Document Type: Monitoring and Evaluation

Georgia is blessed with a strategic location, beautiful physical features and historical treasures, as well as talented, energetic people. In recent years, a democratically elected, forward-looking government has created an empowering, laissez-faire business environment to complement these natural endowments as well as an atmosphere in which business can flourish. Recognizing that this combination of assets and opportunity is rare in the world, the U.S. Government wishes to strengthen, deepen, and institutionalize these developments to ensure continued peace, stability, and democratic political and economic growth.

USAID designed and procured the Economic Prosperity Initiative (EPI) – a four-year USD 40.4 million program – to build upon this context of opportunity. Its broad goal is as follows:

“EPI will improve enterprise, industry, and country-level competitiveness by identifying and targeting key external and internal factors to enhance the growth rates and productivity of enterprises in the economy, thereby enhancing the economic well-being of workers in the economy.”

EPI contract sections “Component 2 – Improve the Competitiveness of Targeted Agriculture Sectors” and “Component 3 – Improve the Competitiveness of Targeted Non-Agriculture Sectors” require the evaluation of agriculture and non-agriculture sectors to be carried out, that ICT be one of the sectors evaluated, and that value chains be selected from priority sectors. When the EPI was mobilized in late October 2010, teams of value chain analysts began the process of prioritizing economic sectors by their potential in achieving the goal above, and in meeting various high-level EPI targets of productivity, employment, investment, access to finance, and exports.

This document details the initial research that led to the priority agricultural sectors, non-agricultural sectors and “cross-cutting” sectors. Value chains within these initial priority sectors will now be assessed in greater detail to determine priority value chains that EPI will partner to support Georgia’s competitiveness growth.

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Ecuador Sustainable Forests and Coasts Project (SFC) is a biodiversity conservation effort for the Ecuadorian Coast. The project is implemented within the framework of the USAID Biodiversity Code that demands that investments in productive activities need to support biodiversity conservation objectives as an overriding principle.

SFC commenced in 2009 and is expected to be completed in 2014. The project focuses on four ecosystems: 1) coastal rainforest of the Choco bio-geographic region; 2) dry forests along the central and southern coast; 3) mangroves, and 4) other near-shore coastal/marine areas. Each of these ecosystems harbors biodiversity that has been dramatically reduced in recent decades. The strategic components, or Project Intermediate Results (PIRs) of this project are threefold: 1) to improve biodiversity conservation in critical habitats by designing resource management strategies that address biodiversity threats and strengthening the capacity of stakeholders to implement natural resource management best practices in critical terrestrial and coastal marine areas (especially in habitats located in government protected areas (PAs)); 2) to improve local livelihoods by supporting priority activities that ensure sustainable use of the resource base for commodities in the value chain, 3) to nurture and develop partnerships formed for ongoing support to biodiversity conservation.

The project is implemented by Chemonics International Inc, in conjunction with different partners and sub-contractors. The project was initially planned for a total period of performance of five years with a three-year base period and two one-year optional periods that were subject to good performance and availability of funds. It began collaborating with six main subcontractors. Over the course of time, contractual arrangements with some partners were terminated, while others were added. Currently the project is working with four subcontractors and one grantee.

In order to review the project’s accomplishments, and in anticipation of possible follow up activity in the biodiversity field, USAID determined that an evaluation of SFC should be undertaken.

USAID expects this assessment will help the project to further progress towards achieving its goals and to determine key needs in ensuring a successful completion of the project, and to inform the development and execution of future efforts supported by USAID to conserve biodiversity and tropical forests in Ecuador. The evaluation sought to: 1) assess the project´s performance and impact at both the output and the outcome levels, and the internal and external factors that led to success and challenges encountered by the project. Furthermore, the evaluation aimed to: 2) determine the extent of the sustainability and reliability of project activities. Finally, the evaluation sought to: 3) contribute to the understanding of how to improve subsequent project activities and to inform the decision making process regarding future conservation activities in coastal areas and in the country.

The evaluation process found that the project is on the way to achieving its intended results. The project has had significant success in areas such as the building of coalitions, conservation agreements and concessions to ensure biodiversity conservation in critical areas, and Protected Area (PA) management (PIR 1 and 3). While there are some encouraging results related to economic development activity designed to encourage better conservation practices (PIR 2), overall success in this area is considered to be mixed.

One of the aspects of the SFC Project that resonated with the evaluation team was the level of stakeholder engagement. The project has strong support from all current partners at the local, regional and national levels. This includes implementing organizations and government departments. Very good relationships have been established between project staff and community level project beneficiaries. The project has been credited with giving visibility to marginalized rural communities.

Regarding the project design, one of the fundamental assumptions of the project is that people living in and around critical habitats would have an incentive to conserve biodiversity if they could benefit from the sustainable use of natural resources. Even though the original assumptions are still relevant, the initial expectations of what can be achieved, were too ambitious considering the short time-frame for implementation and the initial circumstances and structural barriers found in communities to be engaged in project activities.

The decision to support coastal and forestry issues simultaneously is regarded as innovative by many stakeholders and represents an interesting template for learning and advancing the conservation agenda in Ecuador. The project team´s responsive attitudes towards the needs and requests of beneficiaries, and its consistent pattern of behavior translated into good programming results. The decision to work with established practices and to associate the project with successful programs such as Socio Bosque (SB) brought predictability and strong engagement. The project has also consistently aligned itself with government policies and sought to address the needs and priorities of the Ecuadorian Government.

While the results-based approach has certainly been a success, it has encountered some problems. Some implementing partners expressed a concern that there is sometimes a rush for results when it is counter-intuitive to what is taking place in the field, i.e. pressures were experienced between the pace in which communities could assimilate and internalize technical assistance and the project’s relatively short time frame. Additionally, this concern can be attributed to the fact that several project subcontractors had not been accustomed to delivering concrete results within a defined time frame.

There is also concern that the approach to spread the resources across a wide portfolio of projects denies the possibility of developing more high profile activities. The project instead could have engaged more and expanded in the activities where it proved to be successful from the beginning. This would include activities like access to SB and to develop investment plans for the SB incentive, crab monitoring and stock management and best management practices.

Many local beneficiaries and their respective implementing agencies stated that the project allowed them the necessary latitude to determine project activities and respond to changes in the communities at the project sites. Government representatives appreciated that the project has been flexible in terms of responding to emerging circumstances and reacting to stakeholder needs. The reliance on providing ongoing guidance and technical support, as opposed to simply transferring large amounts of financial support or large purchases for logistical purposes proved to be both an effective and efficient use of project resources. Assistance was selectively provided to avoid dependence.

However, there is a difference in opinion between the project and its stakeholders regarding the urgency to find ways to develop and enforce more income generating opportunities and support value added processing facilities with improved environmental protection standards. The evaluation team regards as a bottleneck the fact that the project design provides no financing mechanism to support good practices to speed up certain commercialization processes.

Among key partners and beneficiaries, there was not a universal understanding that the program was ending soon. With approximately one more year to go, SFC should focus on specific strategies to strengthen the sustainability of the results achieved. This includes a comprehensive approach towards disseminating the lessons learned and promoting learning platforms.

In general, the project has a favorable record in terms of sustainability. This is due to a number of factors including the extensive capacity development of project leaders and of government representatives and institutions, and the strengthening of and contribution to legitimizing community organizations and establishing their legal recognition. The focus on training and capacity development has been successful from a sustainability standpoint in that many of the skills being developed at the community, organizational and individual levels can be applied beyond the project’s termination. Beneficiaries acknowledge their personal growth in terms of improving their decision making capabilities in areas like participatory planning, administration, planning in general and understanding how to carry out effective meetings. Skills and technical capacity were developed to plan and carry out activities related to forestry and agriculture. There is sense of local ownership of activities and control by beneficiaries and government representatives. The project has also made important strides in building networks and coalitions, a number of which will be well placed to continue nurturing project activity or other endeavors that promote community well-being.

The analysis of strengths and weaknesses per PIR revealed that the project´s strengths include its ability to leverage additional funding, its focus on building networks and coalitions, the support provided in improving the management of PAs, and on national legal and policy matters (PIR 1 and PIR 3).

As for PIR 2, a significant number of activities were developed creating an important source of lessons for future projects; however, their impact is less visible and sometimes diffuse. Despite the fact that productivity and product portfolios have increased, the necessary connection to target markets has not been established in most cases in a sustainable manner. The scaling up of positive experiences in terms of including more small-scale farms would be beneficial especially in cases where the combined production volume of organic agricultural products of participating farms could be combined to meet the minimum amount demanded to sell on the market on more favorable terms. Creating such market access would help to create a strong understanding of the potential of good practices close to PAs and biodiverse areas in general and ensure the sustainability of the project activities related to these good practices.

The Chemonics team is doing an adequate monitoring job with detailed reports covering the project’s achievements. Reporting does reveal that no specific strategies or structured actions are in place to increase the participation of women in the project in a way that can be properly monitored. SFC reports in September 2012 that 3,260 women have improved their economic circumstances, but there is no economic baseline to confirm this. Out of the 3,657 people trained in natural resource management, 802 were women, but there is no detailed information on how effective the training of participants has been.

With regards to the participation of minority groups the project should be recognized for its emphasis on working with minority groups. The majority of the project beneficiaries are minorities (indigenous, Afro-Ecuadorians and “montubios”).

While the project´s performance can be evaluated with a high degree of certainty at this point in time, its ultimate impact on biodiversity conservation can only be realized through a long-term commitment to the project sites. The evaluation found that the project had an important conservation impact through monitoring of the state of the crab stocks in the Gulf of Guayas. These studies have generated data critical to resource management and feature pioneer case studies with high replicability for other regions and resources. The studies support national efforts to design sustainable use schemes of biodiversity inside and outside of PAs. However, to enable the replication and scaling up of these activities and experiences, a long-term commitment needs to be ensured to promote and further the lessons learned. Finally, a clear positive impact on biodiversity conservation was achieved through the support to protected area (PA) management, such as tourism and land use regulations, and support to the development of control and surveillance schemes.

Regarding future opportunities for USAID conservation and sustainable forestry actions, there is still an important demand for technical assistance and mentoring among the different actors working on the Ecuadorian coast. There is no other organization currently perceived as capable of filling the role currently played by SFC. The evaluation team sees the importance of continued USAID involvement in collaborating with the Government of Ecuador to support the coastal areas of Ecuador, prioritizing the current project sites to demonstrate the benefits of long-term commitment including the sustainability of the results achieved. In addition, integrated coastal management is recommended as a future priority especially in terms of developing and implementing new tools and capacities to help align local and national planning. There is also need for strengthening territorial planning of the Ecuadorian Coast at a regional scale incorporating variables such as climate change, oceanic policies, sustainable fisheries and infrastructure with the overall development.

Moreover, the evaluation recommends to build on the success of the project and to put an emphasis on the development of more sustainable market linkages, the promotion of small-scale agroforestry production processes, and the development of holistic management systems of farms and community land. This includes identifying ways to make the protection of biodiversity more financially beneficial, which go beyond the SB model of economic incentives and include creating access to new markets or generating higher prices for local sustainably produced products, such as ivory nut, crabs or agricultural products. Future projects of USAID should explore options for promoting new types of partnerships, e.g. with initiatives that are more focused on the improvement of agricultural productivity and developing approaches and practices that respect environmental protection and economic diversification simultaneously. In order to establish these approaches on a significant scale, knowledge and continuous technical support for improved agricultural practices and the possibility to fund the purchase of additional equipment is necessary. This goes beyond the mandate and possibilities of a biodiversity project like SFC. Thus, it is recommended to introduce new stakeholders, such as the Ministry of Agriculture (MAGAP) or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working in the agricultural sector as part of the project design or to design a separate agricultural project that can build on the best management practices of the project that establish a proven track record of success.

Finally, it is recommended to continue providing technical assistance especially regarding human resource development and applied research concerning biodiversity conservation. This includes support to protected area management, the establishment of biodiversity inventories, information and strategies for climate change adaptation, and the sustainable use of natural resources (such as fisheries, ivory nut etc.).

This evaluation assesses the performance of the USAID ProParque activity (further referred to as ProParque) through early 2106. ProParque is an economic growth and natural resources activity that seeks to realign Honduras’ economic and social development trajectory with the sound management of its rich natural resource base. Its main objective is to achieve sustainable economic growth, while focusing on protected areas of Honduras and its communities. ProParque involves simultaneous work on three different areas: biodiversity and natural resource management (NRM), rural enterprise growth, and climate change/natural disaster risk reduction (DRR).

This external performance evaluation has been completed towards the end of the option period of the USAID ProParque activity. The objectives of this evaluation are to help USAID/Honduras determine which components and activity aspects worked well or did not work well, and why. The findings of this evaluation could be used as input to consolidate results of the activities to contribute to the Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) for Honduras.

The evaluation also provides pertinent information, data, and findings to the Government of Honduras (GOH) and USAID/Honduras to learn what was accomplished with Development Assistance funds. The evaluation should help USAID/Honduras and the ProParque team see a big picture assessment from a third party perspective, the accomplishments and challenges of ProParque, and provide lessons learned and recommendations for future activities.

The overall goal of the USAID/Kosovo Property Rights Program (PRP) is to improve the property rights In order to build a more detailed understanding of public attitudes to property rights in general, and women’s rights to inherit property in particular, Tetra Tech commissioned UBO Consulting to carry out a survey to gain insights into public opinions on property rights, women’s right to inherit, and satisfaction with court services on resolving property disputes. A representative sample of 1,250 adults living in Kosovo was used to conduct this survey. The sample consisted of three sub-sets: 850 K-Albanians, 200 K-Serbs and 200 K-Other Minorities.1 The survey took place from April 3 – 27, 2015.

For a more comprehensive picture into people’s attitudes/behaviors about women’s rights to inherit property, UBO Consulting also conducted 15 focus groups with citizens across Kosovo. Focus groups were held with members of Albanian, Serb, and Roma Ashkali and Egyptian communities. To obtain specific information in regard to satisfaction with courts, one focus group was held only with respondents who had previous experience with property/inheritance cases. The focus groups were held from April 16 – 30, 2015.

The USAID Property Rights Program (PRP) in Kosovo is focused on improving property rights for all citizens, and targeting women’s rights to property in particular, through interventions designed to strengthen the rule of law, better coordinate policy regarding property, and improve access to information and understanding of property rights.

This Midterm National Survey on Property Rights in Kosovo (the Midterm Survey) was conducted by UBO Consulting to gather data on current perceptions, attitudes and behaviors of people in Kosovo towards property ownership and registration and women’s rights to inherit property; the people’s knowledge of the property rights regime in Kosovo; their level of satisfaction with courts in resolving property/inheritance disputes; and their exposure to PRP communications products. This survey is a follow-up to the “National Baseline Survey for Property Rights in Kosovo,” which was carried out in 2015 (the Baseline Survey).

The survey took place between November 28, 2016 and December 20, 2016. A nationally representative sample of 1,251 adults living in Kosovo was used to gather information for this survey. There was an intentional oversampling of minority communities for the survey, which included 851 Kosovo Albanians, 200 Kosovo Serbs and 200 non-Serb minorities. The oversampling was done to permit an analysis of the findings for statistical significance. It is important to emphasize, however, that results presented in this report have been weighted to reflect the size of the minority communities relative to the overall population.

Economic Prosperity Initiative (EPI) has identified the development of the vegetable market in Georgia as one of its main priorities and is in the process of developing several initiatives to stimulate further growth in this sector. Within the scope of this strategy, the vegetable market includes all vegetable market value chain actors. The competitiveness of the value chain varies significantly from actor to actor, and there are many gaps in the value chain that must be resolved to increase the competitiveness of Georgian vegetables both domestically and in the international export markets.

This strategy directly addresses the gaps in the vegetable market – including the primary production, postharvest handling, and distribution stages – as outlined by the EPI Vegetable Market Assessment. Through overall increased productivity gains and by understanding, targeting, and filling these gaps, the vegetable sector can increase domestic sales and become competitive internationally.

Findings

The gaps and challenges to sustainable competiveness are summarized below:

• Georgian producers are not educated on proper farm management, chemical application, business and financial management, export processing, and the use of high-quality inputs and technology;
• The overall quality of Georgian vegetables is relatively low compared to international and regional competitors’ quality standards;
• Production volumes are very low during offseason months, requiring imported vegetables to satisfy up to 25% of annual domestic consumption;
• There is an insufficient amount of cold storage space available in Georgia;
• The available cold storage services options for the value chain are inadequate;
• There is an insufficient number of market actors within the post-harvest handling infrastructure – including collection, sorting/grading, packaging, and distribution;
• The majority of Georgian producers have no information about export market buyers, prices, or requirements, which creates obstacles to exportation;
• Food safety standards are generally not practiced or enforced throughout the entire production and distribution value chain;
• There is no standardized system for vegetable classification or grading;
• There is no marketing or branding campaign to promote Georgian vegetable products;
• The majority of producers are unable to access credit facilities, because banks consider these projects to have excessive risk, because the banks have no reliable information about the risks related to production and many producers have limited operating experience.

Training is a key component in closing the technology gap in Georgian agriculture. Theoretical training and practical application and demonstration of the taught technologies are necessary to influence farmers to adopt the new technologies. Training is also a useful tool to improve the management capacity of those persons charged with the responsibility to deliver the goods and services required to improve the quality and quantity of agricultural outputs. Agro-Service Association (ASA) has been identified as the prime agricultural training organization. Therefore, it was deemed necessary to evaluate ASA to ascertain that it can indeed deliver the required training, which will assure that applicable EPI objectives are met.

A recent initiative funded through the USAID-funded Economic Prosperity Initiative (EPI) resulted in a thorough assessment of the Farm Service Centers (FSC’s) recently created in part through the assistance of the Millenium Challenge Corporation (MCC) program. That study also included an evaluation of the supply and demand of agricultural inputs, i.e., seed, fertilizer, pesticides, machinery services, technology, and affordable credit. As a result, recommendations were made that called for the ASA to step up its training programs to close a perceived technology gap. Those were to develop and deliver financial management and marketing/sales training programs for FSC managers, accountants, and key sales personnel; intensify farmer training specifically applicable to USAID-EPI target crops; and coordinate a countrywide effort to establish well designed, conveniently located
demonstration plots that promote and exhibit the technologies used to produce the identified crops.

By taking a more robust role in supporting EPI objectives, some of the new activities could challenge ASA’s capabilities and, therefore, it was deemed necessary to reevaluate the organization’s capabilities and, if needed, identify ways to strengthen the association.

The LTPR Impact Evaluation Tool presented here targets USAID missions as well as LTPR and Impact Evaluation professionals hired to carry out an assessment. It can easily be adapted for use by other US government (USG) agencies, or even other donors, engaged in programming of LTPR interventions.

The tool aims to:

1. Measure project/intervention effectiveness, relevance, and efficiency.
2. Enhance Agency’s learning from LTPR project interventions and outcomes to refine design and introduce improvements into future programs.
3. Permit missions to share and learn from the experiences of other country missions.
4. Bolster the Agency’s effectiveness in meeting both project and broader institutional goals.

Although the tool is designed to be used with the assistance of outside consultants, it encourages the involvement of USAID, including mission staff in the actual implementation of the tool to enrich the learning potential. Adopting a common methodology shared by all USAID missions can help ensure that important aspects in the evaluation of LTPR interventions are not overlooked, and a shared approach facilitates cross-comparison of impact findings.

Mangrove forests are among the world’s most diverse and productive ecosystems, providing multiple ecological and economic services to both terrestrial and marine habitats (Spalding, Kainuma, & Collins, 2010). They are located at the fertile intersection between oceans, freshwater, and land realms. Growing in the inter-tidal zone of tropical and subtropical latitudes, they stabilize the coastline, reduce erosion from extreme weather events, and improve coastal waters quality by filtering land-based pollutants before runoff reaches shallow marine habitats. Ecologically, they provide a food-rich and protected haven for many species (particularly as a nursery habitat) within their complex root systems. Mangroves provide nursery habitat for economically important fisheries as well as migrating birds and other wildlife. Mangrove forests are particularly important in Central America because the region is highly vulnerable to extreme weather events such as storms, floods, and landslides (UNEP, 2010b). In addition, mangrove management is an important component of both climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts.

There has been a considerable loss of mangrove areas globally since the 1980s, with recent studies indicating that the remaining area may be less than originally thought (FAO, 2007; Giri et al., 2011). Mangroves are under considerable deforestation and degradation pressures because they not only meet the household needs of local communities for fuelwood and timber, but also compete with other high value activities such as tourism development, agricultural production, aquaculture, and transportation infrastructure.

In addition to the detrimental effects the loss of mangroves has on livelihoods, protection against disasters, and biodiversity, deforestation in mangrove forests has a disproportionate role in contributing to greenhouse gas emissions: although they only compose 0.7 percent of tropical forest, they contribute to 10 percent of global deforestation emissions (Donato et al., 2011; Siiikamãki, Sanchirico, & Jardine, 2012). The role of “blue carbon” habitats (mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses, and seaweed) in capturing carbon has largely been overlooked in climate change mitigation programs.

In recent years, however, it has become clear that mangroves hold enormous pools of carbon, not only in their woody biomass but particularly in the soils composed of leaf litter. Moreover, they sequester carbon at significantly higher rates per unit area than terrestrial forests (Mcleod et al., 2011). Much of this carbon is sequestered in the soil below ground (unlike terrestrial ecosystems), remaining there for very long periods of time (Pendleton et al., 2012). There is growing recognition that carbon sequestration in mangrove and other coastal habitats may be particularly important in efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions (Alongi, 2012). Therefore, the move to slow down the loss of blue carbon habitats has garnered considerable global interest within international discussions on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+).

There is limited knowledge about the ecosystem services that mangroves provide within Central America (Scodanibbio, 2013). This leads to insufficient understanding of the root causes behind land use planning processes and destruction of mangroves. The fact that the loss of mangroves takes place in areas with high poverty levels and few options for establishing sustainable livelihoods, or in protected areas with insufficient resources for their protection, has made it difficult to improve mangrove conditions. Reversing the trend of degradation of coastal habitats requires understanding the marine and terrestrial tenure and governance practices at work within mangrove forests. Because mangroves are a crucial part of the intertidal zone that bridges terrestrial and marine ecologies, tenure systems that govern access and use of mangrove forests tend to be relatively unique and complex in any given national context. For example, though they are forests, mangroves can come under the jurisdiction of other ministries (such as fisheries) outside of the national forest department. It is not unusual to find that an overlapping set of tenure rights exist on the ground: mangrove forests can be under the formal management of the state with customary use rights held by local communities; at times, large concessions can be given to tourism or aquaculture interests. Managing mangroves, therefore, requires clarifying and strengthening tenure and its governance to establish an enabling framework for sustainable forest management in mangrove habitats. Identifying effective types of tenure and governance arrangements, such as community-based or co-management, will be an important step in sustainable mangrove management. Coupled with the development of appropriate carbon accounting methods in blue carbon habitats, it will be possible to build REDD+ initiatives in coastal zones.

This report examines the land and resource tenure regimes within the mangrove systems of three countries in Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama) which fall under the coastal marine systems of the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean. This assessment, based on a desk review, is designed to inform interventions that the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) developed through the Regional Climate Change Program. It aims to complement the findings of country-specific reports on land tenure and REDD+ for Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama that cover issues related to land and resource rights, incentive programs, rights to participate in decision making, as well as rights to own and transfer carbon.

In recent years, there has been growing regional interest in understanding the current challenges for sustainably managing mangrove forests in Central America after the devastating impact of Hurricane Mitch in late 1998. The United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean, together with the relevant Ministries of the Environment, developed a project titled the Integrated Coastal Management with Special Emphasis on Sustainable Management of Mangrove Forests in Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua Project (known as the Mangrove Project) over the period December 2010 – May 2013. It sought to carry out a limited number of diagnostic studies to support spatial and land use planning within mangrove and coastal ecosystems in these three countries (UNEP, 2010a).

In the following three chapters, each country is discussed in terms of the current status of mangroves; the legal, policy, and institutional frameworks governing resource tenure and management; its relevance to REDD+ initiatives; and, a set of recommendations for improving mangrove management. This is followed by a concluding chapter that draws together the key lessons from this assessment. More detailed analysis of the national legal frameworks around land and forest resource tenure can be found in the complementary national assessments noted above.

The Sustainable and Thriving Environment for West African Regional Development (STEWARD) is a recent initiative conceptualized by USAID and the US Forest Service to increase collaboration, improve regional natural resource management, promote transfer of knowledge among countries, and initiate transboundary development projects at select sites within the Upper Guinean forest region of West Africa. The Upper Guinean forest includes the countries of Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Côte d’Ivoire, and Ghana; this region is a high global priority for biodiversity conservation, and is of strategic importance in terms of peace building, extractive industries, and other key global commodities such as rubber, cocoa and oil palm.

The Upper Guinean forest is part of the larger Guinean Forest, which is considered a world biodiversity “hotspot” and a priority conservation area because of its high species endemism. The forest also borders one of the world’s most productive marine areas; the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem is rich in fishery resources, petroleum production, and is an important global region of marine biological diversity with mangrove forests, turtle nesting beaches, wetlands, and coastal lagoons.

As an early step in determining STEWARD activities, this assessment was undertaken to gather background information, identify potential partners and provide strategic direction. As required under Sections 118 and 119 of the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), this assessment identifies key threats and issues related to tropical forests and biodiversity within the region, as well as opportunities and recommendations for action.

Presently, the Upper Guinean forest is a highly fragmented system; it is estimated that only 20 percent of the original closed canopy forest remains today. Direct threats to the forest and aquatic ecosystems in this area include: agriculture, mining, logging, bushmeat hunting, water pollution, coastal development, and fishing practices. Indirect threats to these ecosystems include: poverty, migration and urbanization, political instability, unprotected borders (both land and water), inadequate and uneven policies, limited institutional capacity, and lack of regional conservation planning.

Given the transnational character of most forest and aquatic threats, trends in natural resource management and sites of existing conservation activities, there is a tremendous opportunity for USAID and the US Forest Service to bridge the gap in regional coordination and connectivity – not only ecological but also political, social, and administrative coordination. Additionally, organizations already working in the region are capable of bringing significant amounts of public and private funding as well as networks of professionals, scientists, and dedicated field researchers in support of sustainable development and conservation. It is important to recognize that differences in language, culture, interests, and priorities can be obstacles to cross-border collaboration. However, there is a large “knowledge-shed” in which STEWARD can draw lessons learned and best practices from that goes beyond the Upper Guinean region. For example, the Sahelian countries have substantial experience and knowledge in regards to sustainable development and conservation activities. This body of knowledge can help guide the development and implementation of future STEWARD activities.

Finally, this assessment recommends five potential pilot sites for natural resource management and conservation action. These sites offer the greatest potential for integrating conservation, livelihoods and natural resource management, based on biodiversity patterns and political, economic and social significance:

• Nimba Highlands (Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea and Liberia)
• Grebo-Taï Forests (Côte d’Ivoire and Liberia)
• Abi Lagoon-Cape Three Points Complex (Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana)
• Gola and Lofa-Mano Forests (Liberia and Sierra Leone)
• Outamba-Kilimi (Guinea/Sierra Leone)

In general, STEWARD can emphasize economic growth activities in these areas because providing communities with alternative livelihoods could reduce the threat that poverty poses on the environment. Similarly, democracy and civil society objectives should also be considered as they help to organize communities, raise awareness of rights, and build capacity to manage communal resources. These activities contribute to biodiversity conservation by improving a community’s capacity to organize themselves around natural resources, including the ability to create institutions for managing natural resources. Before designing or implementing any specific activities, it is recommended that STEWARD first 1) develop a transboundary conservation agreement that describes the mission, goals, and objectives for the area, as well as participants and stakeholders, and 2) develop an action plan for each site.