributedadraftformoftheregulationsinabooklet.
Implementationofthecomponent
TimelineQ1 12/07‐03/08
60USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
• TaskOrderawardedtoTT/ARD(mid‐December2007)• ProvidesinputtodevelopmentoftheCommunityRightsLaw• ExpectationthatLandCommissionwillbesoonestablishedQ2 04/08–06/08• Continuedparticipationin,influenceon,andfinancialsupportfor,CRLdiscussions• ContinuedcollaborationwiththeGovernanceCommission.• TT/ARDrequestsTOmodificationQ3 07/08–09/08 LRCFPsupportsninepage“framework”CRL.Congressapproves32pageversion,
whichisnotsignedbythepresident. Modification2approved,LTPRobjectiveinprogramsharplylimited
Q4 10/08–12/08• LRCFPsharestenureinformationfrompilotcommunitieswithGCQ5 01/09–03/09• LRCFPcollaborateswithGC.BringsGCtotraining,providesinfofrompilot
communitiesQ7 07/09–09/09• ConsensusCRLandacttocreateLandCommissionpassed9/09.• MembersoftheLCappointed.WorkshopwithLRCFPexpertsQ8 10/09–12/09• CRLsigned• LCauthorizedQ9 01/10–03/10• FDAbeginsworkonregulations• Publicconsultation,legalanalysisoftheCRL• LRCFPdiscussionwithLConlookingatrurallandissuesQ12 10/10–12/10• Regulationsvettingprocesscontinues• FourregionalworkshopsontheCRLseekinginputQ13 1/11–3/11• LandCommissionersvisitpilotcommunities.WorkshopsheldQ14 4/11–6/11• FinalapprovalofCRLregulations
Descriptionofimplementation
LRCFPworkplansevolvedastheprogramwasimplemented.HerewedescribeprogramimplementationagainsttheactivitiesofWorkplanFive(January–August2011),component
61USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
2:“Landtenureandpropertyrightssystemsforforestlandsdevelopedandstrengthenedtosecurerightsfornaturalresourceusers/owners“.
Activity2.1:DevelopworkingrelationswiththeLandCommission,relevantnational‐levelagenciesandotherdonorefforts
PriortothecreationoftheLandCommission,theGovernanceCommissionwasdealingwithemerginglandissuesinLiberia.ProgramquarterlyreportsnotecollaborationandinformationsharingwiththeGCatthispoint.Inparticular,LRCFPprovidedsupportandadvicetotechnicalstaffoftheGCcontributingtothecreationofthefutureLC.BecausetheLandCommissionwasestablishedmuchlaterthanexpected,bythetimeofthisevaluationtheprogramhadonly18monthstoengage.Attheendof2009,theLCinvitedtheLRCFPLTPRspecialisttocontributetoaoneweekretreattodiscusstheLCworkplanwhichwasstillgettingorganized,andinNovemberof2010,theprogramincludedoneLandCommissionerandonetechnicalsupportstaffinastudytourinCrossRiverState,Nigeria.ThiswasthefirstrealopportunitytoexposetheCommissiontoprotectedareasandcommunityforestrypoliciesandinstitutions.LRCFPincreasedengagementwiththeLCin2010byinvitingtwocommissionersandonetechnicalstafftovisitthepilotcommunities.ThecommissionerspresentedthefindingsofthevisitstotheLCandonecommissionervisitedNimbaCountyasecondtimeandpresentedfindingsdiscussedbytheLCinMonroviatothelocalauthoritiesandcommunityrepresentatives.Atthetimeoftheevaluation,LRCFPhadalsobeenparticipatingintheLandStakeholderConsultativeForum.
Activity2.2:Strengthenworkingrelationshipwithlocalgovernments
Fromtheonsetoftheprogram,staffdevelopedworkingrelationswithlocalgovernmentsinthepilotareas.LRCFPfocusedoninformalinstitutionsbelowtheleveloftheTownChief.Whiletheprogrammaintainedcontactatthecountylevel,relationshipswerenotextensive,particularlywithlandcommissioners.Infact,theNimbaCountyLandCommissionerstatedthathewasonly“awareoftheexistenceoftheproject”sincetheendof2010.
Activity2.3:BuildcapacityinLTPR
LRCFPquarterlyreportsdonotpresentaclearpictureoftrainingorothercapacitybuildingsupportforLTPRspecifically.Underthisactivityheading,untiltheendof2009reportedcapacitybuildinginLTPRconsistedmainlyofthedevelopmentanddemonstrationofamodelforcommunityLTPRincommunityforestlands,andprovidingtrainingtoacadreofindividualstoaddressLTPRinforestslands.Since2010,quarterlyreportsunderthisheadingincludeactivitiesthatmightfallbetterunderotherobjectivesandoutputs,suchasactivitiesdirectlyrelatedtotheimplementationoftheCRL,supporttolocalforestinstitutions,generalleadershiptraining,andsupportandinteractionwithLC.
LRCFPdevelopedanumberofpracticaltoolsthataddressLTPRincommunityforestry,thoughsometimesonlyperipherally.Briefly,theirLTPRcontent:
CommunityProfiles.ThefourprofilesLRCFPconductedanddocumentedearlyintheprogramincludeinformationonlandandresourcetenure.Limitedtimewasallottedtoconducttheprofiles,andtheyprovideonlyabasicintroductiontolocalissues.
62USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Theprofilesremainindraftform,andCFMBmembersinformedtheevaluationteamthattheseprofileswerenotyetrestitutedtothecommunities.
HowtoEstablishCommunityForestManagementInstitutions(draft).DevelopedinclosecollaborationwithFDA,thismanualtakestheuserthroughtheprocessasoutlinedintheCRLandregulations.Themanualincludesachapteroncommunityboundarymappingwhichreferstopossibleoverlappingclaimsbetweendifferentcommunities,butisvoidofreferencestopossiblelandrightsandclaimswithinacommunity’sterritory.
HowtoCreateaForestManagementPlan(draft).Thecommunityprofilingandboundarydemarcationandconflictmanagementsectionsrefertolandcommissiondataforcompilationandanalysis.Thismanualalsoincludesimportantguidanceonlanduseplanningandthedevelopmentofmanagementplans,butdoesnotrefertotheneedtobetteridentifyandunderstanddifferenttenuresituations.Thisomissionisstriking,giventhenumberofothertenurerightsandclaimsthatoftenoverlapwithcommunityforests.Examplesofothersuchclaimsincludeprivatedeeds,requestsforgroupdeeds,TribalLandCertificates(forinitiatingapubliclandsale),claimstolandonthebasisoffirstclearance,claimsonthebasisofplantedtrees,commercialconcessions,andstateprotectedarea.
Policybriefs.LRCFP’ssecondLTPRspecialistproducedfourpolicybriefs.Theyhavesignificantpotentialforfutureandbroaderuse,notonlyfortheFDAbutforalargerpublic.Unfortunately,theyrepresentamissedopportunityincapacitybuildingastheywerepreparedwithoutnationalexpertinvolvementandappearedonlyattheendoftheprogram.Thesewellwrittenbriefsandhighlightthefollowingtopics: HarvestingofNTFPsinProtectedAreas:addressesacoreissueofcommunity
rightsinProtectedAreas,basedondirectLRCFPexperience.ItcanserveasabackgrounddocumentforthediscussionbetweentheLCandFDAonthepossiblefuturerecognitionoftheserightsandtheirnature.
CreationofabufferzoneinSapoNationalPark:highlightsissuesofrightsinandaroundprotectedareas,andidentifiestheneedforfurthertoolstobedevelopedsuchasproceduresforthecreationofbufferzones,andtheapplicationoffreepriorandinformedconsent.
Communityversuscommunalforest:highlightsdiscrepanciesoncommunityrightsbetweenNFRL2006andCRL2009.Thenotestressesthatdifferentlawsareusedbydifferentinterestsgroups(FFIasaproponentofarestrictivecommunalforestrymodelandLRCFPpromotingabroadercommunityforestrymodelasstipulatedintheCRL)toachievetheirobjectivesandrecommendsharmonizationofconcepts.Thecommunalforestconceptintendstoexcludecommunitiesfromexercisingtheirmanagementanduserightsovercertainareasundertheirjurisdiction,incontradictiontotheprovisionsoftheCRL.Thisgoesbacktothebasicideathatcommunitylandmaybeconsideredasaresidualcategoryinthefuture.
HarmonizedtrainingandcapacitybuildingforCFDCandCFMB:whilstCFDCsandCFMBsareinstitutionsintendedtoempowercommunities,theyhavedifferentrationalesfortheirexistence.Thenotehighlightswellanumberofchallenges,differencesofconceptandtheirpotentialimpact.Itfailshowevertoputthediscussioninawidercontextofdecentralizedgovernance.ThisnotecanbeanimportantentrypointforafutureengagementwiththeGovernanceCommission.
63USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Activity2.4:Providedemand‐drivenSTTAtosupporttheLandCommission
LRCFPstaffincludedaseniorinternationalLTPRspecialistforthedurationoftheprogram.Thefirstspecialisttofillthisroleresignedinquarternineoftheprogramandwasreplacedthenextquarterbyasecond,internationalspecialistwhoremaineduntiltheendoftheprogram.Apartfromatemporarynationallegalconsultantwithveryspecificlegaltasks,theprogramengagednoothernationalstaffwithexperienceinLTPR.WorkplansplannedforvisitsbyTT/ARDhomeofficestaffandin2010TT/ARDprovidedtwoweeks’worthoftechnicalbackstoppingduringthetransitionperiodbetweenthetwolongterminternationalspecialists.Thiswasfollowedthesameyearbyaonedayvisit.Programrecordsreportnosimilarbackstoppingin2011,ayearofsignificantworkinLTPRandthefinalizationofanalysisanddocuments.USAID/EGATLTPRstaffalsoprovidedalimitedamountoftechnicalsupport,althoughtheyprimarilyworkedwiththeMCCthresholdandpreparationoftheUSAIDlandconflictmanagementprogram.
Results
Policylevelresults
InputontheCRL.HadLRCFPnotexisted,theCRLwouldprobablyexisttoday,butitwouldverylikelybedifferentthantheonethePresidentsignedinSeptemberof2009.LRCFPcontributedtothediscussionsconcerningthecontentofthislaw,providedtechnicalanalysis,andsupportedforumsfordiscussionofpotentialtext.
ProductionofregulationstotheCRL.IfnotforthesupportofLRCFP,itisveryunlikelythattheregulationswouldexisttoday.Alltoooften,legislationpassedbygovernmentsinAfricalanguishesforlackofimplementingregulations.Theprogramprovidedsignificantsupporttodraftingtheregulations,includingcontractingthelawyerwhodraftedthem.Theexistenceoftheregulationsalsoinsuresthattheprogrampilotscontinuewithalegalbacking.
Vettingtheregulations.LRCFPplayedasignificantroleinmakingthisprocessinclusive,informedandparticipatory,withtheLRCFPasastrongprocessmanager.
PublicawarenessoftheCRLandtheregulations.LRCFPhasplayedanimportantroleinmakinggovernmentofficialsandthemembersoflocalcommunitiesawareoftheexistenceandcontentoftheCRLandtheregulations,boththroughdedicatedawarenessraisingactivities,andcollaborativeCFactivitieswithFDAstaff.
Sitelevelresults Greatersecurityinforestresources.Thecommunitiesofthepilotsiteshaveincreasedtheirmanagementofforestresources.Thereisnodoubtthatmembersofforestcommunitiesconsiderthelawsandtheirinstitutionsasrealtoolsofempowerment.Thisincreasedsenseofsecuritycanbeexpectedtoincreasecommunityinvestmentinthehealthoftheirforests.Ininterviewstheevaluationteamheard:“Ifthegovernmentcomes,wemaysayno”;“Theycannotcomeinourforestfor15years”;“Whendecisionsaretobemadetheyhavetocome
64USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
tous”;“they[theIvorianrefugees]havetotalktousfirst”and“Now,eventhePresidentknows[thisisourforest]!”
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
ChallengesatthenationallevelTwotracktreatmentofcommunityforestryandlandtenurebythegovernment.AdistinctlegalandinstitutionalseparationbetweenLTPRandcommunityforestrypredatedLRCFP.AlthoughLRCFPwasspecificallydesignedtoworkacrossthisgap,factorseventuallyinhibitedtheprogramfrombridgingthisdivide.ThedraftingoftheCRL,whicheventuallyexcludedlandrightsfromitsscope,beganpriortothelaunchoftheprogram,andtookplaceinahighlychargedandpoliticizedmanner.LRCFPwasoneofmanystakeholders,eachofwhomhadlimitedinfluenceonthefinaloutcome.Finally,thedelayintheestablishmentoftheLandCommission,andthepressingdemandsplacedonthatbodyonceestablished,inhibitedLRCFPfromintegratingsecurelandtenureintothecommunityforestryprocessthroughworkwiththatbody.Theinstitutionallandscapealsotreatsforestryandlandtenureastwoseparatearenas.Theprogram’snecessaryandcloseassociationwiththeFDAalsohamperedLRCFP’sabilitytoaddresslandtenurebyworkingacrosstheseveralministriesresponsibleforlandallocation.Inthetimeavailable,theprogramwasabletopromoteinteractionbetweentheFDAandtheLandCommission,butnottoproductivelybridgethevastinstitutionaldividesbetweenthesetwoinstitutionsatdifferentstagesofdifferentmandatesinanapproachcoordinatedwiththeMLM&EandMIA.Asnoted,theLandCommissionersfromSinoeandNimbawereinvolvedinfield‐levelandnationallevelactivitiesandhadtheopportunitytoworkcloselywiththeFDAinthatcontext.DuringvisitstoNigeriaandCameroon,LRCFPworkedtogetherwiththeLCandFDAstafftolookattheforestryandlandtenureconcerns.TheLTPRAdvisoralsopreparedanumberofpresentationswiththeLCtowhichFDAwasinvited,althoughtheirattendanceisnotrecorded.Opportunitieswerealsomissed.Jointde‐briefingsfortheFDAandtheLCbythetwolongtermLTPRspecialistscouldhavebeenuseful.Atthefieldlevel,coordinationwiththecountybasedlandadministration(landcommissionerandsurveyor)wasalsolimited.LimitedengagementwiththeGovernanceCommissionandtheLandCommission.GCstaffbelievesthattheyshouldhavebeenmoreinvolvedinthedesignoftheprogram,andthattheystartedoffonthewrongfootwithLRCFPstaffandasaresultcollaborationwaslimited.AsfortheLandCommission,onceitbecamefunctional,LRCFPwasunabletogetcommunityforestrysquarelyontheiragenda.ThisisinlargepartduetothelowprioritytheLandCommissiongavetocommunityforestryrelativetotheotheritemsitwasaddressing.LCstaffalsoreportedtotheevaluationteamthattheLCwasunderpressurefromhigherlevelsinthegovernmenttoworkonotherissuesanddidnothavethestafftimetoworkmorewithLRCFP.LRCFPquarterlyreportsindicatethattheLCinitiallytendedtofocusonurban,ratherthanrural,issues.TheLandCommission2010AnnualReportonlymentionsLRCFPonce,citingtheNigeriastudytour.
65USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Poorgovernmentcoordination.TheimportanceofcoordinatingwithMinistryofLandsMinesandEnergyhasbecomeclearinNimbaCountywhereAMLholdsaminingconcession.LiketheFDA,theMinistryofLands,MinesandEnergyhastheresponsibilitytoallocaterightsinforestedlandyettheMLM&EandFDAdonotcoordinateintheirlandallocationdecisions.LRCFPwouldhavehadtoalsodevelopstrongrelationshipswiththisministrytoengagetheminaddressingconflictingclaimsinNimbaCounty,yettheevaluationteamfoundnoevidenceofinteractionwiththeMLM&E,ortheMinistryofInternalAffairs.Thismayhavebeenastrategicdecisiononthepartofprogramstaff;theUSAIDCOTRforLRCFPreportsthattheMissionitselfhasbeenunabletodevelopastrongworkingrelationshipwiththeverycentralizedMLM&E.Capacitybuildingofsubcontractorsandinstitutions.LRCFPidentified,contracted,andcollaboratedwithanumberofhigh‐performingsubcontractors.AspartofanefforttocoordinateandreinforceLTPRelementsoftheprogram,theircapacityinLTPRissuescouldhavebeenreinforced,andacommonlanguageandapproachconcerningthetopicdeveloped.OnerepresentativeofanationalsubcontractorsuggestedtotheevaluationteamthatLRCFPcouldhaveengagedaLiberianindividualtoworkatthelocalleveltoreinforceandcoordinateeffortsinLTPR.RecommendationsregardingcurriculumdevelopmentattheUniversityofLiberiaCollegeofAgricultureandForestry,andtheForestTrainingInstitutedonotincludeLTPRinanysignificantmanner.LimitedprovisionofSTTA.TheprogramworkplandescribesthestrategyforprovidingshorttermLTPRsupportas“demanddriven,”yetexpectedsupportasprojectedinannualworkplansfarsurpassedactualsupportdelivered.WhilethereisnodoubtthatthedeliveredSTTAwasofhighquality,intheend,theprogramreceivedalimitedamountofLTPRsupportfrominternationalexperts.WaitingforLiberianinstitutionstorequestassistancemayhavebeentoopassiveanapproach,especiallysincetheFDAdeferredLTPRissuestotheLC,andtheLCeitherdidn’texistorwasinchoateandbeleagueredwithotherconcernsformuchoftheearlyyearsoftheprogram.LRCFPdidnotdevelopacloseenoughworkingrelationshipwithotherinstitutionssuchasMIA(includingthelandcommissionersatthecountylevel)andMLM&EtoexpectthemtorequestSTTAthroughtheprogram.Asaresult,itwasuptoLRCFPstaffthemselvestodeterminetheSTTAprovided.IntheendlittleSTTAfocusedonLTPR,eventhoughitwouldhavebeenusefulfortheprogramtoexposetheFDAandLCtothewealthofinternationalexperienceinthelandsector.ThefactthattheCRLdeferredtenureissuestotheLCdidnotalleviatetheneedtobeginreflectiononlandtenureincommunityforestry,andthiscouldhavebeenafruitfultopic.InternationalSTTAcouldhavealsogreatlyinformedtheprocessofthedevelopmentoftheregulationstotheCRL.
Challengesmanagingtheregulationdevelopmentprocess.TheevaluationteamfoundageneralconsensusamongLRCFPandFDAstaffthattheprocessitselfwasinclusive,informedandparticipatory.InterviewsattheFDAindicatethattheregulationsareconsideredtobeanationalproductmoresothanotherforestlegislation,especiallytheNFRL.LRCFPappearsneverthelesstohavebeenchallengedincreatingabalancebetweennationalownership,andhightechnicalquality.ThereportsbyBellehhighlightthepoorknowledgeoftheCRLandthedraftregulationsonthepartofFDAstaff,thenationallegislatureandotherpublicagenciesandministries.WellintotheprocesstheFDAwasnotevenawareofthespecificsofFDARegulation101‐07stipulatingPublicParticipationinthePromulgationofregulations,CodesandManuals.And
66USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
thereareevenindicationsthattheconsultationprocess,ratherthanseenasanopportunitytostrengthenthedraft,focusedonseekingapprovaloftheexistingversion.Inthisregardonecommunityparticipantreportedtotheevaluationteamthatduringaregionalconsultationmeeting,themessagegivenwasthat“thelawisthelawanditwillnotbechanged”.WhileLRCFPdidnot(andshouldnot)havehadcontroloverthedraftingoftheregulationstotheCRL,theprogramplayedanimportantroleintheregulationdevelopmentprocess,andbearssomeresponsibilityforthequalityoftheirfinalcontent.Asnotedabove,theprovisionofinternationalSTTAcouldhavebeenonemeansofstrengtheningthisprocess.
ChallengesatthelocallevelOverlookedlocalopportunities.ThedelayofthecreationoftheLandCommissionclearlyderailedtheimplementationofactivitiesasplanned.However,evenwiththelatestartoftheLC,LRCFPcouldhavefollowedinternationalbestpracticeandworkedontenureissuesatthelevelofthepilotcommunities,priortothepassageofrelevantlaw.ThiswouldhaveparalleledtheworkonforestinstitutionbuildingLRCFPconductedpriortopassageoftheCRL.Forexample,whileLRCFPconductedalandtenureassessmentwiththeLandCommissionersforSinoeandNimbacountiestoassistthemtobetterunderstandthelandtenureissuesintheircountiesitcouldhavealsohaveconductedamoredetailedanalysisoflandtenureconditions,onbothforestedandnon‐forestedland,bothformalandinformalandpresentedtheresultstocountylandcommissionersandtheLCandinpolicybriefs.LRCFPcouldhavealsopursuedtheregularizationofthestalleddeedrequestsNitrianandNumopohhadinitiatedduringtheTaylorregimeandthestrengtheningofcommunitylandrightsthroughthepurchaseofpublicland.TheprogramcouldhaveresearchedexistingTribalLandCertificateswithinthecommunityareasanddraftedapolicybriefonthecriticalrelationshipbetweencommunityforestryrightsinlandandtherightsofconcessionaires.Theprogram’sfocusoncommunityforestrypre‐emptedprogressonlandtenureatthecommunitylevel.DocumentationofcommunityLTPRissues.Itisverylikelythateachofthepilotcommunitieswillfacetenurechallengesinthenextfewyears,yetgovernmentrecordsandcapacitytoproducerecordsandresolveconflictarelimited.Pressurewillcomefromconcessionaires,extensionofprotectedareas,andprivatesectoractorsandgroups.Thesechallengeshavenotbeenwelldocumented.Afinalstatusreportdetailingcurrentclaimsandanalyzingthethreats,perhapsbasedontheinitialcommunityprofiles,wouldbeusefulinformationforthegovernment,otherpartners,aswellasUSAIDinthepost‐LRCFPperiod.
Implicationsforfutureprograms
Riskofcommunitylossofrightstoforests.Becauselandrightshavenotbeenincludedasanintegralpartofcommunityforestrythepilotcommunitiesfacetheriskoflosingtheirlandsandforests.Intheabsenceoflandownership,therightsconferredthroughthepresentprocessareweakinthefaceofotherclaimsunderwrittenbypre‐existinglandlegislationahighlevelGOLagreements.ThepolicybriefsontheSinoesituationnotethatforestcommunitiesareexposedtothethreatoftheexpansionoftheSapoNationalPark,includingtheuseofthebufferzone.TheconcessionagreementbetweentheGOLandGoldenVeroleumInc.,amultinationaloilpalmgrowingcompany,affectsatleastNumopoh.Specificconcessionconditionscanincreasethisthreattoothercommunities.Theconceptof“gross
67USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
concessionarea”givesthecompanyampleleveragetooperatewhereitseemsfit.TheGbacommunityinNimbaissimilarlyaffectedbytheprotectedareacreationofWesternNimbaNatureReserve,andtheArcelorMittalconcession.
Riskoflossofrightstomanagecommunityforest.Aswritten,theregulationsexposecommunitiestotheriskoflosingthemanagementrightstotheirforestsunderseveralconditions.Whilethechanceofanyoftheseoccurringisdifficulttoestimatetheyarereal: Uponnon‐compliancewiththemanagementplan,FDAmaydecidetoterminatethe
agreementandeventuallydelegatethemanagementofacommunityforesttoanotherpartyfortheremainingperiodtooutsiders.
FDAcanalwaysterminateacommunityforestagreementonthebasisofthevaguedefinedprincipleof“highersocialandpublicbenefittothecommunityand/orthepeopleofLiberia”ofthecommunityforest.
TheFDAmaywithdrawcommunitymanagementrightsaftertheexpirationofthe15‐yearmanagementperiod.
Partiesrepresentingthecommunitycontracttoacommercialinteresttologfortimber.
Abroadervisionforfutureprograms.Futureprogrammingincommunityforestrywillonlydirectlyaddresstherisksabovebyhelpinganchorcommunityforestryinsecurelandrights.Thiswillrequiretargetingtheeventualintegrationofcommunityforestryintolocalgovernmentandsimultaneousworkonbothcommunityforestryandlandtenure.
1)Alivelihoodlandscapeapproach.Ratherthanfocusingontheforestresourcebase,withalternativelivelihoodsasamitigationstrategy,programsshoulddefinetheoverarchingobjectiveasimprovinglivelihoodsofforest‐basedpeople.Thiswouldentailashiftfromafocusonforestareastoareasthatcorrespondwithcommunitymanagementterritoriesoverwhichlocalinstitutionshavemanagementjurisdiction.Membersofforest‐basedcommunitiesdependonterritoriesmuchlargerthantheforestitselfformeetingtheirlivelihoodgoals.Theydrawlivelihoodsfromashiftingmixofforestandnon‐forestnaturalresources,andLTPRissuesarebestconsideredatthisscale.Expandingthetargetareainthismannerwouldbetterenablecommunityforestmanagementinstitutionstobealignedwiththeexistinggovernmentalinstitutionsofthejurisdictionandbettertakeintoconsiderationandaddressbroader,related,governanceissues.Forexample,equityfactorscomeintoplaywhenconsideringthequestionofdisplacementbycommunityforests.TheMTArecommendedtakingameasuredapproachtodemarcation,becauseoftheexistenceofmultipleusersandrightsholdersingiventerritoryandresource.Whilecriticaltocounteringopenaccesssituations,boundaryclarificationorzoningcanrevealsimmeringconflictamongusersofdifferentresourcesinthesameterritory,and/orcreatehavesandhave‐notswherepreviouslyaresourceprovidedmultiplebenefits.Boundaries,rules,andrelocationdecisionsmanagedbylocalelitesmaywelldisadvantagealreadydisfavoredresource‐poorpersons,pushingthemtoexploitothermarginalizedagro‐ecologicalzonesoutsideofthecommunityforest.Abroaderperspectivewouldenableprojectstoworkwithlocalgovernmentstoaddressthiseffect.
2)Addresslandandforestrightstogether.Whilemuchconceptualandpracticalworkremainstobedone,newmeanstosecurelandrightsofcommunitiesandindividualsareintheprocessofbeingdevelopedinLiberia.Communitiescannotfullyengageinthemanagementof“their”forestresourceswhilefacingtheriskoflosingaccesstotheirlandbase.Acombinationofastrongcommunitylandandregulatedcommunityforest
68USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
managementbasedongenuineconsensuswouldrepresentsignificantprogress.FDAandotherpublicforestadministratorswillcontinuetoplaytheirrole,butinamorebalancedfashion,withpartnerswhohaveacquiredastrongernegotiationvoice.
ReformtheCRLandtheregulations.OutstandingdiscrepanciesbetweentheNFRL(2006),theCRL(2009)andthedraftregulations(2011)exposetheselawstocontestation.Anewlawdealingwithcommunitylands,oncepassed,willalsorequirethemodificationoftheseexistinglaws.
Workbroadlyacrosssectorshavinganimpactonlandtenure.AnumberofongoingprocessesoutsideofthemandateoftheFDAhavethepotentialtostronglyimpactthelandtenureofcommunityforests.TheseincludetheREDD+preparednessprogram,landlawreform,andthedevelopmentofconcessionpolicy.TheFDAingeneralandthecommunityforestsectorinparticularcouldwellbenefitfromengagedparticipationintheseprocesses.WorkoncommunityforestrycannotadvancesolelythroughworkwiththeCommunityForestryDepartmentoftheFDA.
69USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionVI LivelihoodsComponent
ComponentBackground
Objective
Component3:Managementofcommunityforestsandconservationoftheirbiodiversityimproved,andeconomicopportunitiesincreasedforcommunitiesandotherusergroups.
EvolutionofthecomponentLRCFPopenedofficesinthetwocountiesinthefourthquarteroftheproject,yetprojectstaffwasalreadyworkinginNimbaandSinoecountiestoidentifypotentiallivelihoodactivities.Treecropsandlivestockwereconsidered,aswellasvariousNTFPoptions.Atthispoint,theprojectwasalsoattemptingtoidentifygroupswiththecapacitytomeetUSAIDgrants‐under‐contractrequirements.Duringthisquarter,thefinalofthefirstyear,theprojectnegotiatedwithprospectivesubcontractorsNAEAL,CJPS,andAGRHAforsupportinbuildingthecapacityoflocalorganizationstoreceiveandmanagegrants.Nevertheless,bytheendofthefirstyearstaffwasclearlyconcernedthatevenwiththeassistanceofthesesubcontractorstheprojectwouldbeseverelychallengedtobringgroupsinthepilotcommunitiesuptotheminimumstandardsrequiredforadministeringUSAIDgrants.Themidtermassessmentconductedinquartersixconcludedthattheprojectshould“revisethesmallgrantprocessasitiscumbersomeandnotappropriateforlocalgroups,”givingtheprojectthefootingtodoawaywiththegrantsmechanism.Quarterlyreportsevenstates:“IthasbecomepainfullyclearthattherequirementsofTT/ARD’sUSAID‐compliantgrantproceduresarenotconducivetocommunitygroupactivitiesinLiberia,giventheirpriorexperienceandeducationlevels.”Thus,almosttwoyearsintowhatwasinitiallyatwoyearproject,andwellintothegrowingseason,LRCFPrefocusedfromgrantstosupportthroughin‐kindresourcesandtraining.Themidtermassessmenthalfwaythroughthesecondyearalsorecommendedthattheprogrambroadenthelivelihoodsapproachand“reorientlivelihoodsactionstoencourageforestbasedlivelihoodsbutnotabruptlytransitioningfromagriculture‐basedlivelihoods.”Thus,inquartereightTT/ARDexecutedasub‐contractwithASNAPP.ThisGhanaianNGO,workingwithRutgersUniversity,conductedasecondassessmentofpotentialNTFPs.Overthenextsixmonths,workwithNTFPsbeganinthepilotcommunities.LRCFPalsobegantoimplementtheFarmerFieldSchoolsinquartereightandsoonformedCommercialPalmOilProducinggroups,andCassavaProducersGroups.Inquarter10eightoilpalmpresseswereintroduced–twoineachofthefourcommunities,andinquarter11thelocalbuyer’sgroupBotanicalProductAssociationofLiberia(BOTPAL)wasformed.Inquarter13eightcassavamillswereintroduced–twoineachofthefourcommunities–andtheprojectdecentralizedtheFarmerFieldSchools,sothat,ratherthancomingtocentrallocations,graduatingfarmersinitiateddemonstrationplotsintheirowncommunities.Inquarter14,anadditionaleightmillswereintroducedandMOUsweresignedbetweentheCommunityAssemblies,theCFMBs,andthecassavamillandoilpalmgroups.
70USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Descriptionofcomponentactivities
FarmerFieldSchools.EachcommunityFFStrainedagroupof25students,whichconsistedoftwotofiverepresentativesselectedbyeachofthetownsorvillageswithinagivencommunity.SelectioncriteriaincludedanunderstandingofLiberianEnglish,possessionofafarmproducingoneormoreoffourstaplecrops,awillingnesstoassisttheircommunitiesandapprovalbythecommunitychief.Intotal,50FFSstudentsweretrainedpercounty.Theagriculturemethodsthatweretaughtcenteredonimprovingoverallproductionoffourtraditionalstaplecrops(rice,cassava,plantainandpeppers)thathadbeenselectedbythecommunities.Emphasiswasplacedonsiteselection,plantingmethodology,composting,irrigationmethods,useofimprovedplantvarieties,seedorcuttingselection,pestanddiseasemanagement,harvestingmethodstoreduceloss,collectionandrecordingofdataandlandre‐usetominimizeorcurtailthepracticeofshiftingagriculture.Fromtheresulting95FFSalumni(fivelefttheprogram)atotalof20“masterfarmers”(5percommunity)wereselected.TheseadvancedstudentsormasterfarmerswerechosenbytheLRCFPstaffbasedonhavingdemonstratedexcellentagricultureresultsfollowingtheirFFStraining,leadershiptraitsandawillingnesstosharetheirexperienceandnewlygainedknowledgewithothers.TheirrolewithintheLRCFPwasthatofextensionagents,assistingfellowFFSstudentsandotherfarmerswithintheircommunitiestolearnandimplementthenewfarmingmethods.DecentralizationoftheFFShalfwaythroughthethirdyearoftheprojectputthetransportationburdenonthetwotrainers,whotraveltovisitthemasterfarmersintheirfields.Intheirownfields,farmerswereencouragedtoplantdemonstrationplots–both“control”and“test”plotstodemonstratetheeffectivenessofnewmethods.
PalmOilPressesandCassavaMills.Theintroductionoftwomotorizedcassavagrindersandonepalmoilmill(“FreedomMill”)intoeachofthecommunitiesresultedintheformationoftwoadditionalchampiongroupspercommunity,theCassavaProducersGroup(CPG)andCommercialPalmOilProducersgroup(CPOP).Thecassavagrinderisusedtopulverizecassavausedtomakefarrinahorgarriandcutprocessingtimefromthreedaystoone.Bothgroupswereresponsibleforthemaintenanceandmanagementoftheirrespectivemillswithprocessingproceedsusedtopaymembersandmaintenancecosts,aswellassupportthelocalCFMB.MOUssignedbetweentheCommunityAssembliesandtheproducergroupstypicallyentrusttheCFMBwiththeselectionoftheproducergroupmembersandoversightmanagement.TheCFMBalsoensuresproceedsgeneratedfromprocessingbeapportionedamongtheproducergroup(50%),theCFMB(30%)andmaintenance(20%).
Non‐TimberForestProducts.NTFPgroupmembersweretrainedtoidentify,sustainablyharvest,andcultureeconomicallyvaluableNTFPspresentinLiberia’sforests.Intheearlymonths,theprojectconsideredawiderangeofproducts.AsearlyasthefirstquarterofthesecondyearLRCFPconductedastudyandorganizedworkshopsonthetopic.(“CommunityForestryasaBusinessTrainingManual:NTFPs”April2009)Thestudyrecommendedpalmoil,countryspice,andbushpepperasprimarytargetproducts.Themidtermassessmentconductedsoonthereafter,inJuneof2009(quartersix),neverthelessfoundthatthe“livelihoodcomponentshouldbeincreasinglytargetedonforestbasedlivelihoods.”ThegreateremphasisonNTFPsbeganwiththeASNAPPevaluation,whichidentifiedfourspecies:Griffoniasimplicifolia(a“moodenhancer”and“appetitesuppressant”),Piperguineense(bushpepper),Xylopiasp.(countryspice),andAfromomummeleguetta(grainsofparadise,aspice).Communitymembersweretrainedinforestcollectionandhowtoraise
71USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
NTFPsincommunitynurseries.Inthesecondseasonajointnurserywascreated,andplantsweretransplantedtofarmerfields.Inquarter12,BOTPAL,havingorganizedothergroupsofcollectors/harvestersinBong,GrandGedehandLofaCountiesinitiatedthesaleandtransportationofapproximately700kilogramsofGriffoniatointernationalbuyersinDecemberatatotalvaluetofarmersof$2,450US.
Results
PolicylevelresultsNopolicy‐levelobjectivesandnoresultsatthislevel.
Sitelevelresults Increasesinproductionandincome
Farmersreportthattrainingthroughfarmerfieldschoolshasimprovedtheirrice,cassava,plantainandhotpepperproduction.
FFStraininghasalsoreducedpost‐harvestlosses. Cassavamillsandpalmoilpresseshavebeenintroducedintoeachofthefour
communities,reducinglaborandprocessingtimes. Demonstratedincreasedcommunityknowledgeandpracticeinthesustainable
harvestofNTFPsandtheircultivation.
Ifincreasesinproductiondidoccur,andarenotcounterbalancedbyopportunityorothercosts,theyhaveresultedinanincreaseinincomeinthepilotcommunities.Althoughspecificincomedatawasnotavailable,someparticipantsindicatedthattheyhavepurchasedamotorcycle,roofingmaterials,orfoodorpaidschooltuitioncostsasadirectresultoftheirimprovedincomesstemmingfromtheagriculturetrainingreceivedfromtheLRCFP.OneNTFPmemberfromNimbaindicatedthathisprofitsfromGriffoniasalespermittedhimtobuildanewhome.Otherresultsinclude: Widedistributionofbenefitsthroughtheimplementationofdifferentactivities(FFS,
NTFP,mills)ineachcommunitywithdifferentsetsofpeople. Spreadeffect:theFFSapproach,especiallyonceitwasdecentralized,facilitatedfarmer‐
to‐farmerdisseminationofthepracticesintroduced.TrainersandFFSparticipantsreportednon‐studentadoptionontheirownfields.
Clearabilityonthepartofprojectparticipantstoarticulatethevalueoftheirforests.Whenaskedwhytheforestisimportanttothemmostparticipantscitednumerouseconomicbenefitsthatcouldbederivedifproperlymanaged.
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
Especiallylowlevelofdevelopmentofthecommunities.TheLRCFPlivelihoodcomponentfacedanumberofchallengesfamiliartoagriculturalprojectsinthedevelopingworld.Trainerscouldnotassignreadingorhandouttechnicalsheetsduetoilliteracy.Norcouldtheyteachfarmerstotracktheirinputs,harvests,andexpenseswithoutalsoprovidingtraininginliteracyandnumeracy.Norcouldtrainersassumelocalmechanicswouldbe
72USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
availabletomaintainthemachinerytheyintroduced.PoortransportationnotonlylimitedvisitsbyLRCFPstaff,butalsolimitedcommunityaccesstomarkets.Whilethesechallengesarecommontoruraldevelopmentprograms,thefactthattheprojecttookplaceinforestcommunitiesofLiberiaseriouslyraisedthebar,addingnewchallengestothealreadydifficulttaskofintroducingnewtechnologiesandpracticesintoapoorruralsociety.Thepilotcommunities,especiallyinSinoe,wereparticularlyremote,smallanddispersed.(Theaveragesizeof18ofthe19villagesintheNitriancommunityis30people.)Communityimpoverishmentandtheabsenceoffinancialinstitutionsrestrictaccesstocapitalforbothfarmersandmillgroups.Trainershadaslimknowledgeplatformtobuilduponduetothesmallerrolefieldagricultureplaysintheselargelyforest‐dependentcommunities,andnoextensionservicetohandofftooncetheyfinishtheirtraining.
Unsuitedgrantmechanism.LRCFPstaffalsofacedthechallengeofafaultydesign.Theinitialworkplan,approvedbytheUSAIDMission,includedtheuseofgrantstosupportrurallivelihoods.StaffbecameawarefromthefirstmonthsofimplementationthattherequirementsofUSAIDgrantadministrationsurpassedthecapacityofcommunities.Theywereneverthelessunabletoabandonthisapproachuntilayearandahalfintotheproject.Thisfalsestepsignificantlydrainedstafftimeanddelayedimplementationoflivelihoodsactivities.
Start‐upoftheNTFPactivitiescamelateandstumbled.Thefalse‐startofthegrantprogramdelayedtheimplementationofthelivelihoodcomponent,yetNTFPextensionactivities,whichdidnotdependonthegrantmechanism,werealsoslowtobeimplemented.AfterthemidtermassessmentconcludedthatLRCFPover‐emphasizedagriculturalactivities,LRCFPrelativelyquicklysignedacontractwithASNAPP.Yet,inNimbaCounty,whendemonstrationsiteswerecreated,andAGRHAstaff,whohadnotpreviouslyworkedwithNTFPs,providedthetraining,noshadewasprovided,andtheplantsinthedemonstrationfieldsdied.Bythetimeoftheevaluation,participantshadexperiencedonlyonesuccessfulseasonofNTFPdomestication.
Uncleardefinitionofthecomponent’sobjective.ThewordingofLCRFPobjectivethreedoesnotmakecleartherelationshipbetweentheopportunitiesandthesustainabilityofforestmanagement.Whilethisrelationshipmayhavebeenclarifiedelsewhere,LRCFPdocumentschangeintheirarticulationoftherelationshipbetweenlivelihoodactivitiesandcommunityforestrythroughouttheproject.Theprogram’ssecondworkplan,describingtheactivity,emphasizestheselectionofcommoditiesthatwillhaveapositiveimpactonforestconservation.Theprogram’sThirdWorkplanemphasizesthecontributionoflivelihoodopportunitiestosustainableforestmanagement.ThedescriptionofObjective3usedthroughthelatterhalfoftheprogramemphasizesthevaluechainsofsustainablymanagedlivelihoodactivities.Infact,LRCFPrequiredtwostrategies,onefortheagriculturalactivitiesbeingpromoted,andoneforNTFPs.Withregardtoagriculturalactivities,interviewswithprogramstaffindicatethatthecommonlyunderstoodgoalofthisactivitywas“increasedeconomicopportunities”independentofanydirectimpactonthesustainabilityofforestuseorbiodiversity.
Episodicprojectfunding.Agricultureactivitiesareparticularlysensitivetoseasons.Theinitialprojectduration–twoyears–effectivelygavetheprojecttwochancestointroduce,demonstrate,refine,andgetfarmersaccustomedtoagriculturalpracticesandNTFP
73USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
activities.Althoughtheprojectwaseventuallyextended,thisthreatofdiscontinuationaffectedlongtermplanning.Forexample,theinitialNTFPstudyconductedfortheprojectidentifiedGriffoniasimplicifoliaasapromisingproduct,yetitrecommendedagainsttargetingbecausenotenoughtimewasbelievedtobeleftintheprojecttodevelopthisandothersimilarproducts.Griffoniaeventuallybecameoneoftheproject’sfourtargetNTFPs.Withthedelayofthelivelihoodscomponent,evengiventheextensionsfinallyaccordedtheproject,theFarmerFieldSchoolshadonlybeenrunningfortwoseasonsbythetimeoftheevaluation.
Sustainability
Forthemoment,themillsareworking,andfarmershaveadoptedmanyoftheagriculturalpractices.CommunitymembersarecollectingandplantingtheNTFPs.Butwillfarmerscontinuetousethepracticestheyhavebeentaught?Willpalmoilpressandcassavamillgroupscontinue?
Lastingadoptionofagriculturalpractices–inconclusiveevidence.BoththeFFStrainersandtraineesstatethattheybelievethattheywillcontinuetoemploythepracticestheyhavelearned.WhiletheAGRHAFFStrainersrecognizethatsomeofthepracticesfarmerslearnedthroughtheschoolmaynotcatchon,theybelievefarmerswillcontinuetopracticeothers,andthatotherfarmersintheircommunitiesmayalsoadoptandcontinuethem.Thepestmanagementpracticesrequiringasprayer,forexample,theydon’tbelievewillcontinueoncethesprayerbreaks.Infact,muchoftheadoptionofpracticeswassupportedthroughtheprovisionofinputsbyLRCFP.Inquarter11LRCFPprovided50bundlesofcassava,700bundlesofimprovedplantainsuckers,onekilogramofhotchilipepperseed,40kilogramsNerica14seedrice,and250kilogramsofotherseedrice.Inprojectquarter14,540kilogramsofseedwereprocuredbytheprojectanddistributedtofarmers.Toolswerealsoprovided.Thetrainersbelievethatfarmersaremorelikelytocontinuewithcropspacing,plantinginrows,andseedselectiontechniques.They,nevertheless,believethatinordertoperpetuateandaugmentgains,itisnecessarytofurthereducatethecommunitiesintheareasofincomegeneratingtreecrops(cocoa,palmoilandrubber),croprotation,marketing,soilfertilizationandmanagementwhilecontinuingtoreinforcepreviouslessonsandsupplyinputstofurtherincreasehouseholdincomes.Fortheirpart,Nimbaresidentsinterviewedindicatedthatwhattheyhavelearnedandalreadyimplementedintermsofagriculturemethodology,exploitationofNTFPsandpostharvestprocessingisself‐sustainingandwillcontinueintheabsenceoftheLRCFP.InthecaseofSinoe,wheretheprogramsdidnotadvanceasquickly,beneficiariesfeltthatthegainsmadetodatewouldbelostwithoutadditionaltraining.Despitetheseoverallpositiveresponses,interviewswithstrangersrarelyprovidemorethanopinions,andboththetrainersandFFSparticipantshadgoodreasonstoprovidetheseparticularresponsestotheevaluationteam.Theonlywaytoknowifthepracticeshavebeenadoptedistovisitthecommunitiesinthefuture.Andeventhen,giventhatLRCFPestablishednobaselines,itwillonlybepossibletoimperfectlymeasurethelastingimpact.
74USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Economicandinstitutionalviabilityofmillsandpresses.Thecassavamillandpalmoilgroupsfaceanumberofchallengesthathaveunderminedthesustainabilityofsimilaractivitieselsewhere:
Conflictoverfundsortheft.Thetreasurersofthepressandmillgroupsstorefundsintheirhomesbecausetherearenobanksnearthepilotcommunities.Theprojectdidnottrainthegroupstoutilizealternativessuchassafeswithmultiplekeys.Norhavetheybeentrainedinbookkeeping.
Mechanicalfailure.Themarketforthemillsandpressesislimitedandpartsscarce.Shortlyaftertheintroductionofthemills,inquarter13,thebearingsgaveoutandLRCFPdecidedtosupplylocaldealerswithpartstosparkthevaluechainandimproveaccessibilityforcommunities.Ashashappenedinothersimilarinstances,aprolongedbreakdowninoneofthemachinescouldresultincollapseofthegroup.
Lackofownership.Theproducergroupsdidnotgrowoutofcommunityefforts.Althoughtheprojectworkedcloselywiththecommunitiesinidentifyingtheappropriateactivities,andinplanningtheirimplementation,intheendLRCFPcontributedheavilytotheircreation.Thecommunitiesbuilttheshelters,yetLRCFPgavethemillsandpressestothecommunities.Presumably,thedelayintheimplementationofthiscomponent,thepressuretoproducevisibleresultsbytheendoftheprogram,andadesiretoprovideasourceofresourcesfortheCFMBscontributedtothedecisiontogiftthesemachinestocommunities.
Complexinstitutionalarrangements.ThefactthatthemillsandpressesarerunundertheauthorityoftheCAs,withoversightauthorityoftheCFMBs,createscomplexity.IftheCAsortheCFMBsfunctionpoorly,thismayimpactthemillandpressgroups.TheauthorityandresourcesoftheCAsandCFMBsmayalsoservetostrengthentheproducergroups.Forexample,theMOUsmaketheCFMBsresponsibleforfundinglargerrepairsofthemachines,andresolvingconflictsoverpaymentorleadership.
Implicationsforfutureprograms
Forthebridgingperiod
Workupthevaluechain.Theagriculturallivelihoodactivitieshavefocusedonproduction.AdditionalAGRHAstafffocusingonbusinessdevelopmentservicewouldhelpaddressthis.
Broadengovernmentalcontacts.LRCFPisconductingagriculturalactivitiesinisolationoftheMinistryofAgriculture,andinternationalresearchinstitutions.DeveloplinkswiththeMinistryofAgriculture(theyhavearepresentativeinSanniquellie)andresearchorganizationssuchasWARDA,IFAD,IITA.
Additionaltrainingtopics.Interviewswithparticipantsandprogramstaffsuggestthatalternativesourcesofproteinandmethodstoaddresserosionandfarmingonaslopearepotentialadditionallivelihoodactivities.
PromoteNTFP–to–NTFPproducerexchanges.Masterharvesters/cultivatorsaregainingexperienceandknowledgetheycouldsharewithothersinterestedinNTFPs.
75USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
ImplicationsforUSAIDSupportrapidmanagementadaptation.ItbecameclearveryearlyintheprogramthatthecommunitiesinwhichLRCFPworkeddidnothavethecapacitytomanageUSAIDgrants.ItneverthelesstooktheprogramayearandahalfandtheresultsoftheMTAtoshiftfromthisapproach.Afalseappreciationofthecontextintheplanningstagebecameafixedconstraintseriouslydelayingamajorcomponentoftheprogram.
Setclearobjectives.Ambiguityintheobjectivesconcerningtherelationshipbetweenthelivelihoodactivitiesandcommunityforestryweakenedthefocusonactivitiesthataddvaluetoforestproductionormoredirectlyreducethreatstosustainableforestmanagement.Livelihoodactivitiesinitiallyfocusedonagriculturalactivities.NotuntiltheMTAdidtheLRCFPteamclearlyreceivethemessagethatNTFPscomprisedanimportantelementinthetotalapproach.
76USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionVII BiodiversityConservation
Background
Thetheoryofchange BiodiversityconservationrepresentsacoreelementofLRCFP,thereforethefinalevaluationconsideredbothcompliancewithbiodiversitycriteria,andtheprogram’spotentiallongtermimpactonbiodiversity.AlthoughLRCFPincludedspecificactivitiesandmeasuresexplicitlyassociatedwithwildlifeandecosystems,thisevaluationconsiderstheentireprogramfromabiodiversityperspective.LRCFPwasfundedwithmoneyearmarkedforbiodiversityconservationandsoitisappropriatetoconsiderhowallthevariouscomponents‐‐fromthedevelopmentofforestmanagementbodies,tonationalpolicyengagement,toinvestmentsinmoresustainablelivelihoods,topublicawarenessandmonitoringofbiodiversityvalues–collectivelycontributedtobiodiversityconservation.TheoveralltheoryofchangeforbiodiversityconservationisnotnewtoUSAID:
LRCFPprogramcomponentsastheyevolvedintheprogramreflectthistheory.Componentsoneandtwobothsupportedanenablingenvironmentinwhichcommunitieshavethegovernanceincentivestoconserveforests,bysecuringrightstomanageandbenefitfromlandandtrees,andreducingtheriskofexpropriationbythestateforcommercialconcessions.Componentthreesupportedtheimplementationofcommunityforestmanagementandprotectedareaco‐managementandenhancedeconomicincentivesformaintainingahealthy,productiveforest(includingdevelopmentofNTFPvaluechains).Italsointroducedfarmingtechniquesintendedtoreducepressurefromunsustainableshiftingcultivation.MostoftheactivitiesinLRCFPadvancethetheoryofchange,buttowhatend?Theprocess‐orientedprogramoverallobjectivedidnotspecifyabiodiversityconservationresult,buttheadvancementof“policyandpracticeoflandandforestmanagement.”Thisabsencemaypresagetheanswer.ThisassessmentrevealsthatLRCFPactivitieswerenecessarytobetterconservedemarcatedcommunityforestsandanaturereserve,butmaynotbesufficientovertimetoimprovetheoutlookforbiodiversityacrossthetwopilotcommunities.
USAIDbiodiversitycriteria:fromcompliancetobest‐practice
AllUSAIDbiodiversityprogramsmustmeetfourminimumcriteria:1. Theprogrammusthaveanexplicitbiodiversityobjective2. Site‐basedprogramsmusthavetheintenttopositivelyimpactbiodiversityin
biologicallysignificantareas3. Activitiesmustbeidentifiedbasedonananalysisofthreatstobiodiversity4. Theprogrammustmonitorassociatedindicatorsforbiodiversityconservation
Improving incentives to conserve forest + Managing forest resources sustainably + Reducing conversion of forest to farm ----------------------------------------------------------------- = BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
77USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Asaprogramwithbothpolicyandsite‐basedcomponents,supportedwithfundsearmarkedforbiodiversity,LRCFPshouldhavemetorexceededtheserequirements.Foreach,weconsiderbelowwhetherminimumcompliancewasachieved,aswellaswaysinwhichtheprogramappliedoradvancedbestpracticesinconservation.
1)BiodiversityObjective.USAIDandTT/ARDhadtoinitiateadaptivemanagementveryearlyintheprogram,beginningwithmodificationstotheprogramobjectivestoincludebiodiversityconservation.AlthoughLRCFPwasdesignedasabiodiversityprogram,theoriginalobjectivesdidnotexplicitlyincludebiodiversityaims,focusinginsteadongovernanceandlivelihoodsresults.TaskOrderModificationTwo,signedinthethirdquarteroftheprogram,changedthefirstandthirdprogramobjectivestoincludetheterm“biodiversity”andtotakeaccountofthepredominanceofbiodiversityfundinginLRCFP.Fromthefirstmonthsoftheprogram,staffrecognizedthatbiodiversityfundingwouldnecessitatechangesfromtheinitialprogramdesign.Inthefirstquarterlyreport,TT/ARDnotedthatthismodificationshouldinfluencetheselectionofpilotsitesandlivelihoodactivitiessupported,andthatitmightnecessitatebiodiversityassessments.BythesecondquarterlyreportTT/ARDrequestedmodificationstotheSOWandthePMPtoaccommodatethebiodiversityemphasis.Asdetailedinthefollowingpages,ittookLRCFPthedurationoftheprogramtosatisfythenewcriteriaformalizedthefollowingquarter.2)BiologicallySignificantAreas.LRCFPstartedtheefforttoaddressbiodiversityfundingcriteriabyclarifyingastrategytodoso.AninitialarticulationofthisstrategyispresentedinAttachmentCtothefourthquarterlyreportwhichdiscussesissuesofcompliancewiththeUSAIDbiodiversitycode.AnassessmentofthebiologicalsignificanceoftheforestsofthecountiesinwhichLRCFPwouldbeworkingformsalargepartofthisdiscussion.ThepaperconcludesthatimprovedforestmanagementinthetwopilotcommunitiesofNimbaCountywould“haveapositiveimpactinanareaspecificallydesignatedasbiologicallysignificant”.SitesinSinoeCountyhadnotbeenselected,buttheattachmentcommittedtheprogramtoselectingareasofbiologicalsignificanceinSinoeCounty. CommunityforestsinSinoeCountyeventuallyselectedbytheprogramarepartofahigh‐biodiversitylandscapethatincludesLiberia’sonlynationalpark,Sapo.BothNimbaandSinoeforestsarepartoftheUpperGuineanForesthotspot.CommunityforestsinNimbaCountyarepartofatri‐nationalforestofhighconservationvalue,includingtheEastNimbaNatureReserve,whichthoughdeclaredin2003waslittlemorethanapaperparkpriortoLRCFPsupportforaco‐managementagreementbetweenFDAandtheneighboringcommunities.AccordingtoArcelorMittalLiberia.(AML),whichhassupportedthemostrecentandperhapsmostcomprehensiveenvironmentalimpactandecologicalstudiesinthecounty,NimbaisoneofthehighestbiodiversityprioritiesinAfricaduetothenumberofendemics,about700butterflies,400birds,andpossiblythehighestdiversityofsnakesonthecontinent–alldespite30yearsofminingandcarelessspoildisposalendingin1989.InNimba,theFDArecommendedprioritizingcommunitiesaroundENNR.SubsequentworktodemarcateanddevelopmentmanagementplansfortheENNRandZorandBleihforests,aswellassupportforWNNRoraGbaCommunityForestinthesameareanearby,allcontributetoforestconnectivity.TORmodificationsalsoaddressedthecapacityofPMPindicatorstocapturethisfocus.UntilQuarterlyreportseven,LRCFPreportedtothestandardUSAIDindicator,“Numberof
78USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
hectaresunderimprovednaturalresourcesmanagementasaresultofUSGassistance.”Butbiodiversityfundsrequirethatatargetfor“NumberofhectaresofbiologicallysignificantareaunderimprovedNRM”beset.Followingdiscussions,theprogrambegantomodifyPMPindicatorsinquarterlyreportseven,andfinalizedthetransitioninquarterlyreportninewiththeadditionoftheindicator3.0.2,“Numberofhectaresofbiologicallysignificanthabitatunderimprovedmanagement,”withanEOPTargetof13,600.Inquarterlyreport13LRCFPreported10,000hectaresunderthisindicator,afigurewhichdoesnotincludetheGbaCF(14,000ha)andENNR(13,000ha).
3)Threats‐basedapproach.Theabbreviated118/119analysisusedinthedesignofLRCFP,(RussellandSieber2005),waswrittensoonafterthecessationofthecountry’scivilwar,atatimewhenitwasnotpossiblefortheteamtoventureintotheLiberiancountrysideandtheMission‘sactivitieswerefocusedlargelyonhumanitarianassistance.Forthatreason,LRCFPwasnotdesignedtoaddressaclearlydefinedsetofbiodiversitythreats.LRCFPneverthelesshadanimpact,thoughinsomecasesmarginal,oneachofthe“underlyingcausesforenvironmentaldegradation”citedinthemorerecentcompleteETOAforLiberia(2008).TheETOAliststhefollowing:lackofalternativefinancing,lackofcapacity,weaklawenforcement,lackofaholisticapproachtoenvironment/naturalresourcemanagement,barrierstoalternativelivelihoods,insecurelandandresourcetenure,absenceofastrategytoaddressthecompromisesbetweenenvironmentandeconomicdevelopment,absenceofanylanduseplanning.TheMTAconductedinJulyof2009identifiedtwokeyareasforimprovingthethreats‐basedapproachofLRCFP.First,carryoutsite‐basedthreatsanalysesofbothimmediateandrootcausethreats(especiallyopenaccess),potentiallywiththecommunitiestotapintotheirknowledge,buildtheirskillsandgettheminvolvedinmonitoring.Second,assessprogramactionsinlightofthreats,throughtriangulationofwhatpeoplearesayingwithreasonablyavailabledata,suchasmarketdataontradeditems(timberandbushmeat);satelliteimageryofforestcover;catchperuniteffortestimationsfromlocalhunters;dataonhowmanyfarmsarebeingopenedintheforest,andestimationsoffarmsizes.LRCFPundertookthefirstrecommendation,implementingaThreatReductionAssessment(TRA)inSinoe,andamodifiedandlessrigorousversioninNimba.(SeethefulldescriptionoftheTRAinthe“monitoring”sub‐sectionwhichfollows.)ThesecondrecommendationfromtheMTAwasonlypartiallyaddressed.WhilethemajorityofLRCFPactivitieshaveaddressedtheproximateorultimatethreatstobiodiversity,demonstratingathreats‐basedapproach,theprogramdidincludeactivitieswithpotentiallynegativeimpactsonbiodiversity.Theseinclude:
NTFPs.WhilepromotingthesustainableharvestandsaleofNTFPsinNimbaCountyhelpsaddvaluetostandingforest,promotingtheintercroppingofNTFPswithfieldcropscouldactuallyreducetheincentivetoconservenaturalforestwhileprovidingaperverseincentivetoclearmorelandforNTFPagriculture.PuttinginplacethenurseryforGriffoniarequiredtheclearingofland,albeitalreadydegraded.InNitrian,55hectareswere“brushed”(cleared)fortransplantingGriffoniainanagroforestrysystemwithplantainsforshade.ThedomesticationofotherNTFPtransplants(grainsofparadise,blackpepper)requiressimilarclearing.Labor‐savingmachinesforcommunities.Theestablishmentofcommunityenterprisespressingoilfromwildpalmnuts,andgrindingcassavaformealhelpsordinarycitizens
79USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
receiveatangiblebenefitfromandperhapsbetterappreciatethesystemsforforestmanagementintroducedbyLRCFP.Theyalsoprovideacentrallocationforsharinginformation,andasourceofrevenueforCFMBoperations.Ingeneral,theyappeartobegreatlyappreciated;accordingtocassavaprocessorsfromSinoe,peoplewillwalkfivehourstousethegrinder.Ontheotherhand,membersoflocalcommunitiesmayinvestgainsfromthesewellmeaninginterventionsintoactivitiesthatnegativelyimpactconservation.Thereisevidenceattheinternationallevelofthisphenomenonoccurringinseveralcountries.Advancesinprocessingcouldencourageapreferenceforgrowingcropsthatcanbeprocessedeasily;theincreasedcultivationofcassavaoroilpalm;andtheunsustainablecollectionofwildpalmnuts.Aproductionincreasemayresultintheexpansionofthecultivatedarea,especiallyintheabsenceoftheadoptionofnewtechnology.InSinoe,intervieweesreportthatpeopleareindeedcollectingmorepalmnutsbutnot(yet)clearinglandforoilpalm.FFSparticipantsinNimbaCountyreportedclearinglandforfieldsdedicatedtocassava.FarmerFieldSchools.LossofaccesstocommunityforestsforfarmingismadelessonerousforsomefarmersbythetrainingprovidedthroughFFS.Yet,aswiththeotherlivelihoodsactivities,farmerfieldschooltraininginagriculturalintensificationrisksunintendedconsequencesandleakage.LRCFPappearstohavesuccessfullyincreasedawarenessamongFFSmasterandstudentfarmersofthereduceddeforestationobjectiveofLRCFPandthismayguidethemtowardsreinvestingrisingincomeintofarmsinalreadydegradedland.Nevertheless,useofnon‐demarcatedforestsmayalsoproportionatelyincreaseifasignificantproportionofcommunitymemberssuccessfullytakesupnewfarmingmethodsandexpandsproduction.
4)Monitorappropriateindicatorsforbiodiversity.LRCFPtooksometimetodevelopindicatorsandasystemofmonitoringwhichcouldreasonablymeasureprogresstowardsconservationgoals.Amonitoringandevaluationassessmentcompletedninemonthspriortoprogramclosure,revisionofindicatorsandtargetsinthesecond‐to‐lastquarterofactivity,andacomprehensivecollectionofbaselinedataonbiologicalandsocioeconomicmeasuresdelayeduntilthelastmonth(andinonlyoneofthetwofocalareas,Nimba)allreflecttheincreasedyetbelatedattentiononmonitoringinthesecondhalfofLRCFP,aswellasthechallengeofretrospectivelydeterminingprogresstowardsconservationobjectives.Theepisodicfundingoftheprogramaccountsinpartforthisdelay.AnnexCinquarterlyreportfour,writtenwhentheprogramwaslimitedtotwoyears,reports,“LRCFPdoesnothavethebudgetorhumanresourcesfordirectbiodiversitymonitoring,butexpectstoshowprogrammaticimpactsonbiodiversityconservationthroughactivitiesundertaken.”Theprogram’sdecisiontolinkmonitoringtoforestmanagementplanningalsohelpsaccountforthisslowstart.Quarterlyreportsevenreports,“WiththesigningoftheCRL,LRCFPwillfinallybeabletobeginmanagementplanning.Thethreatsanalysistrainingservesasafirststep.”
ProgramstaffalsoappeartohavewaitedfordirectionfromUSAIDintheformoftheMTA,whichmadetworecommendationsrelevanttomonitoringappropriateindicatorsforbiodiversity.First,developathreatreductionstrategyandmonitoringprotocol.Todothis,asmentionedabove,theassessmentsuggestedusingtheThreatReductionAssessment(TRA)approachtomeasureprocessandimpactindicatorswhileassistingcommunitiestoreflectonwhatischangingintheirlocalenvironment.Second,supportlongertermbiodiversitycapacitybuildingatthecommunitylevel,includingparataxonomy,biodiversity
80USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
inventories,andguidetrainingwhichcouldbeusefulinco‐managementandresearchtourismroles.TheOctober2009workplan,firstpresentedinquarterlyreportsevenanddevelopedaftertheMTA,isthefirsttoincludespecificactivitiesregardingbiodiversitymonitoring.Activity3.1states“Carryoutthreatsanalysisandsupportingactivitiestoensuresignificantbiodiversityobjectivesaremet”.Itincludesasoutputs,“Biodiversitythreatsassessmentsforeachofthefourpilotcommunities(Q8);and“MonitoringstrategyandplanagreedbetweentheFDAandcommunitytoinformongoingresponsetothreatsaftertheprojectcloses(Q9).ThreatReductionAssessment(TRA)isasimplerandmorecosteffectivealternativetobiologicalindicatorapproachestomeasuringtheimpactofconservationprograms.TRAmonitorsthreatstotheresourceratherthanchangestobiologicalparametersthemselves.Itmeasureschangesinhumanactivitiesthatthreatentheintegrityoftheresourceand,implementedinaparticipatorymanner,canraisecommunitybiodiversityawarenesswhilecollectinginformationtodrawinferencesonthestateoftheresourceitself.LRCFPappliedTRAinSinoe.Thereportofthisactivityshowsthepotentialoftheprocesstoeducateboththeprojectandcommunitymembersonthethreatstobiodiversity.Unfortunately,LRCFPdidnotfollowthroughtomakesurepeopledidmorethan“plantomeetanddiscusssolutions”tothesethreats.NordoesitappearthatmeaningfulandmeasurableindicatorsofconservationtargetorthreatreductionwerediscussedaspartoftheTRA.InNimbaCounty,accordingtostaff,LRCFPdidnotconductafullTRAinthepilotcommunities,althoughtheprogramdidconductworkshopstodefinebiodiversitywithcommunitymembers.Nowrite‐uponthatactivitywasproduced.Despitetheselimitations,LRCFPimprovedlocalunderstandingofkeythreatsandappliedaThreatReductionAssessmentwhichhelpedcommunitiesrealizeforthemselvestheproblemswhichcertainlivelihoodsactivitiescause.InQuarter15,LRCFPtrainedandpaidcommunitymemberstoconductbiomonitoringactivitiesbasedonamethodologydevelopedbytheWildChimpanzeeFoundationinwhichdataiscollectedonlargemammalsandtheirsignsalongtransectsofonekilometer.Thisandotherbiomonitoringactivitieshelpedtargetthelocationofkeythreatsinspecificareas.InNimbaCountythisactivityshouldprovideagoodbaselineforlatercomparison,andproveusefulinconjunctionwithsatelliteimagerycollectedfromthebeginningandendoftheprogram,andduringearlierperiods,todetermineforestcoverchangeanddifferencesinrateofchange.InNimbaCounty,LRCFPalsobenefitedthroughcollaborationwithAML,conductingcyclesofmonitoringevery6months.TheAMLpartnershiphasresultedinconsistentmonitoringinNimbaandsomecostsavings‐‐LRCFPusedtheapproachCIdevelopedwithAMLfunding.Theshort‐termnatureofproject,initialambiguityintheobjectives,limitedsupportfrommanagement,andthelimitedengagementofConservationInternationalallresultedindelayswhichpostponedrigorousmonitoringuntilthefinalquartersoftheprogram,atwhichpointitcouldnotbeusedforadaptivemanagementandassessingconservationimpact.Nevertheless,whilethereisroomforimprovement,theinventoriesandmonitoringplandevelopedandtestedintheLRCFPcommunityforestsmetrequirementsandformabasisforfurtherwork.
Results
81USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
LRCFPachievedmanyimportantconservationobjectives,fromdemarcatingandsupportingco‐managementoftheENNRbycommunitiesandtheFDA,tomorebroadlydemonstratinghowcapacitybuildingandrealignedincentivescantransformtheroleofLiberiancommunitiesinnaturalresourcesmanagement.Land‐usemappinghashelpedplan,communicate,andmeasureconservationactions.Althoughtheywerenotutilizedorunderutilizedbytheprogram,severalvaluablebiodiversity‐relatedassessmentswereproduced.Examplesofthesestudiesinclude:theProteinAlternativeAssessmentStudy(ACDI/VOCA:2009),andtheCIstudiesonecosystemservices,ecotourismviability,andcarbonpotential.Determiningtheprogram’sconservationimpactislessstraightforward.LRCFPdidnotmeasureimprovementsinbiophysicalconditions(suchasreducedratesofdeforestation,orstable/increasingpopulationsofwildlifespeciesthreatenedbyhuntingorhabitatloss)orreductionsinthreats.Therefore,anyconservationimpactprojectionsmustbebasedonprogressaddressingkeythreatsidentifiedinthecourseoftheprogram.WereLRCFPtoassessprogress,itwouldbebasedonprojectreportsandanalyses,andthechangesinawarenessandbehaviorreportedbytheclearlybiasedcommunitymembersinvolvedinprojectactivities.
Reducedthreatofcommercialconcessions.Commercialconcessionsareabiodiversitythreatontwobroadcounts:(1)mostcommunitiesliveand/orfarmonstate‐ownedland,andtheriskthatGOLcanleaseforestedconcessionstocommercialentitiesisamajordisincentiveforinvestinginforestmanagementandintensiveagriculture;and(2)themining,timberandplantationagricultureconcessionsthemselvesdestroy,degradeorotherwisetransformforesthabitat.Communityforestswillhelpaddressboththreats,andLRCFPdeservescreditforpilotingcommunityforestryandinformingthecontentofrelevantregulations.Risksforabuseandloopholesremain,however.SectionVofthisevaluationonLTPRandSectionIVonCFdescribeavarietyofwayscommunitiesmayloserightsinauthorizedcommunityforests,includingalienationbythestateormineralinterests,suchasAMLinNimbaCounty.Loggingoragriculturalconcessionsadjacenttocommunitieswillcertainlyputsecondarypressureontheforeststheyuse,whetherapprovedcommunityforestsornot,asinGuineawhereplantationsdisplacedthefarmersnowthreateningLiberianforests(accordingtoJohnHowell,AML).InSinoe,theGoldenViroleumoilpalmplantationisondegradedlandalmostcertainlyusedforagriculture.With220,000hectarestostartandanoptionforover500,000hectaresinall,thepressuretousecommunityandotherforestsinSinoeCountyforfarmingislikelytobeintense,andthepotentialforrestoringforestsandconnectivitydiminished.
Althoughitwouldbelogicaltoassumethatcreatingcommunityforestsalonewillaverttheimpactsassociatedwithconcessions,thatisnotnecessarilythecase.First,asdescribedintheLTPRandCFSections,theFDAreservestherighttocancelacommunityforestcontractandtakecontroloftheforestifacommunityviolatestermsofthemanagementplan,creatingtheunlikelybutpossiblesituationthatbyengagingincommunityforestmanagement,acommunitymaysecurelyloseformalrightstolandoverwhichtheyoncemaintainedinsecurebuttraditionalrights.Second,andmorelikely,theCRLandtheassociatedregulationsallowacommunitytocommerciallylogforestlands,withcertainconstraints.AccordingtoDr.NouhouNdamofFFI”somecommunitiesseecommunity
82USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
forestsasaroutetotimberdevelopment.InSinoe,peoplearetradingtimberplotsforcommercialroads.”
Reducedconversionofforesttofarms:theleakagequestion.FFSparticipantsquicklyappreciatethatnewtechniquescanincreaseproductivity.Theyalsorecognizethatthegoalofthetrainingistoreducetheclearingofnewland.CFMBmembersreportthatcommunitiesrespectthedemarcationlineandnolongerfarmincommunityforests.Thebigquestioniswhetherdemarcationandmanagementofoneareamerelyshiftspressuretootherareas.AresourcebasedapproachsuchastheonefollowedbyLRCFPfocusesonaportionofthetotalsetofcommunityresources,suchasaspecificforest,orportionofaforest.Strategiesthatruralpeopleusetogaintheirlivelihoodsfromtheseresourcesmaywelldisplacethenegativeactivitiestoanadjacentarea,suchasotherforestedareasfallingunderthesamecommunityjurisdictionnottargetedbytheproject.TheNumopohcommunityincludesnineforestsofwhichonehasbecomethepilotcommunityforest.Nitriancommunitymanagessixreservedforests,fourotherswereexcludedfromauthorizedcommunitymanagement,andearmarkedfordifferentusessuchasagricultureandpitsawing.Asaresult,theoverallconservationgainatthecommunitylevelmaybelimitedorevennegative.AllfourLRCFPpilotcommunitiesmaybesubjecttothis;conservationgainsinseveraltargetedforestsmaybecompensatedbylossesinothers.
LRCFPbegantentativelytoaddressconservationissuesinNimbausingalandscapeapproach,butthiseffortcamelate,inQuarter12,andhadlittleimpactonprogramimplementation.
Addressingunsustainablehuntingandthebushmeattrade.AddressingthethreatofbushmeattradeposesanumberofseriouschallengesinLiberia,whichLRCFPwasnotdesignedtotakeondirectly.USAID/Liberiamadethedecisiontolimitinvolvementinthebushmeattrade,feelingthatthenationalopinionsandconditionshadnotyetcoalescedtocreateanenablingcontext.SignificantprogressonthisthreatwillrequireregulationandlawenforcementbycommunitiesandtheFDA,publicawareness,andidentificationandpromotionofacceptableproteinalternatives.Itwillalsonecessitatethepromotionoflivelihoodalternativesforcommercialhunters,possiblyasrangersandguidesinareaswhereecotourismispossible.Demandforwildmeatremainshighandlawenforcementremainslow,thereforebeingahunterorsellerofbushmeatcontinuestobeanattractiveoccupation.ThechallengesidentifiedintheMTAwithregardtoengagingyouthapplytomosthuntersandsellerstoo:Whatactivitiescanrealisticallysubstituteforhunting,pit‐sawingandmining?Howcanyoungpeoplegetcashtomarryandbuildtheirlives?Howcantheyuseskillstheymayhaveobtainedinthese“illegal”activitiestoimprovethecommunity?Thesoon‐to‐bepassedwildlifelawmayprovideafoundationforworkinthisarea.LRCFPtooktentativestepstoexplorethetopicwiththeProteinAlternativeAssessmentStudy(August2009)andsurveysofhunters,marketsandwildlifeinNimbacountyintheprogram’sfinalmonths.Further,thedraftmanagementplansofthepilotLRCFPcommunitiesincluderestrictionsonhunting,includingpermitsforguns.However,thisisjustsmallstart.Huntingregulationswillbeinherentlymoredifficulttomonitorandenforcethanlanduseregulations,ashuntingislessvisible,lesstraceable,andrequireslower
83USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
investment.Withlittletourismorotherincentivesforprotectingwildlife,andacomprehensivewildlifelawstillawaitingpassage,huntinginfractionsarenotlikelytobetakenseriouslybycommunitiesorcourtsinthenearfuture.Evenwherehuntersrespectnewlydemarcatedcommunityforestsandprotectedareas,theywouldbeexpectedtoshiftefforttoless‐managedareasratherthanhuntless,aslongaseasily‐transportedbushmeatstaysrelativelyhigh‐valueandlow‐risk.ThelivelihoodsdevelopmentcomponentsofLRCFPdesignedwiththeintentiontocomplementmanagementplanshavehelpedfarmersandNTFPcollectorsincreaseincomeswhiledecreasingenvironmentalimpact,althoughtheprogramdidnotactivelyrecruithuntersorbushmeatsellers.Thetransformationofsubsistencefarmersintoagriculturalentrepreneursmayintimereducethenumberofpeopleattractedtoinformalorillegalactivities,butdoeslittleinthenear‐termtoreducethesupplyofbushmeat.LRCFPhasprovidedbaselineinformationandfoundationforworkonwildlifemonitoring.Inconjunctionwiththewildlifelawabouttobepassed,theoptionofdevelopingviablealternativestomeatandhuntingnowexistsforfutureUSAIDinvestmentinNimbaCounty.
Raisingpublicawarenessandconservationengagement.LRCFPpublicawarenessactivitiesandtargetedtraininghaveraisedthelevelofawarenessofthemembersofpilotcommunitiesofseveralparticularkindsofunsustainablepracticeswhichthreatenbiodiversity.Anotableexampleinvolvesthesustainabilityandhumanhealthproblemsassociatedwithfreshwaterfishingusingplant‐basedpoisonsand/orfinemeshnetstoharvestfreshwaterfish.Avariantofthisstorywasrepeatedtomultipleinterviewers,fromatleastadozenSinoeandNimbainterviewees,withorwithoutaninvitationtodescribebiodiversitythreats.CommunityAssociationandCFMBmembersinterviewedalsomadesincerebroadgeneralizationsaboutthevalueofforests,suchas,“Theforestisourmother!”Whetherornotalate‐stagecommunicationscampaignledtobehaviorchangeisunknownduetolimitedmonitoring.Certainlytheweeklyradioprogramandcommunitytheaterperformancesreachedawideaudience,butdidmessagesaboutunsustainablepracticesandnaturalresourceconflictsactuallychangebehaviors,orimproveparticipationinorsupportforcommunityforestmanagement?ItisapparentthatLRCFPhelpedcatalyzeasmallbutgrowinggroupofadvocatesforconservationandsustainableforestmanagement.Thisconservationconstituencyiscriticaltomaintainingandbuildingontheresultsachievedsofar.
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
Impactofepisodicfundingonbiodiversity.Thefocusonbiodiversityresultswaveredduetoinitialshorttermprojectdesignandtheprogressionofextensions.ChangesinCOPalsobrokethecontinuityofeffort.Thesefactorsalsodiminishedprojectutilizationoftheprimarysourceofconservationexpertise,ConservationInternational.
LimitedincentivesforparticipatingintheENNRCo‐ManagementCommittee.ThemembersoftheENNRCo‐ManagementCommitteeunderstandthatthemainintendeduseofthereserveisconservation,andrecognizethatitwillprovidevaluefortheirchildren.Butthusfarneithertheynorthemembersoftheircommunitiesreceivedirectbenefitsfromtheir
84USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
participationintheCMCandthesharedmanagementofthereservewiththeFDA.Foritspart,theofficialpolicyoftheFDAcontinuestobenottoallowcommunitymemberstoharvestNTFPsfromENNR.
TensionoveruseofENNR.DespiteLRCFP’sworkonbuildingtrust,andidentifyingconcretebenefitsforbothsides,itisclearthatwhilebothcommunitiesandtheFDAtalkthetalkofco‐management,theyarewalkingdifferentwalks.InNimbaCountysomecommunitymemberscontinuetofeelthattheyownthelandoftheENNRbutarewillingtoaccept“co‐management”asawaytoretainameasureofcontrol.ManyintheFDA,whilenominallyinfavorofco‐management,seeitasopeningthedoorforcommunitiestoexpandtheirfarmsintotheprotectedarea.
ConservationinWNNR.TheGbapilotcommunitysiteinNimbaCountyoverlapswithbothaplannedWestNimbaNatureReserve,andtheArcelorMittalLiberia(AML)concession,whichextendstoandincludesENNR.Thesepriorclaimshaveimpededtheestablishmentofacommunityforestinthisarea.AMLhasacorporatesocialandenvironmentalresponsibilityprogramthatsupportsenvironmentalstudiesandalargeconservationandlivelihoodsprogram(US$20millionover20years).ItisthebiggestinvestorinLiberia,andtheirMineralDevelopmentAgreementhastheforceoflaw,socollaborationwiththiscompanyisrequiredforbothnaturereservesandcommunityforestsinthisarea.Fortunatelythe“exclusionzones”whereminingisunderwayorplannedareoutsideoftheENNR,andmostoftheGbaforestislikelytonotincludeminesites.Asoftheevaluation,thecompanywasworkingwithpartners,includingLRCFPsubcontractorCI,todevelopanintegratedlandscapemanagementprogramfornorthernNimbaCounty,whichwouldlikelyincludesomeformofcollaborationwithcommunitymembers,perhapsthroughconservationagreements.
Sustainability
Communitieswillneedexpertguidanceintegratingbiodiversityplanningintocommunityforestmanagementplanning,whichitselfisstillataninitialstage.ImplementationbytheFDAandcommunitiesincommunityforestsandthereservewillneedtechnicalassistanceandadaptivemanagement.Manyquestionsremaintobedecided.WillFDAtakeoverthemanagementoforganizingannualbiomonitoring,orwillthecommunities?IfFDAstarts,atwhatpointwilltheplanbeturnedovertocommunities?WillCIbeabletoprovidesupportinthemeantime?
Implicationsforfutureprograms
Uselivelihoodsactivitiesstrategicallyincommunityforestryprograms.ThelivelihoodscomponentofLRCFPmakesustainableeconomicandagriculturalalternativesavailabletopeopleinthetargetedcommunities,butdoesnottargetspecificindividualswhoseactivitiesdirectlythreatenbiodiversity(pitsawyersandcommercialhunters).Strategiesforrelatingthesetwotypesofactivities,otherthanmerejuxtaposition,needtobeincorporatedinfutureCFprograms.
Institutionalizecommunitybiodiversitymonitoring.Follow‐oninvestmentinCFinLiberiashouldincludecommunitymonitoringofbiodiversityandanapproachtoadaptcommunity
85USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
forestplanstotheresultsofthismonitoring.ItwouldtakeanestimatedfourorfiveyearstoinstitutionalizemonitoringanddevelopapproachesthatcouldbescaledoutforuseinothercommunityforestsinLiberia.
Preventleakagethroughlandscapeplanningandconservationagreements.Ratherthanthe“resourcesbasedstrategy”followedbyLRCFP,investmentsinthefutureshouldincludetheentirejurisdictionsofforestusers.Connectivitybetweenforests,bothcommunityandconservationforests,shouldbeapriority.Forestcoverchangemonitoring(satellite)wouldbeausefulcomplementtounderstandifforestconversionisreducedinthelandscapeorifpressureismerelyshiftingtostill‐unmanagedforest.
WorkwithconservationNGOs.ProgressinCFrequirescoordinationwithLiberia’sstrongconservationcommunity.HarmoniouscollaborationwilldependonacommondefinitionofCFandthelandscapeapproachused,aswellasmethodsfordemarcationandmapping,andcriteriafortheselectionoftrainees.
Exploretreecropsasanalternativetofieldcrops.StrongpotentialexistsforcocoaandrubbercropsinLiberia,especiallyiftheproduceiscertified.Internationaldemandexists.WorkinginthisareawouldalsoopenthepossibilityofintegratingworkinthepilotcommunitieswithotherongoingACDIactivitiesinthecountry.ACDI’sapproachdoesnotinvolveclearingtheforest.
86USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
SectionVIII CommunicationsandAwareness
Background
CommunicationshavebeenacriticalpartofLRCFPsinceitsinception.AsCFwasnewtoLiberia,therewasahugeneedtofirstdefinetheconceptfordifferentaudiences,refinethedefinitionintheLiberiancontextandbegintofillinthedetailsofhowCFcouldwork.NewmessageshadtobedevisedduringandaftertherolloutoftheCRL.Atthesitelevel,intheprocessofdevelopingawarenessactivities,LRCFPstafffirstlearnedabouteffectiveandappropriatelocalapproachesandtimestocommunicate;theyfocusedonadaptingtheirapproachtolocalcommunicationchannels.Theuseoftowncriersisanexampleofthisattentiontolocalcommunicationnetworks.Componentsofthecommunicationsandawarenessstrategythattheevaluationteamdirectlyexperiencedincluded:
Pamphletsandbrochures(forexampleabrochureontheCRLinLiberianEnglish) Radiospotsincludingaquizshow Theatertroupesthatuseculturalnarrativesandroleplaystodeliverkeymessages
aboutforestconservation,CF,theCRLandothertopics Dancetroupethatbringsexcitementandsenseofprideinculturaltradition Towncriermessagesinthecommunities
TheMTArecommendedthatLRCFPpromotetheprojectnameratherthan“TT/ARD”toassureintegratedmessaging.Thatrecommendationwastakenup;communitiesandotherpartnersrecognizeandusethename.Peoplealsocontinuetocalltheproject“ARD”,evenintheNimbaoffice.ThisislikelyinpartaresultofthefactthatLRCFPismoredifficulttosayandremember.
Results
ProgramlevelresultsAlthoughLRCFPdidnotsystematicallytracktheimpactofcommunicationactivities,thefollowingconclusionsmaybedrawnwithreasonablecertainty:
Communicationsandawarenessareseentobeinexpensiveandhavepotentialtobroadenimpactandscale
Approacheshavewideappealinruralareasduetoculturalreferencesandnarratives
Communityskillbuildingaddsvaluetocommunications Cross‐sitevisitsaddvalueatsiteandpolicylevels(butallFDAshouldbeconsidered
notjustCF) Communityfacilitatorshavebeentrainedandmentored(but$20/monthproject
stipendisnotsustainable) Thetheatergroupcommunicateseffectivelytonon‐literatesaboutforest
managementandbenefitsharing(CPOPandCFMB)
Atthenationallevel,LRCFPsupportedconsiderabledialogueamongnationallevelactorsthroughworkshops,reports,andworkinggroups.TopicsrangedfromCFitselftotheCRL,
87USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
regulations,SocialAgreementsandtheNationalBenefitSharingTrust.LRCFPalsoconductedanumberofactivitiestogaininputonandpublicizenationalpolicyissuesandlegislation,includingtheNTFPregulations,theCRL,theregulationstotheCRL,andtheworkingsoftheNationalBenefitSharingTrustBoard.LRCFPhasworkedwiththeDepartmentofCommunityForestryandthePublicRelationsDepartmentoftheFDAonradioprogrammingasaplatformforthedisseminationofCRL.LRCFPandtheFDAalsoidentifiedresourcepersonsselectedfromabroadspectrumofcommunityforestrystakeholderorganizations,suchasFDA,FFI,SDI,SADS,IUCN,aswellasprivateindividualswithinterestincommunityforestry.Pre‐recordedcopiesoftheradioprogramswerecirculatedtocommunityradiostationsthroughoutLiberiaaswellasnationalradiostationsinMonrovia.LRCFPalsoproducedanddisseminatedasimplifiedversionoftheCRLinLiberianEnglish.
OtherCFthemeswereclarifiedthroughfourpolicybriefsbytheseniorlandtenurespecialist.
Sitelevelresults Communicationinruledevelopment.LRCFPstaffhasusedanumberofcommunicationtechniquestoopendialogueaboutforestmanagementrulesandnegotiatecommonunderstandingsrelatedtotheapplicationoftheserules.Theprogrammakestheconnectionbetweentaboosandthenewrules.TheyarealsorelyingonhunterstobroadencommunityunderstandingoftheirpracticesnowincorporatedintoCFrules,suchasrestrictionsonhuntingpregnantanimals.Immigrantsunawareoftheserulesareanimportantaudience.Theprogrambuildsonthesetraditionsinskitsthatroleplayconflictsrelatedtorulesandregulations.Theatertroupesplayanimportantroleinthepilotcommunities.Throughskitstheprogramcouldaskmenandwomenofcommunitieshowtheymanageresourcesandidentifykeymessages.Forexample,killingfishintheriverwithpoisonwasidentifiedbycommunitiesasabehaviortheywantedtochange.Theyuseskitsandrole‐playtoworkthroughwaystochangethebehavior.Staffalsoconductsworkshopsfocusingondifferencesofopinionconcerningrulesandaddressingbylawsandtheconstitutionofbylaws.TheseeffortshavehelpedCFMBsdevelopbylawsandconsidertheimpactsofrestrictionsonanimalsinthecommunityforestsandtheENNR.OtherresultsofLRCFPcommunicationactivitiesatthesitelevelinclude:
Communitymembersmetwithlawmakersatlocalandnationallevelandwereabletosuccessfullyarticulatetheirpositions
AGRHAnotesthatcommunitiesnowmakepresentationsanddeveloptheirownproposals
CommunicationapproacheshelptheFFSsdiscusstechnologiesandmethodologiesandhelpstheCPOPsandCPGstomeasurelabortimeinprocessing
Challengesandadaptivemanagementstrategies
AbsenceofM&E.LRCFPhasnotsystematicallymeasuredtheimpactofthesecommunicationsactivities.ThePMPtrackedthenumberofmessagesbutnotthe
88USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
effectivenessofmessages.Thisisnottosaythatstaffhasblindlypushedcommunicationeffortsoutintoaudiences;theyhaveusedobservationandlessstructuredmethodstoassessimpact,talkingwithaudiencemembersandtrainees,forexample.
Limitedsetofapproaches.Staffdidnotemploytargetedbehaviorchangeandsocial
marketingapproaches.OneindicationofthislackofanintentiontomarkettheapproachisthattheCRLbrochure,radiospotsandawarenessactivitieshighlightLRCFPratherthancreatingalocalbrandoridentityforcommunityforestry.
89USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annexes
Annex 1 LRCFP Workplan from Quarter 14
2.1 Component/ProgramObjective1:Legalandpolicyframeworkdevelopedandstrengthenedtosupportcommunitymanagement,sustainableuseofnaturalresources,andbiodiversityconservationinforests
Activity1.1:SupportimplementationoftheCRL
ExpectedOutcome:Implementingregulationsdevelopedthatclarifyambiguities,mitigaterisksofabuse,andfullysupporttherequirementsofaCommunityForestManagementPlanundertheCRL
Activity1.2:StrengthenunderstandingthroughpublicoutreachonLRCFPandthecommunityforestryframework
ExpectedOutcome:Increasedpublicunderstanding,oversight,andsupportforanenablingcommunityforestryandforestresourcerightsframeworkandforitsimplementationatfourpilotsites
Activity1.3:Buildcapacityincommunityforestryatthenationallevelundertheenablingframework
ExpectedOutcome:Increasedinstitutionalcapacity,commitment,andleadershipforeffective,equitable,andinclusivecommunitystewardshipunderanenablingframework
Activity1.4:Support“alternative”approachestoforestconservationthroughcommunityforestry
ExpectedOutcome:Co‐managementbetweenFDAandcommunitiesunderwayfortheENNR;co‐managementinotherareasunderdiscussion
Activity1.5:Adviseimplementationof“socialagreements”betweenconcessionairesandcommunities
ExpectedOutcome:Abenefit‐sharingtrustestablishedforcommunitiesaffectedbyloggingconcessionsand,ifopportunityarises,improved“socialagreements”betweentimberconcessionairesandcommunities
Activity1.6:ParticipateinforestrysectorcoordinationExpectedOutcome:Experiencesharedandlessonslearnedthroughparticipationinforestrysectorcoordination
2.2 Component/ProgramObjective2:landtenureandpropertyrightssystemsforforestlandsdevelopedandstrengthenedtosecurerightsfornaturalresourceusers/ownersActivity2.1:DevelopworkingrelationshipswiththeLandCommission,relevantnational‐levelagencies,andotherdonorefforts
ExpectedOutcome:ImprovedbalanceintheprioritytheLCgivestodevelopingpolicyresponsestorurallandissues,withLTPRissuesincommunityforestlandsformingasignificantpartoftheLC’songoingagenda
90USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Activity2.2:StrengthenworkingrelationshipwithlocalgovernmentsExpectedOutcome:Traditionalandlocalleadershipstructuresandcustomarylandmanagementcontributingtomoresustainableforestandlandmanagementthroughengagementwithcountyandnationalleveldecision‐makers
Activity2.3:BuildcapacityinLTPRExpectedOutcome:AcadreoftrainedindividualsthatcanbegintoaddressLTPRissuesinforestlands
Activity2.4:Providedemand‐drivenSTTAtosupporttheLandCommissionExpectedOutcome:ImprovedunderstandingbytheLandCommissionersandLCstaffofrurallandtenureandownershipissues,helpingthemmakeconnectionsbetweenland,gender,andruralpoverty.
2.3 Component/ProgramObjective3:managementofcommunityforestsandconservationoftheirbiodiversityimproved,andeconomicopportunitiesincreasedforcommunitiesandotherusergroupsActivity3.1:Carryoutthreatsanalysisandsupportingactivitiestoensuresignificantbiodiversityobjectivesaremet
ExpectedOutcome:Community‐andforestuser‐defined,research‐supportedmechanism(s)tomonitorthreatstobiodiversityandnaturalresources
Activity3.2:EstablishandstrengthenmanagementinstitutionsExpectedOutcome:Forestmanagementbodiesandcommunityassemblieshavedevelopedcorecompetenciesthatincludelegitimacy,participatoryprocesses,regulatoryauthority,andconflictresolution(asdescribedintheLRCFPPMP)
Activity3.3:BuildthecapacitiesofcommunityorganizationsExpectedOutcome:Community‐levelcapacitiesconsolidatedtoimplementcommunity‐basedNRMandbiodiversityconservation
Activity3.4:PreparecommunityforestmanagementplansExpectedOutcome:Communitiesenabledtomanageandusetheirforestsandforestresourcesefficientlyandsustainably(seealsoActivity1.4,regardingco‐managementoftheENNR).Specifically,fourcommunitieshavedelineatedforestmanagementlandscapesfromfarmlandstosecuretheiroldgrowthforests(anddegradedportionsthereof)totalingabout100,000hectares(ofwhichatleast25,000hectaresarebiologicallysignificant)underacommunity‐basedforestmanagementsystem(ratherthanthecurrentsituationofopenaccess).
Activity3.5:DeveloplivelihoodimprovementopportunitiesExpectedOutcomes:Communitygroupsareproducing,processing,andmarketingmoreconsistently,competitively,andsustainably.Farmersandresourceusersaredevelopingrelationshipswithtraders;farmersandresourceusersaretestingandadaptingimprovedtechnologyandexploringlivelihoodoptions“entrepreneurially”,and;Masterfarmersareteachingotherfarmerswithinthecommunitiesimprovedtechnologies.
Activity3.6:Strengthencommunity‐levelunderstandingoflandrightsandcommunityforestry
91USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
ExpectedOutcome:CommunitiesempoweredandcommunityforestrybodieslegitimizedtotakeupstrongerrolesandassumethelargerresponsibilitiesofferedthemundertheCRLandotherlegislation,throughpracticalunderstandingofandskillinapplyingforestgovernance,landrights,conflictmanagement,andco‐managementprinciples
92USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 2 Results Framework and LRCFP Workplan Activities, Quarter 10
(“F”ObjectiveandProgramAreasreferstoUSAID’sworldwideForeignAssistanceFramework)
USAID/Liberia Strategy: SO 669-010: Restore and Maintain Basic Economic Activity and Livelihoods
F Objective 4: Economic
Growth
F Program Areas
Natural Resource
Management & Biodiversity
Conservation Inclusive
Economic Law and Property Rights
IR 10.2. Increased Adoption of Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources Management Practices in Target Communities
Task Order Overall Objective: To advance the policy and practice of land and forest management, within Liberia’s forest lands, through
the introduction of adaptive management and learning-based approaches in pilot sites located within targeted areas of the country.
Component 1: Legal and policy framework developed and strengthened to support community management, sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity conservation
Component 2: Land tenure and property rights systems for forest lands developed and strengthened to secure rights for natural resource users/owners
Component 3: Management of community forests and conservation of their biodiversity improved, and economic opportunities increased for communities and
th
Result and Activities
2. LTPR systems to
improve security of tenure for natural resource owners/users in forest lands improved:
2.1 Support Land
Commission 2.2 Strengthen local
government relations 2.3 Build capacity in
LTPR
Result and Activities
3. Community Forest
Management provides improved biodiversity conservation and livelihoods:
3.1 Analyze biodiversity
threats and trends 3.2 Strengthen forest
management bodies 3.3 Build capacities of
community organizations 3.4 Prepare community
forest management plans 3.5 Develop livelihood
improvement opportunities
Result and Activities
1. Institutional
Framework for Community Forestry (CF) established:
1.1 Implement CRL 1.2 Strengthen
understanding of CF framework
1.3 Build capacity in CF framework
1.4 Develop alternative approaches to forest conservation
1.5 Advise on “social
Work Plans
93USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 3 Documents Reviewed for the Evaluation
USAID
USAIDn.d.USAID/LiberiaProgramScopeofWorkforAssociateAwardtoConservationInternational
USAIDNovember2005.PRELIMINARYBIODIVERSITYANDTROPICALFORESTCONSERVATIONASSESSMENTFORUSAID/LIBERIA.DianeRussell,USAID/EGAT/NRM/B,SkyeSieber,USDA/ForestServiceNovember21,2005
USAIDSeptember2008.LIBERIAENVIRONMENTALTHREATSANDOPPORTUNITIESASSESSMENT(ETOA)FINALREPORT.
USAID,July2009.MIDTERMASSESSMENTOFLANDRIGHTSANDCOMMUNITYFORESTPROGRAM.ByDianeRussell,EGAT/NRM/B
USAIDOctober2010.VISIONINGTHEFUTUREOFLIBERIA’SFORESTSANAPPRECIATIVECONSULTATIVEPROCESS.
USAIDJanuary2011EVALUATIONLEARNINGFROMEXPERIENCEUSAIDEVALUATIONPOLICYUSAIDCOTRSiteVisitReports.SinoeCounty,2/2009.NimbaCounty11/2008,6/2009,and
11/2009.LRCFPManagementDocuments
LRCFPQuarterlyReports1–14.
LRCFPWorkplans 01MARCH–30SEPTEMBER2008 01NOVEMBER2008–30SEPTEMBER2009 01OCTOBER2009–16MAY2010 01JANUARY–31AUGUST2011(PROVISIONALWORKPLANFOROPTIONYEAR)
LRCFPReportsandStudies
June2008.SMALLGRANTSMANUAL.October2008.CONFLICTMANAGEMENTCAPACITYBUILDINGFORCOMMUNITYFORESTRY.December2008.COMMUNITYFORESTRYINLIBERIA–LEARNINGFROMEXPERIENCE
ELSEWHEREFebruary2009.DEVELOPMENTOFNON‐TIMBERFORESTPRODUCTSINSINOEAND
NIMBACOUNTIES.April2009.SpatialTechnologiesforCommunityForestryApril2009.CommunityForestryasaBusinessTrainingManual:NTFPMay,2009.IMPLEMENTATIONOFSOCIALAGREEMENTS–ANINITIALASSESSMENT(Draft.N.d.).HOWTOCREATEACOMMUNITYFORESTMANAGEMENTPLAN:
ImplementingtheCommunityForestryRightsLaw.(Draft.N.d.)HOWTOESTABLISHCOMMUNITYFORESTMANAGEMENTINSTITUTIONS.August2009.PROTEINALTERNATIVEASSESSMENTSTUDY
94USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
May2010.ASSESSMENTANDRECOMMENDATIONSFORANATIONALBENEFITSHARINGTRUSTFUND.
July2010.IMPLEMENTINGTHENATIONALBENEFITSHARINGTRUSTFUNDANDSOCIALAGREEMENTS:ISSUESANDOPTIONSFORBUILDINGCAPACITY.
August2010.FORESTRYTRAININGINSTITUTESELF‐ASSESSMENTREPORTANDCURRICULUMDEVELOPMENTIMPLEMENTATIONPLAN.
August2010.COLLEGEOFAGRICULTUREANDFORESTRY(CAF)UNIVERSITYOFLIBERIA:SELF‐ASSESSMENTREPORTANDREDESIGNANDDEVELOPMENTPLAN.
November2010.PROGRAMIMPLEMENTINGTHENATIONALBENEFITSHARINGTRUSTFUNDANDSOCIALAGREEMENTS:ISSUESANDOPTIONSFORBUILDINGCAPACITY
December2010.ASSESSMENTOF,ANDRECOMMENDATIONSFOR,THEMONITORINGANDEVALUATIONSYSTEMDECEMBER.
June2011.TripReport.JohnD.WaughAugust2011.ShouldNeighboringCommunitiesBePermittedtoLegallyHarvestNon‐Timber
ForestProductsinProtectedAreas?Mombeshora,S.PolicyBrief#1,July2011August2011.ThecreationofabufferzoneatSapoNationalPark,southwesternLiberia:
Issuesandway(s)forward?Mombeshora,S.PolicyBrief#2,July2011August2011.Communalvs.CommunityForestsinLiberia:APolicyMuddle?Mombeshora,S.
PolicyBrief#3,July2011August2011.CFDCsandCFMBs:TheNeedforHarmonizedTrainingandCapacityBuilding.
Mombeshora,S.PolicyBrief#4,July2011n.d.N’GoranK.Paul,BeneK.JeanClaudeandJoelGamysGeneralmethodologyandtraining
materialsforsettingupabiomonitoringprogramincommunityforestsinNimbaandSinoeCounties
n.d.SamuelN.Koffa,AbuConneh,JacksonS.Nobeh.PARTICIPATORYASSESSMENTOFDIRECTTHREATSTOBIODIVERSITYRESOURCESINSINOEPILOTSITES
LRCFPPapers
NitrianCommunityProfileDraftReportDraftProfile:NumopohCommunity,SinoeCountyGbapadraftsummaryprofileZordraftsummaryprofileParticipatoryPlanningforGbapaandZorARDCommentsonCRL2June2008.doc
Community–FDADocuments
BleihCommunityForestManagementPlan(draft)October2011MOUBetweenNitrianCBGandCAGbaCommunityApplicationtoFDAforAuthorizedForestCommunityStatusAppendixA–RulesforNitrianCommunityDocumentsfortheZorCommunityAgreement
CoverLetterforCF Zor–DraftCFManagementAgreement Appendix1‐‐ZorSocio‐economicProfile Appendix3‐‐Zor–OfficialsinCFMInstitutions Appendix4–ZorCFMBRevisedConstitution
95USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Appendix5–TreeSpecies
LiberianLawsandRegulations
RegulationstotheCommunityRightsLawof2009withRespecttoForestLands(Draft)
ForestryDevelopmentAuthorityRegulationNo.111‐08RegulationontheCommercialandSustainableExtractionofNon‐TimberForestProducts(NTFPs)
AnActtoEstablishtheCommunityRightsLawof2009withRespecttoForestLands TheLiberiaNationalWildlifeLawof2008(ZERODRAFT)
OtherDocumentsReferenced
Agrawal,A.2007Forests,governance,andsustainability:commonpropertytheoryanditscontributions.InternationalJournaloftheCommons1(1):51‐76.
Charnley,S.,Poe,M.R.,2007.Communityforestryintheoryandpractice.Wherearewenow?AnnualReviewofAnthropology36,301–336.
CIFOR/ICRAF,2005.ProceedingsofTheFirstInternationalWorkshoponCommunityForestryinLiberiaTowardsaSharedVisionandActionFrameforCommunityForestryinLiberia.Monrovia12‐15December2005.
Dietz,T.,Ostrom,E.andStern,P.C.2003Thestruggletogovernthecommons.Science302(5652):1907‐1912.
JohnW.BruceandBoakaiN.Kanneh,2011.ReformofLiberia’sCivilLawConcerningLand:AProposedStrategy.(unpublishedfinalversion,16February2011).
MenziesNK.,2007.OurForest,YourEcosystem,TheirTimber:Communities,Conservation,andtheStateinCommunity‐BasedForestManagement.NewYork:ColumbiaUniv.Press
Richards,P.,S,etal.2005.CommunityCohesioninLiberia:APost‐WarRapidSocialAssessment.TheWorldBank.2005SOCIALDEVELOPMENTPAPERSConflictPrevention&ReconstructionPaperNo.21.
Schlager,E.andOstrom,E.,1992.Property‐rightsregimesandnaturalresources:aconceptualanalysis.LandEconomics68(3):249‐262.
96USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 4 Evaluation Scope of Work
STATEMENT OF WORK FINAL EVALUATION OF THE USAID/LIBERIA
LAND RIGHTS AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY PROGRAM Background A central dilemma throughout Liberia’s history has been that the country's rich natural resources have only benefited a small number of Liberians. USAID is supporting community forestry and property rights in Liberia because they provide an entry point to address these fundamental inequities and help foster better governance. Historically Liberia had a stronger emphasis on larger scale commercial exploitation in the forestry and agriculture sectors, with relatively little attention paid to substantive engagement with local communities that should ultimately benefit from economic development. Rights‐based approaches to land and forest management complement and enhance development programs, particularly those focused on improving natural resource management and developing marketable products based on sustainable natural resource use. USAID Liberia initiated the Land Rights and Community Forestry Program (LRCFP) in December 2007 to help the Government of Liberia craft new policies and institutions and build capacity at national and local levels in order to implement new governance systems for transparent and equitable management of land and forest resources. The LRCFP is focused primarily on community forestry, but also addresses commercial forestry and conservation activities as these intersect with the rights and responsibilities of rural landholders. The LRCFP’s primary focus has been on pilot sites in Nimba and Sinoe counties where customary and mixed tenure systems prevail and where community forestry pilot activities are being undertaken. The program works closely with forestry and agricultural institutions to craft solutions that promote economic growth while assuring the rights of the poor, including potentially disenfranchised groups such as women. It also collaborates with conservation organizations to create and adapt land and forest use rules and regulations to sustain biodiversity. The overall goal of the LRCFP program is to advance the policy and practice of land and forest management in Liberia through adaptive management and learning‐based approaches. This is being accomplished through a variety of means including:
1. Improve legal and policy environment for land tenure, property rights and natural resource management
2. Build the capacity of communities and their governmental and non‐governmental partners to develop and sustain community forestry programs
3. Generate environmentally‐sustainable and equitable economic benefits for rural residents. Underlying these actions is the need to develop, strengthen and foster the enabling environment and to complement and support efforts by other actors in this sector.
97USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
A midterm assessment completed in July 2009 documented significant achievements of LRCFP such as an inclusive, measured approach that reached out to all stakeholders from national to local level, and successful launching of field offices in two areas good for pilot community forestry activities. LRCFP also was seen to have significantly improved relations with FDA in the community (notably around East Nimba Nature Reserve) that mitigated conflict and opened avenues for collaboration and co‐management. The assessment made numerous recommendations including:
Strengthen government relations through a more structured and holistic relationship with FDA.
Do not engage in major scaling up/out of LRCFP: work within existing large communities and scale out from them as makes programmatic sense (e.g., adding additional, contiguous forests and forest user communities).
As possible, complement LRCFP with other USAID investments in agriculture and economic growth, health, education and democracy and governance programs in the pilot areas.
Develop a robust livelihood strategy for LRCFP that moves beyond producer groups and small grants. Revise the small grant process as it is cumbersome and not appropriate for local groups. Move toward targeted support to forest‐based value chains and assure that benefits from these value chains are directly linked to better forest management.
For biodiversity targeting, carry out site‐specific threats analysis, align activities to address threats and design monitoring protocols to measure threat reduction. Consider that “open access” situations are likely to be the root cause threats to Liberia’s forest biodiversity.
Harmonize communications messages, approaches and “behavior change” strategies. While a lot has been done to promote policy awareness a more structured approach to helping communities link to local government and to policy advocacy opportunities is needed; this will help with the longer term goal of building grassroots civil society.
Develop a clear gender strategy especially with respect to how women access, use and benefit from forestry. Recruit and retain women into the LRCFP team through outreach and mentoring. Familiarize the team with best practices in gender programming for forestry programs.
Among other tasks, the evaluation will examine if and how assessment recommendations were implemented and what barriers emerged to changing course. Objectives 1) Document results, accomplishments, challenges and problems
a. Measure (qualitatively and quantitatively as possible) actual results against expected results in each component
b. Document perceptions of LRCFP approach and accomplishments by different stakeholders, especially direct beneficiaries
c. Determine effectiveness of integration of different components in terms of integrated results (e.g., synergies between different component, efficiencies in delivery)
d. Determine robustness of the project design, initial development hypothesis, and adaptive management strategies used to deal with changing scenarios, recommendations from the midterm assessment, and other unanticipated shifts
e. Analyze policy impacts at national and site levels
98USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
f. Analyze gender impacts g. Assess impact of LRCFP on USAID/Liberia program and within USAID
2) Evaluate efficiency and effectiveness of project management
a. Carry out budget analysis to show areas of major investment, and shifts in budget, in relation to impacts/results
b. Describe strengths and weaknesses in staffing c. Document USAID concerns and kudos concerning management d. Document management of subcontracts and grants e. Document synergies with any other USAID programs
Tasks
Review existing LRCFP documentation
Review key USAID/Liberia program documents
Review and analyze pertinent reports, assessments, policies, and other recent key documentation on land rights and community forestry in Liberia. The evaluation will look at LRCFP in light of the “enabling policy” environment in Liberia: as a factor in shaping design, implementation and adaptive management.
Conduct interviews with relevant stakeholders and program staff
Visit field offices and pilot communities and conduct group and key informant interviews
Photograph key biophysical conditions and impacts at sites attributed to LRCFP
Team Diane Russell, EGAT/NRM/B, team leader, overall program and policy analysis, USAID views, gender Andy Tobiason, EGAT/NRM/B, biodiversity and M&E, site level Land Tenure and Property Rights (LTPR), photographer David Miller, consultant (30 days), community forestry, stakeholder analysis, integration of program components and results, coordination of report Ken Hasson, agriculture/food security officer, analysis of livelihoods and agriculture interventions LTPR consultant (5 days), analysis of LRCFP land tenure and property rights results (policy level) Timing and Duration of Assignment: Diane Russell and Andy Tobiason arrive in‐country on August 14 and depart on August 25 or 26, 2011. The Mission will be debriefed before departure of Russell and Tobiason, and receive a draft evaluation report by September 15. A final report for Mission approval will be provided no later than October 7, 2011.
Reporting: The team will report to Daniel Whyner of USAID/Liberia for planning and implementation of this Terms of Reference.
99USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 5 Partial List of People Interviewed
Wednesday16thSayeThompson ChairCMC,ChairCFMBEarnestValue MemberofCMCandCJFMBDorisPayne CFMBmemberGba
SecretaryforCJFMCandCMCJeanetteCarter TechnicalSupportLandCommissionThursday17thPeterZurweh ChiefelderofZorgowee.CAfromGbacommunityMaryDuo ChairpersonofZorCA.TradCouncilChairRebeccaYeanay CassavaProcessingGroup,ZoloweeYoihBrown CassavaProcessingGroup,ZoloweeStevenFlomo CommercialPalmOilProcessingGroupZoloweeRichardPey CommercialPalmOilProcessingGroupZoloweeStanleyToe ProgramOfficerLandCommissionSuzanneG.Vaye CommissionerEducation&Outreach,LandCommissionFriday18thEmiliaMantor FFSparticipantLindaGarkbah NRFPFinancialSecretaryWilfredT.GayeelehNTFPChairpersonJerryS.Gono MasterFarmerTheresaDelee NTFPSecretaryJohnsonLugon FFSstudentZorcommunityHelenWeanquoi JFMBJacobDarlington CFMBGBaJosephYormie ParamountChief,NimbaSaturday19thAndrewF.JohnjoeAGRHAJosephusNyepan AGRHAPatrickVoneh NimbaCountyLandCommissionerMonday21stBillWoods DirectorofFTIOthelloBrandy LandCommissionChairFDAstaff,includingMosesWogbeh ManagingDirectorLawrenceGreene Manager,CommunityForestry,FDAJohnKantor Manager,ResearchandDevelopmentDepartment,FDAThursday24thSinoeCommunityMembers,includingAlexWloh CFMBJamesKelgha CFMBChairJackieNipan FFSstudentOthelloSnoh GeneralSecretaryCFMB
100USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
AlfredSnoh CassavaProducerGroupchairSeyhDia NTFPparticipantTomas NTFPparticipantRolan NTFPparticipantJohnHowellEnvironmentalAdvisor,ArcelorMittalLiberiaMultipleinterviewswithTT/ARDandACDI/VOCAstaffacrossthetwoweeks.
101USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 6 Evaluation Team Biographies
PaulDeWit.PaulDeWitisanindependentconsultantwith30yearsofexperience,mainlyontheAfricancontinent,onpostconflictlandtenurereform,landpolicydevelopment,participatorylandusemanagementandterritorialdevelopmentstrategies.Heisareferenceconsultantonlandissuesforanumberofinternationalorganizationsandinstitutions,includingFAOandUN‐Habitat.Dr.KenHasson.AnAgricultureDevelopmentOfficerwithUSAIDinLiberiaandhasbeenwiththeAgencyfor1.5years.AformerPeaceCorpsfisheriesvolunteer,Ken'sexpertiseisinaquaticdiseasesoffarmedfishandshrimpand,toalesserdegree,inextensiveandsemi‐intensiveaquaculturesystems.Duringhis30yearcareerinthisfield,Kenhasgivennumerousaquaticdiseasepresentations,authored20peerreviewedpapersdescribingnovelbacterialandviraldiseasesandworkedwithnumerousfishandshrimpfarmersthroughoutLatinAmericaandtheU.S.toresolveproductionproblemsresultingfrominfectiousandnon‐infectiousdiseases.ReviewoftheLRCFPlivelihoodcomponentrepresentsthefirstformalevaluationprocessKenhasundertakensincejoiningUSAID.
DavidM.Miller.Aninternationalprogramdesignconsultant,Dr.MillerhasprovidedtechnicalassistancetonaturalresourcesmanagementandagricultureprojectsinAfricaforover18years.AprogramandtrainingspecialistfortheUSPeaceCorpsforsixyears,DavidalsosupervisedPeaceCorps’technicalteamsupportingtheirprogramsacrosstheworld.Hisspecialtiesincludetrainingdesign,andlandtenure.Dr.MillerholdsaPhDindevelopmentanthropologyfromBostonUniversity.
DianeRussell.AUSAIDSocialScienceandBiodiversityAdvisor,DianejoinedtheEGAT/NRMbiodiversity‐forestryteaminAugust2005.HeracademiccredentialsincludeaBA(BarnardCollege/ColumbiaUniversity),MAandPhD(BostonUniversity)inAnthropologyandMastersinEnvironmentalManagement(YaleSchoolofForestry&EnvironmentalStudies).SheworkedforsixyearsasascientistwithintheConsultativeGroupforInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR):twoyearsaspost‐docattheInternationalInstituteforTropicalAgriculture(IITA)’sHumidForestStationinCameroonandfouryearsasaprogramleaderformarketsandconservation‐developmentlinkagesattheWorldAgroforestryCentre(ICRAF)basedinNairobi,Kenya.Inthe1990sshespentalmostfouryearswiththeUSAID‐fundedBiodiversityConservationNetwork/BiodiversitySupportProgram(BCN/BSP)basedinthePhilippinesandFijiasaSeniorProgramOfficerandsocialscientist.HerUSAIDexperienceincludesbeinga“local‐hire”socialscientistforUSAID/Kinshasainthe1980s,astintasResearchManagerwithintheCenterforDevelopmentInformationandEvaluation(CDIE/RRScontract),amemberoftheStrategicObjectiveTeamoftheCentralAfricanRegionalProgramontheEnvironment(CARPE)aswellasbeingEnvironmentAdvisortoUSAID/KinshasaduringthereestablishmentofthatMissiontotheDemocraticRepublicofCongo(DRC).Inhercurrentposition,DianehasbeenAOTRfortheGlobalConservationProgram(GCP),includingmanagingthefinalevaluationofGCPandtheBusinessandBiodiversityOffsetsProgram(BBOP)andiscurrentlyanAOTRfortheSCAPESLWAwithPACTandpartners,aswellasalternateAOTRfortheTransLinksLWA.SheassistsMissionsandUSAID/Wwithdesign,evaluation,assessmentandcommunicationsrelatingtobiodiversitywithanemphasisoneconomic,socialandculturaldimensions.Dianehasvisitednumerousfieldsites,lecturesandsupervisesstudentsasanadjunctfacultymemberintheanthropologydepartmentatUniversityofMaryland,and
102USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
publishedabookin2004withCamillaHarshbarger:Groundworkforcommunity‐basedconservation:Strategiesforsocialresearch(AltamiraPress).Forthcomingisachapteronanthropologyandconservationforaninterdisciplinarytextbook.
103USAID/LiberiaFinalEvaluationoftheLandRightsandCommunityForestryProgram
Annex 7 Evaluation Itinerary
August2011
12Fri 13Sat 14Su Russell
arrivesinMonrovia
MillerandTobiasonarrive
PlanwithWhynerandHasson
15Mon 16Tues 17Wed 18Thu 19Fri 20Sat 21Su
LogisticsandintroductionwithCOP
TraveltoSanniquellieMeetLRCFPteam.Dinnerwithcountyandcityofficials
InterviewswithGbacommunitymembers.DeWitarrivesinMonrovia
InterviewswithalimitednumberofrepresentativesfromtheZorcommunity.
InterviewsinGba.VisitstoFFSfieldsandoilpress.DeWitarrivesSanniquellie
InterviewswithLRCFPstaff.AGRHA,NAEAL,
ReturnedtoMonrovia
22Mon 23Tues 24Wed 24Thu 26Fri 27Sat
InterviewsatFDA,FTI,LandCommission
NationalholidayFurtherinterviewswithCOTR.Readingandwriting
Nationalholiday.Theteamassemblednotes,andresearchedInterviewwithCIrepresentative.
InterviewswithrepresentativesfromSinoecommunity.InterviewswithLRCFPstaff.InterviewwithArcelorMittalEnvironmentAdviser.
Missiondebriefanddepart
DeWitdeparts
Top Related