liberia - united states agency for international development · better forest governance...

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


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


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


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


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


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


PMP PerformanceMonitoringPlanQ(Calendar) QuarterQR QuarterlyReportREDD ReducingEmissionsfromDeforestationandDegradationSTTA Short‐TermTechnicalAssistanceTO TaskOrderTOT TrainingofTrainersTT/ARD TetraTech/ARDUSAID UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopmentUSG UnitedStatesGovernmentWNNR TheproposedWestNimbaNatureReserve


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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


essentialforcommunityforestrytoadvance.AlargerdiscussionabouttheCIapproachinNimbaisneededasitisuncleariftheysupportCFaroundWestNimba.

HarmonizeapproachesthrougharevitalizedCommunityForestryWorkingGroup.USAID/WA‐USFSSustainableandThrivingEnvironmentsforWestAfricanRegionalDevelopment(STEWARD)programwillcontinuetoworkinLiberiaandcertainlyonitsborders.ThereisconcernthatSTEWARDisadoptingadifferentapproachtolivelihoodsandtocommunityforestry.Thesedifferenceshavetobeaddressedimmediately.ThispointholdsforanyotherdonororNGOactiononCF.Alternatively,USAIDcouldhelpGOLmeetwithcivilsocietyandprivatesectorrepresentativesinaworkinggroupthatmeetsregularlyatCFsitestohashoutpolicyissues,makerecommendationsandmonitortheimplementationofrecommendations.ThisapproachwashighlysuccessfulinthePhilippinesduringtheinitialstagesofCF.

ImplicationsforUSAIDThestructureofPLACEIQC.BecauseLRCFPwasimplementedthroughanIQCtheMissionwasunabletochangesubcontractorsasnecessary.Asaresultmuchmanagementtimewasinvestedinaddressingissueswithsubcontractors.WorkingthroughtheIQCalsoelevatedcosts.OneexamplewastheLearmonthvisits.Implementingmajorcomponentsthroughsubcontractsalsocostsmore.SomepositionsrequireexpatLTTA.


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


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.


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.


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.


AnumberofcharacteristicsofthecontextinwhichLRCFPwasimplementedposedseriouschallengestothecreationofstable,strongandequitablecommunityforestinstitutions.Someofthesewereknownfromtheoutset,butmostaroseorwerediscoveredduringtheimplementationoftheprogram.

ChallengesoriginatingatthenationallevelSlowandcontesteddevelopmentoftheCRL.TheMissionandLRCFPstaffinitiallybelievedtheCRLwouldbepassedinthefirstmonthsoftheprogram;iteventuallypassed22months


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.


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.


(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


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


systemsofruleswilldependonanongoingbalancebetweenlocaloriginsandarticulation,presumablybyoutsiders,sothattheycancontinuetobe“locallydevised.”

Demographicchangesmaydestabilizecommunityforestinstitutions.Populationgrowthovertimemayincreasepressureonagriculturallandandforestresourcesandchallengemanagementinstitutions,especiallyifitresultsinincreasedcross‐borderincursionsfromGuinea.Otherdemographicchangesmayhavegreaterimmediateimpact.SinceNovember2010over150,000IvorianrefugeeshavealsocrossedtheborderintoNimbaCounty.Whilemanyoftheserefugeesstayincamps,manyalsoresidewithfamilyandfriends–someofwhomtheyhostedasrefugeesfromLiberiawhenthetableswereturned.AccordingtoLRCFPstaff,arefugeecamp–theZorgoweeRefugeeCamp‐‐wasinitiallyestablishedinoneofthepilotcommunities,beforeitwasresettled.Suchdramaticchangesinpopulationincreasepressureonforestresourcesandthedemandtoclearforestforagriculture.

Tenureclaims.(DiscussedinSectionV)


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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:


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


• 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


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.


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.


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


tous”;“they[theIvorianrefugees]havetotalktousfirst”and“Now,eventhePresidentknows[thisisourforest]!”


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.


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


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.


Riskofcommunitylossofrightstoforests.Becauselandrightshavenotbeenincludedasanintegralpartofcommunityforestrythepilotcommunitiesfacetheriskoflosingtheirlandsandforests.Intheabsenceoflandownership,therightsconferredthroughthepresentprocessareweakinthefaceofotherclaimsunderwrittenbypre‐existinglandlegislationahighlevelGOLagreements.ThepolicybriefsontheSinoesituationnotethatforestcommunitiesareexposedtothethreatoftheexpansionoftheSapoNationalPark,includingtheuseofthebufferzone.TheconcessionagreementbetweentheGOLandGoldenVeroleumInc.,amultinationaloilpalmgrowingcompany,affectsatleastNumopoh.Specificconcessionconditionscanincreasethisthreattoothercommunities.Theconceptof“gross


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


managementbasedongenuineconsensuswouldrepresentsignificantprogress.FDAandotherpublicforestadministratorswillcontinuetoplaytheirrole,butinamorebalancedfashion,withpartnerswhohaveacquiredastrongernegotiationvoice.

ReformtheCRLandtheregulations.OutstandingdiscrepanciesbetweentheNFRL(2006),theCRL(2009)andthedraftregulations(2011)exposetheselawstocontestation.Anewlawdealingwithcommunitylands,oncepassed,willalsorequirethemodificationoftheseexistinglaws.

Workbroadlyacrosssectorshavinganimpactonlandtenure.AnumberofongoingprocessesoutsideofthemandateoftheFDAhavethepotentialtostronglyimpactthelandtenureofcommunityforests.TheseincludetheREDD+preparednessprogram,landlawreform,andthedevelopmentofconcessionpolicy.TheFDAingeneralandthecommunityforestsectorinparticularcouldwellbenefitfromengagedparticipationintheseprocesses.WorkoncommunityforestrycannotadvancesolelythroughworkwiththeCommunityForestryDepartmentoftheFDA.


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.


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


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.


Especiallylowlevelofdevelopmentofthecommunities.TheLRCFPlivelihoodcomponentfacedanumberofchallengesfamiliartoagriculturalprojectsinthedevelopingworld.Trainerscouldnotassignreadingorhandouttechnicalsheetsduetoilliteracy.Norcouldtheyteachfarmerstotracktheirinputs,harvests,andexpenseswithoutalsoprovidingtraininginliteracyandnumeracy.Norcouldtrainersassumelocalmechanicswouldbe


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


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.


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.


Forthebridgingperiod

Workupthevaluechain.Theagriculturallivelihoodactivitieshavefocusedonproduction.AdditionalAGRHAstafffocusingonbusinessdevelopmentservicewouldhelpaddressthis.

Broadengovernmentalcontacts.LRCFPisconductingagriculturalactivitiesinisolationoftheMinistryofAgriculture,andinternationalresearchinstitutions.DeveloplinkswiththeMinistryofAgriculture(theyhavearepresentativeinSanniquellie)andresearchorganizationssuchasWARDA,IFAD,IITA.

Additionaltrainingtopics.Interviewswithparticipantsandprogramstaffsuggestthatalternativesourcesofproteinandmethodstoaddresserosionandfarmingonaslopearepotentialadditionallivelihoodactivities.

PromoteNTFP–to–NTFPproducerexchanges.Masterharvesters/cultivatorsaregainingexperienceandknowledgetheycouldsharewithothersinterestedinNTFPs.


ImplicationsforUSAIDSupportrapidmanagementadaptation.ItbecameclearveryearlyintheprogramthatthecommunitiesinwhichLRCFPworkeddidnothavethecapacitytomanageUSAIDgrants.ItneverthelesstooktheprogramayearandahalfandtheresultsoftheMTAtoshiftfromthisapproach.Afalseappreciationofthecontextintheplanningstagebecameafixedconstraintseriouslydelayingamajorcomponentoftheprogram.

Setclearobjectives.Ambiguityintheobjectivesconcerningtherelationshipbetweenthelivelihoodactivitiesandcommunityforestryweakenedthefocusonactivitiesthataddvaluetoforestproductionormoredirectlyreducethreatstosustainableforestmanagement.Livelihoodactivitiesinitiallyfocusedonagriculturalactivities.NotuntiltheMTAdidtheLRCFPteamclearlyreceivethemessagethatNTFPscomprisedanimportantelementinthetotalapproach.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


Impactofepisodicfundingonbiodiversity.Thefocusonbiodiversityresultswaveredduetoinitialshorttermprojectdesignandtheprogressionofextensions.ChangesinCOPalsobrokethecontinuityofeffort.Thesefactorsalsodiminishedprojectutilizationoftheprimarysourceofconservationexpertise,ConservationInternational.

LimitedincentivesforparticipatingintheENNRCo‐ManagementCommittee.ThemembersoftheENNRCo‐ManagementCommitteeunderstandthatthemainintendeduseofthereserveisconservation,andrecognizethatitwillprovidevaluefortheirchildren.Butthusfarneithertheynorthemembersoftheircommunitiesreceivedirectbenefitsfromtheir


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?


Uselivelihoodsactivitiesstrategicallyincommunityforestryprograms.ThelivelihoodscomponentofLRCFPmakesustainableeconomicandagriculturalalternativesavailabletopeopleinthetargetedcommunities,butdoesnottargetspecificindividualswhoseactivitiesdirectlythreatenbiodiversity(pitsawyersandcommercialhunters).Strategiesforrelatingthesetwotypesofactivities,otherthanmerejuxtaposition,needtobeincorporatedinfutureCFprograms.

Institutionalizecommunitybiodiversitymonitoring.Follow‐oninvestmentinCFinLiberiashouldincludecommunitymonitoringofbiodiversityandanapproachtoadaptcommunity


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.


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,


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


AbsenceofM&E.LRCFPhasnotsystematicallymeasuredtheimpactofthesecommunicationsactivities.ThePMPtrackedthenumberofmessagesbutnotthe


effectivenessofmessages.Thisisnottosaythatstaffhasblindlypushedcommunicationeffortsoutintoaudiences;theyhaveusedobservationandlessstructuredmethodstoassessimpact,talkingwithaudiencemembersandtrainees,forexample.

Limitedsetofapproaches.Staffdidnotemploytargetedbehaviorchangeandsocial

marketingapproaches.OneindicationofthislackofanintentiontomarkettheapproachisthattheCRLbrochure,radiospotsandawarenessactivitieshighlightLRCFPratherthancreatingalocalbrandoridentityforcommunityforestry.


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


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


ExpectedOutcome:CommunitiesempoweredandcommunityforestrybodieslegitimizedtotakeupstrongerrolesandassumethelargerresponsibilitiesofferedthemundertheCRLandotherlegislation,throughpracticalunderstandingofandskillinapplyingforestgovernance,landrights,conflictmanagement,andco‐managementprinciples


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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


AlfredSnoh CassavaProducerGroupchairSeyhDia NTFPparticipantTomas NTFPparticipantRolan NTFPparticipantJohnHowellEnvironmentalAdvisor,ArcelorMittalLiberiaMultipleinterviewswithTT/ARDandACDI/VOCAstaffacrossthetwoweeks.


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


publishedabookin2004withCamillaHarshbarger:Groundworkforcommunity‐basedconservation:Strategiesforsocialresearch(AltamiraPress).Forthcomingisachapteronanthropologyandconservationforaninterdisciplinarytextbook.


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