JUNE 2011

An Evaluation of the Impacts of

Selected Activities Supported by the

Program on Forests

PROFOR Evaluation Series Impact Note 1

Michael P. Wells

Claudia Alderman

Stephanie Altman

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Evaluation Series ii

A PROFOR WORKING PAPER

A PROFOR WORKING PAPER

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was funded by the Program on Forests (PROFOR), a multi-donor partnership managed by a Secretariat

at the World Bank. PROFOR finances in-depth forestry research and processes that support the following goals:

improving people‟s livelihoods; enhancing forest governance and law enforcement; financing sustainable forest

management; and coordinating forest policy with other sectors. Learn more at www.profor.info.

This paper was prepared by Michael P. Wells, Claudia Alderman and Stephanie Altman. Many individuals provided

suggestions and information: the list of people interviewed for this report is provided in Annex 2.

DISCLAIMER

All omissions and inaccuracies in this document are the responsibility of the authors. The views expressed do not

necessarily represent those of the institutions involved, nor do they necessarily represent official policies of

PROFOR or the World Bank.

Suggested citation: Wells, Michael P., Claudia Alderman Stephanie Altman. 2011. An Evaluation of the Impacts of

Selected Activities Supported by the Program on Forests. Evaluation Series: Impact Note 1. Washington DC:

Program on Forests (PROFOR).

Published in June 2011

For a full list of publications please contact:

Program on Forests (PROFOR) 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433, USA profor@worldbank.org www.profor.info/knowledge

Profor is a multi-donor partnership supported by:

Learn more at www.profor.info

iii Impact Note 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms _________________________________________________________________________ iv

1. Introduction ___________________________________________________________________________ 1

2. Main Messages ________________________________________________________________________ 2

3. Evaluation Approach, Methodology and Constraints _________________________________________ 4

4. Overview of Findings ___________________________________________________________________ 10

5. Evaluation Reports on Individual Activities _________________________________________________ 16

C06 – Large-scale Acquisition of Land Rights for Agricultural or Natural Resource-based Use _________ 16

C08 – Assessing the Potential for Forest Landscape Restoration ________________________________ 19

F22 – Fostering Partnerships between Local Communities and the Private Sector in Kenya ___________ 21

G22 – Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability __________________________ 24

L04 – Preparing for REDD+ in Dryland Forests ______________________________________________ 26

L05 – Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in EAP: Indonesia ________________________________ 28

L07 – Multifunctional Agriculture and Forest Landscape Mosaics ________________________________ 30

L10 – Measuring Poverty Impacts of Forest Programs in India __________________________________ 32

L11 – Private and Community Forestry - Developing Livelihoods on the Basis of Secure Property Rights

in Selected Countries of South East Europe ________________________________________________ 34

L15 – Policies and Incentives for Managing the Miombo Woodlands _____________________________ 36

L16 – Justice in the Forests - Rural Livelihoods and Forest Law Enforcement ______________________ 38

L17 – Forest Policy Dialogue in India ______________________________________________________ 40

Annex 1. Evaluation Questions _____________________________________________________________ 42

Annex 2. People Interviewed _______________________________________________________________ 44

Annex 3. Activities Eligible for PROFOR Support ______________________________________________ 46

Annex 4. PROFOR List of Activities _________________________________________________________ 47

Evaluation Series iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ANU Australian National University

AusAid Australian Government Overseas Aid Program

Bappenas National Planning Agency, Indonesia

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CEPF Confederation of European Forest Owners

COP Conference of the Parties

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australia

ESA Ecosystem Approach

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FYR Former Yugoslav Republic

GEF Global Environment Facility

GPFLR Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration

GtCO2e Gigatons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

IIED International Institute for Environment and Development

IFC International Finance Corporation

ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization

IUCN World Conservation Union

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

KFS Kenya Forest Service

KfW KfW Development Finance

KWS Kenya Wildlife Service

NFP National Forest Programs

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

ODI Overseas Development Institute

PROFOR Program on Forests, World Bank

PRSP Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper

REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

RFF Resources for the Future

SFM Sustainable Forest Management

SIDA Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency

v Impact Note 1

SNV Netherlands Development Agency

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests

1 Impact Note 1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Program on Forests (PROFOR ) is a multi-donor collaborative partnership. Its goal is to strengthen forests'

contribution to poverty reduction, sustainable economic development and the protection of global and local

environmental values. The purpose of PROFOR is to contribute to the capacity of institutions and stakeholders in

forest policy processes to address more effectively poverty alleviation, national economic development, climate

change mitigation and adaptation, and sustainable forest management. PROFOR describes the initiatives it

supports as Activities. By early 2011 more than 80 Activities had received financial – and in some cases technical

– support since PROFOR was launched in 2003.

This report describes the results of an evaluation/ex post review of 12 selected PROFOR Activities designed to

help develop a better understanding of PROFOR‟s impacts. These Activities all focused on forests‟ roles in

mitigating poverty in landscape preservation and rehabilitation. Conducted by a team of consultants, the

evaluation was commissioned by the PROFOR Secretariat at the request of its Advisory Board as a contribution

to strengthening performance monitoring. The specific objective of this evaluation – which did not include field

work – was to assess the policy and other impacts of selected PROFOR Activities that had been completed or

were close to completion.

A parallel evaluation of 9 additional PROFOR Activities from Central America was carried out by the same

consulting team, including brief field visits to Guatemala and Honduras during January 2011. The results have

been reported separately.

In total, the 21 Activities reviewed by these two evaluations comprised 40% of the 51 closed Activities and 25% of

PROFOR‟s 84 Activities (closed and open).

These two evaluations were planned and implemented specifically to provide an independent view of the impacts

of selected PROFOR Activities. This should be distinguished from an independent evaluation (as defined by

international best practice) of PROFOR as a whole.

The first section of the report provides an overview on governance in the forest sector and existing initiatives to

combat illegal logging and associated trade. The second section outlines recommendations for regional and

country-level activities to improve forest governance in the Mekong region.

Evaluation Series 2

2. MAIN MESSAGES

PROFOR’S APPROACH

The Activities examined comply with the selection criteria included in PROFOR‟s Operational Guidelines.

There were no indications that PROFOR resources were being used for any initiatives that should have been

supported by World Bank operational resources.

DEPLOYMENT

PROFOR appears to occupy a unique funding niche, characterized by its close relationship with World Bank

operational departments combined with flexibility, nimbleness and relative autonomy. These are comparable to

the advantages of a small foundation, with the important addition of significant convening power and access to

decision makers.

The PROFOR Secretariat team, as well as their selected collaborators within the World Bank and beyond, display

a deep knowledge and understanding of the forestry sector in a wide range of countries as well as a solid

appreciation of shifting priorities and opportunities, all key contributing factors to PROFOR‟s effectiveness.

While not the principal focus of our work, we detected a clear consensus among stakeholders both within and

beyond the World Bank that PROFOR‟s management, operations and procedures have evolved and improved

significantly, especially during the last two years.

The monitoring of the 12 PROFOR Activities reviewed has been inconsistent, although it is important to note that

the Secretariat had a very small staff until recently. Activities contracted to organizations outside World Bank

require supervision during all phases from design through implementation and the final dissemination of products,

to assure both quality control and optimal linkages to Bank operations where applicable.

Some Activity documentation was hard to locate and not systematically organized, sometimes with key

information residing only on staff members‟ personal computers.

Activity completion reports, online write-ups and equivalent documents, while factually correct, often make little

attempt to realistically assess impacts or effectiveness or to extract lessons. This can only be corrected in an

environment where occasional failures are recognized as learning opportunities. This evaluation appears to

represent the first systematic attempt by PROFOR to reflect on and learn from its experiences.

3 Impact Note 1

RESULTS AND IMPACTS

Generally high quality and effective Activities have achieved impressive results and impacts, especially given the

relatively modest level of financial resources.

Activities have helped catalyze significant degrees of leverage in influencing policies, deepening knowledge and

understanding, developing new tools and methods, and strengthening networks.

The true value of several PROFOR Activities has only become fully apparent over time. For example, some

Activities completed previously are now informing the current REDD debate and some analytical tools being put

into use now were developed some years ago with support from PROFOR Activities.

PROFOR operates in an arena where measuring progress is hard and heavily dependent on the context and

timing of each Activity. The overlap of PROFOR‟s goals with a variety of other organizations also complicates the

attribution of credit for gains made. While there are opportunities to introduce more rigorous monitoring, the rigid

application of indicators as a primary performance monitoring tool seems unlikely to be successful in this situation.

Forestry at the World Bank has waxed and waned in importance during the life of PROFOR. Until recently,

forestry investments were often perceived as offering high risks, controversy and low returns, with many

managers unwilling to invest staff time and resources. This situation now shows signs of changing, with PROFOR

deserving at least some of the credit for having maintained a flow of credible Activities highlighting diverse forest

sector opportunities.

WHAT NEXT?

PROFOR appears well positioned to continue supporting and informing the rapidly-expanding debate on how to

address opportunities and challenges both in forestry and at the intersection of forestry, agriculture and climate

change, especially in relation to food security, livelihoods and landscape-scale management. PROFOR has

already helped shape debates in and around these topics both within the World Bank and beyond.

PROFOR should develop specific approaches to monitoring and reporting the impacts of its Activities on a

continuing basis. This task could be carried out by Secretariat staff using specifically-designed tools, reflecting an

assessment of the Activity that goes beyond than the proponents‟ often uncritical progress reports.

Evaluation Series 4

3. EVALUATION APPROACH, METHODOLOGY AND CONSTRAINTS

APPROACH

Starting in late 2010, the evaluation team carried out a preliminary review of the 84 Activities supported by

PROFOR since its inception (Annex 4). The 51 Activities that were closed or close to completion were considered

for this evaluation, while the 33 currently ongoing Activities were excluded. The team also reviewed the reports on

other recent PROFOR evaluations.

In consultation with the PROFOR Secretariat, the evaluation team identified two clusters of Activities for detailed

review. The objective here was to group Activities that could be expected to share common characteristics, with

the intention of facilitating impact assessments that were as specific and comparable as possible. The four

PROFOR „themes‟ (i.e., livelihoods, financing sustainable forest management, cross sectoral and governance)

each contained ranges of Activities that were considered too diverse for this purpose. Certain “obvious” potential

clusters of Activities – e.g., those focused on payments for ecosystem services – were considered to require more

in-depth work than was logistically feasible in the time available. After considering several geographic and

thematic options, the following two clusters were identified:

1. Activities focusing on forests‟ roles in mitigating poverty in landscape preservation and rehabilitation (12

activities, Table 1).

2. Activities centered in Central America (9 activities).

While the evaluation team consulted with the PROFOR Secretariat in selecting the clusters and Activities to be

reviewed, the assessments of the individual Activities were carried out independently.

The remainder of this report concentrates on the 12 Activities in the first cluster.

5 Impact Note 1

METHODOLOGY

A set of evaluation questions was developed to guide interviews and document reviews (Annex 1). The evaluation

team also explored how each of the selected Activities had been identified and implemented as a basis for

assessing outcomes and impacts, based on (a) an extensive desk review of relevant documentation, and (b)

interviews, in person or by phone, with a selection of key informants and stakeholders, including the task teams

that implemented the work, relevant PROFOR Secretariat staff, and national and international clients or intended

beneficiaries of each Activity. The people interviewed are listed in Annex 2. No field visits were carried out for this

first cluster of Activities, which were considered too widely dispersed in geographic terms for this to be cost

effective.

The funding eligibility criteria outlined in the current Operational Guidelines (dated May 2010, see Annex 3)

provide a clear statement of the areas where PROFOR expects to have impacts, by supporting collaborations that

aim to:

- Provide analysis

- Mainstream sustainable forest management

- Test innovative instruments and approaches, and processes leading to better governance

- Develop knowledge products and dissemination

- Build and strengthen networks, partnerships, processes and stakeholder dialogue

These are the areas that our interviews and document reviews focused on. We also developed a simple scoring

system to represent in relative terms the extent to which individual Activities had achieved impacts. The results,

shown in Table 2 below, should not be taken too literally, and should not distract attention from the productive

learning process offered by the study of a sample of Activities as presented in this report.

CONSTRAINTS TO EVALUATION APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

Assessing the impacts of policy studies can be particularly challenging. Policies, and certainly developing country

forest policies, rarely change or become implemented more effectively as a direct result of a single, relatively

small initiative supported by an international agency. Impacts become even harder to pin down where PROFOR

has sought to contribute to an emerging body of knowledge or help move along a debate.

PROFOR‟s thematic and geographic interests are shared by a variety of organizations with overlapping and

broadly compatible objectives (including CIFOR, FAO, ICRAF, IIED and WRI at the international level; other

sections of the World Bank; bilateral and other multilateral agencies; and a host of national government agencies

and NGOs). This complicates the attribution issue, in other words how to assess the importance of PROFOR‟s

Evaluation Series 6

contribution in areas where other actors – including PROFOR‟s own partners – have been working towards

comparable goals.

In practice this required the evaluation to go beyond answering „what have we done?‟ for each PROFOR Activity

and try to assess how the field has moved, what other key players are working on, and whether PROFOR

identified and filled important and productive niches at particular points in time (contributions to knowledge, for

example, are often time sensitive, with relatively short periods of time distinguishing genuine new insights from

less valuable repetition and reinforcement of conventional wisdom).

Establishing cause and effect is often elusive. Identifying whether PROFOR and its partners actually caused

something to happen, whether it would have happened anyway, or something in between – the fundamental

evaluation questions – can rarely be confirmed definitively. While causation can only rarely be proved, however, a

plausible assessment can usually be based on:

- Timing: Did the change happen after the Activity?

- Logic: Is it reasonable to expect that these inputs would have contributed to the change?

- Expert Judgment: Do knowledgeable people – including those involved – agree with the contribution

claimed?

- Alternative Explanations: What other factors could explain the change?

Overall assessments of PROFOR‟s impact require aggregation of the results of multiple diverse Activities, each of

which use different indicators to measure progress. The most meaningful of these indicators will often be

qualitative. Even within clusters of comparable Activities, such aggregation will be challenging. Simply put, there is

no way of doing this without drawing on the judgment of experienced practitioners able to look across thematic

and geographic boundaries to assess the value of work done in a broad context, which is what has been

attempted here.

The evaluation has focused on Activities that have closed. This offers the important advantage of being able to

assess longer-term effects based on actual experience, an advantage denied to more recent Activities. Offsetting

disadvantages include difficulty in tracking down the key people who participated in the earlier Activities and the

challenge of reconstructing the situation in which these were undertaken.

It is important to bear in mind that PROFOR has sometimes tried to influence highly complex, large-scale, long-

term processes (e.g., the development of community forestry in India) by supporting some timely, catalytic

Activities on a relatively very small scale (e.g., a workshop or publication and dissemination of a report). In such

cases, especially, expectations of impacts should be cautious and realistic.

Our inquiries took into account the discussion at the 2009 PROFOR Advisory Board meeting, pointing out that

PROFOR has been able to monitor impact best when it was involved with the implementation of or follow-through

of supported activities. Examples discussed at that meeting included the Forest Leaders Forum, the Report on

Financing Flows, and the Poverty-Forests Linkages Toolkit, although none of these Activities were selected for

7 Impact Note 1

this evaluation. Our inquiries included the extent to which PROFOR had supported dissemination, either

financially or through the efforts of its staff.

Activity (completion) reports and web site write-ups, while usually accurate, are often relatively bland and

uninformative reports, often failing to distinguish between Activities that were genuine successes from worthy

efforts that did not lead to much or even outright failures. This tendency of being unable to document anything

other than success – due, of course, to diplomatic sensibilities and the need for political discretion – is certainly

not limited to PROFOR, or even the World Bank, but it does frustrate efforts to distinguish the more from the less

effective initiatives and, critically, to learn from experience. Unfortunately, despite many agencies‟ rhetorical

commitment to learn, there are few institutional incentives to allow initiatives to be described as less than a

success. Fortunately, our experience during this evaluation was that the PROFOR team as well as their World

Bank counterparts and the very diverse group of stakeholders who participated in or observed the Activities

assessed here were generally prepared to be refreshingly open about the results and impacts of their work, which

we attribute to their genuine personal commitments to learn and move forward.

If impacts are to be monitored effectively both during and after a PROFOR Activity, performance reporting should

be introduced that encourages and captures a frank analysis of successes and failures as well as lessons. This

could be attempted by modifying the guidance for completion and progress reports or by introducing additional

reporting, perhaps even a newly-designed performance dashboard for each Activity . Such information might be

periodically prepared and updated by a designated PROFOR Secretariat staff member and then discussed and

commented on by the remainder of the team, drawing on other expertise as needed. Batches of such

performance dashboards could be reviewed by the PROFOR Board.

One somewhat surprising constraint to our work was the lack of systematic organization of the key documents for

PROFOR Activities especially, although not entirely, in the case of earlier Activities that had been closed. We

found that individual PROFOR staff members often had key documents (proposals, progress reports, terms of

reference, completion reports, etc.) on their own computers that were not consistently copied or retained in central

files in a way that could easily be accessed, and in some cases were not recorded or logged as existing. Certain

key documents for this evaluation, including Activity completion reports, could not be located, although equivalent

information was eventually located in most cases. This not only slowed down the initial stages of the evaluation,

as considerable time was spent looking for documents within disorganized computer records, but risks a loss of

institutional memory were key PROFOR Secretariat staff members to leave.

Evaluation Series 8

TABLE 1. PROFOR ACTIVITIES SELECTED FOR THIS EVALUATION WITH IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD AND PROFOR FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION

Selected PROFOR Activities

(with codes assigned for this evaluation) 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

PROFOR

Support

($000)

Cross-sectoral and Macroeconomic Measures (C)

C06 Large-scale acquisition of land rights for agricultural or natural resource-based

use (global) 300

C08 Assessing the Potential for Forest Landscape Restoration (global) 167

Enhanced Financing Options (F)

F22 Fostering Partnerships between Local Communities and the Private Sector

(Kenya) 150

Governance (G)

G22 Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability (global) 150

Sustainable Livelihoods (L)

L04 Preparing for REDD+ in dryland forests (11 countries, primarily Mozambique,

Namibia, Zambia) 148

L05 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Indonesia 330

L07 Multifunctional Agriculture and Forest Landscape Mosaics (Congo, Ghana,

Uganda, Kenya, Honduras and Indonesia) 150

L10 Measuring Poverty Impacts of Forest Programs (India) 135

L11 Private and Community Forestry (Albania, Macedonia, Serbia) 150

9 Impact Note 1

L15 Policies and Incentives for Managing the Miombo Woodlands (Southern Africa,

mainly Mozambique, Tanzania, Zambia) 309

L16 Justice in the Forests - Rural Livelihoods and Forest Law Enforcement (Bolivia,

Cameroon, Canada, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua) 42

L17 Forest policy dialogue in India 354

Evaluation Series 10

4. OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

This section highlights key findings and broad trends from our review of 12 PROFOR Activities. These reviews are

documented individually in the next section. To streamline the text, the Activities are referred to in this report by

the numerical code assigned to them for this evaluation (see Table 1).

ACTIVITY RESULTS AND IMPACTS

The true value of many of PROFOR‟s interventions can only become fully apparent several years after Activities

have been completed – a key finding of this evaluation. Only then can PROFOR‟s contribution be fully assessed

relative to the all-important context in which the Activities were undertaken. By context, we mean the overall set of

opportunities and challenges that existed at the point in time when the Activity was initiated. We have tried to bring

out the nature of the context of each Activity in the individual assessments in the next section of this report.

In general, compared to the wide range of other international natural resource sector programs we have evaluated

on different scales, we have been very impressed with the quality and effectiveness of the PROFOR Activities,

and the results and impacts that have been achieved with relatively modest financial resources. High degrees of

leverage have been achieved in influencing policies, deepening knowledge and understanding, developing new

tools and methods, and strengthening networks. Table 2, provides a “snapshot” view of the impacts of the 12

Activities examined.

These kinds of impacts can only be achieved by program staff – in this case the PROFOR Secretariat and their

forestry collaborators – with a deep knowledge and understanding of the forestry sector in a wide range of

countries as well as a solid appreciation of shifting priorities and opportunities.

ACTIVITY SELECTION

The selection process for the Activities reviewed seems to have navigated reasonably successfully between the

two of the most obvious hazards faced by PROFOR: (a) being perceived as supporting Activities that the World

Bank “should have” supported as part of its operational responsibilities, and (b) supporting Activities emphasized

11 Impact Note 1

by external stakeholders that have limited prospects to influence or attract the interest of the Bank‟s operational

departments, other donor partners or national governments.

The risks associated with hazard (a) in the paragraph above appear to have been minimized by the accumulated

experience and strong spirit of collaboration now evident between the PROFOR team and the Bank‟s forestry

specialists. The risk of (b) has been reduced by the PROFOR Secretariat and Board ending external calls for

proposals in favor of initiatives championed within World Bank operational departments. A broader understanding

of PROFOR‟s role and Activity selection criteria has also been an increasingly positive influence. A disadvantage

of this change may be to weaken PROFOR‟s role as connecting and stimulating the flow of ideas between World

Bank staff and outside organizations working on forest issues, including former frequent partners who are now

less likely to receive grants.

All 12 of the Activities examined fit PROFOR‟s current selection criteria. Three of the Activities did not gain

significant traction within the World Bank or elsewhere, however: L05 and L07 (both supported as “testing

innovative instruments and approaches”), and L11 (“promoting processes for better governance”). These three

Activities – all of which had positive elements and were conducted very professionally – were all initiated in 2008

or earlier. While the World Bank may not have been the intended primary audience, each of these Activities could

have benefited from more effective communication at an early stage between PROFOR and relevant World Bank

operational departments.

Evaluation Series 12

TABLE 2. TYPOLOGY OF ASSESSED ACTUAL IMPACTS OF SELECTED PROFOR ACTIVITIES

PROFOR Activities

Influencing

policies

Deepening

knowledge and

understanding

Developing

new tools and

methods

Strengthening

networks

C06 Large-scale acquisition of land rights for agricultural

or NR use ** *** * *

C08 Assessing the Potential for Forest Landscape

Restoration *** *

F22 Partnerships with Local Communities and the Private

Sector (Kenya) *** * ** *

G22 Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to

Sustainability *** *

L04 Preparing for REDD+ in dryland forests (southern

Africa) ** *** * **

L05 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in Indonesia ** ***

L07 Multifunctional Agriculture and Forest Landscape

Mosaics * *** *

L10 Measuring Poverty Impacts of Forest Programs

(India) * *** *

L11 Private and Community Forestry (Albania,

Macedonia, Serbia) * * *

L15 Policies/Incentives for Managing Miombo Woodlands

(southern Africa) * ***

L16 Justice in the Forests - Rural Livelihoods and Forest

Law Enforcement *** *

L17 Forest policy dialogue in India *** *

Key: *** Relatively significant impacts

** Moderate impacts

* Relatively minor impacts

13 Impact Note 1

ACTIVITY TIMING

The timing of several Activities appears to have been important, helping to leverage considerable impacts from

modest levels of financial support. The clearest examples are C06, C08, F22, L04, L15, L16 and L17. Another

timing consideration is PROFOR‟s flexibility and ability to respond rapidly to opportunities that require immediate

action with a minimum of bureaucracy. This characteristic is not shared by any other comparable mechanisms for

natural resource sectors within the World Bank and very few we are aware of outside.

The timing of the evaluation itself is also relevant here. For example, L17, which now appears to be one of

PROFOR‟s more farsighted and influential Activities, might have appeared speculative and unsuccessful if

assessed 2-3 years ago. This helps to emphasize that impacts are due to a variety of circumstances, some of

which lie beyond PROFOR‟s or the World Bank‟s sphere of influence, and in some cases the payoffs or benefits

may be realized over a relatively long time period. In another example, L15, which might have been classified for

several years as admirable in many ways without being particularly influential, now shows strong signs of

influencing a new World Bank-supported forest strategy for Africa as well as the evolving REDD+ debate

ACTIVITY COORDINATION AND PROFILE

PROFOR has demonstrated the capacity to play a strong coordinating role within its own Activities by mobilizing

and bringing together donor partners, national and local governments, NGOs and research institutions. In

particular, PROFOR has enabled the World Bank to team up with forest sector leaders from the NGO and

research communities. This effectiveness in catalyzing collaboration seems due both to the World Bank‟s

convening power and to the high degree of respect which the PROFOR team members command in international

forestry. PROFOR does appear to influence research agendas and donor partners more than government

priorities and policies.

The collaborative networks linked to PROFOR Activities offer significant benefits, not only facilitating the sharing

of knowledge but by increasing the likelihood that new and innovative approaches will be implemented and widely

disseminated. These benefits are evident in all of the Activities examined, even though the extent to which

PROFOR staff, other Bank staff or contractors play the most active coordination role varies.

There are signs that PROFOR has steadily increased its own convening capacity in ways that benefit the

credibility and profile of both the World Bank and other PROFOR partners. This appears mainly to have been

achieved through (a) a more systematic and effective approach to the publication and distribution of study reports

and other outputs, and (b) a more prominent and active role at key international events, notably including the

recent UNFCCC COP16 in Cancun.

Evaluation Series 14

IMPACT AND PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

While intended impacts and outcomes are required to be documented before PROFOR Activities begin, and then

actual results noted after completion, these tend to be expressed more as outputs (e.g., to produce a report, hold

a workshop, develop a new tool or method) or to be expressed in general terms (e.g., inform policy development

or advance understanding).

While perhaps counter to the increasing emphasis on results-based management, this approach does seem

appropriate in most cases given the types of interventions that PROFOR supports, and we would not advocate

any attempt to make PROFOR approach to impact and outcome definitions substantially more “rigorous”. The

more systematic use of indicators may be productive but great care should be taken not to create incentives to

start counting variables that provide little strategic insight. Most PROFOR Activity assessments will continue to

require individual ex-post consideration that takes work by other partners into account.

OTHER OBSERVATIONS

PROFOR appears to occupy a unique funding niche, characterized by its close relationship with World Bank

operational departments combined with flexibility, nimbleness and relative autonomy. In some ways PROFOR

operates with many of the advantages of a small foundation and, like a foundation, is very heavily dependent on

the capabilities of its staff and leadership. It would be hard to imagine how most, if not all, of these Activities

considered here could have been undertaken had PROFOR‟s support not been made available.

While this was not the principal focus of our work, we detected a clear consensus among stakeholders both within

and beyond the World Bank that PROFOR‟s management, operations and procedures have evolved and

improved significantly, especially during the last two years . Increased rigor, objectivity and efficiency of the

application process as well as the high quality of technical support by PROFOR staff and other World Bank

Forestry team members are all widely recognized.

The monitoring of the 12 selected PROFOR Activities was inconsistent. In some cases PROFOR staff were

actively involved throughout or a World Bank task manager took responsibility, both of which seemed to operate

reasonably well. But PROFOR staff have very limited current information on the status or even the substantive

content of a surprisingly large number of Activities that were implemented by organizations outside World Bank.

We recognize that this observation may not apply to open Activities currently under implementation as these were

excluded from our sample.

Forestry at the World Bank has experienced a rocky ride during recent decades. At the risk of simplifying

excessively, a focus on commercial, often industrial-scale, logging until the early 1990s was gradually replaced by

sporadic support for more locally-based forest enterprises – e.g., a 1991 policy paper highlighted environmental

protection and community participation – while a gradual disenchantment and withdrawal from the sector took

place. The Bank‟s current (2002) Forest Strategy led to operational policies that permitted support for commercial

logging, though under very restrictive conditions. The current Bank forestry portfolio, however, is very diverse and

15 Impact Note 1

includes support across a spectrum of activities, such as institutional, policy and legal reforms, community-based

forest management, nature conservation and biodiversity protection, forest governance, and sustainable forest

management. PROFOR has operated in an era when senior Bank managers have often been unwilling to invest

staff time and resources in forestry, a sector that was perceived as risky and only capable of generating low

returns. Forests have recently become much more prominent as REDD/REDD+ has emerged as a potentially

cost-effective approach to climate change mitigation, leading the forest sector to receive an exponential increase

in attention and resources since around 2007.

Some of PROFOR‟s Activities can now be recognized for having boosted the visibility and status of forests and

even other types of land management as part of the current discussions over climate change. For example,

REDD+ discussions have recently focused on agricultural lands and trees outside official forests. This leads to

discussions on a broader interpretation of forest management within landscapes, which PROFOR has both

encouraged and helped developed tools for (e.g., C08, G22, L07, L15, L17). This discussion has recently moved

towards the agriculture, forestry, food security overlap, partly based on this body of knowledge, where C06 has

already made an important contribution. In another example, „REDD readiness‟ studies in forested countries have

recently started to consider how forests are more than carbon sticks and biodiversity reservoirs, and actually

supply a range of livelihood services. PROFOR has been supporting methodological development and analytic

work in this area for some time (e.g., L04, L10, L15).

Evaluation Series 16

5. EVALUATION REPORTS ON INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITIES

C06 – LARGE-SCALE ACQUISITION OF LAND RIGHTS FOR AGRICULTURAL OR

NATURAL RESOURCE-BASED USE1

Contractors World Bank-managed team (DEC and ARD)

Duration From 2008 (ongoing)

Scale 30 countries

TTL Klaus Deininger

PROFOR

Support

$300,000

Major

Partners

African Union, FAO, IFAD, UNCTAD, IIED), the International Land Coalition (ILC), the Working

Group on Land of the European Union and the Global Donor Platform for Rural Development.

Major

Outputs

Rising global interest in farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable benefits? World Bank

report (2011)

Large-scale land acquisition and related agricultural investments in tropical countries attracted considerable

interest in the wake of the 2007-8 commodity price boom and escalating food prices, compounded by the

subsequent financial crisis. Agro-industrial firms suddenly saw an incentive to increase the scale of their

operations while other investors sought land as a hedge against inflation or for speculative gain. Some large-scale

land purchases by international investors in Ethiopia, Madagascar, Mali, Mozambique and Sudan attracted

widespread attention and controversy. This global „land rush‟ seemed unlikely to slow given volatile food prices

together with rising incomes and increasing demand for biofuels.

1 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/large-scale-acquisition-land-rights-agricultural-or-natural-resource-based-use

17 Impact Note 1

Opinions about the social, economic and environmental implications of this phenomenon were mixed. Some

saluted the rediscovery of agriculture as an investment target, while others highlighted cases where low cost land

purchases appeared to threaten food security, local welfare, human rights and the environment, especially among

Africa‟s rural poor. A lack of reliable empirical data or analysis became a significant barrier to further

understanding as well as the development of appropriate policies towards land acquisition.

World Bank staff initiated a study of land acquisition patterns, to contribute to a more informed debate and provide

guidance to countries trying to deal with this issue. The study compiled country inventories of large land transfers

during 2004-09 in 14 countries, identified global drivers of land supply and demand and highlighted how country

policies affect land use, household welfare and distributional outcomes at the local level. The resulting report (i)

provides governments and investors information on what is happening, (ii) assesses long-term impacts, (ii)

documents the availability of potentially suitable agricultural land, and (iv) outlines options to minimize risks and

capitalize on opportunities to contribute to poverty reduction and economic growth.

PROFOR took the initiative to provide the first $150,000 of funding for the inventory and legal analysis

components of the study. The World Bank used this initial PROFOR support to leverage additional funding from

other donors and PROFOR eventually provided a further $150,000 towards the total study cost of $1,245,000.

Sources of Funding Amount Provided ($000s)

PROFOR 300

Trust Fund for Socially Sustainable Development 385

Other World Bank 255

Swiss Agency for Cooperation and Development 190

Hewlett Foundation 75

FAO Cooperative Programme 40

Total 1,245

The response to and impacts of the report have been substantial. The report has catalyzed, influenced and

contributed to an array of global and country-level discussions on appropriate responses to large scale agro-

investments. The study report, strategically launched at a 2010 international ministers meeting, enabled African

leaders to put on the agenda and discuss large scale land acquisition, a topic previously considered too politically

charged. Several countries subsequently requested World Bank technical assistance to improve the capacity of

their legal and institutional frameworks to ensure responsible agro-investments and the Bank has started working

with five of these countries.

The report‟s findings and methodology have been presented and discussed at numerous international events,

including the 2009 World Forestry Congress, the CIRAD Land Day 2009, the World Bank Annual Bank

Evaluation Series 18

Conference, The Central Africa Rural Development Briefing of the ACP-EU Technical Center for Agriculture and

Rural Development, the 2010 Conference of African Ministers of Agriculture held in Malawi. The report was also

covered in some depth in a New York Times article2.

Building upon this study‟s initial results and consultations with governments and private sector investors, the Bank

drafted seven principles for ensuring responsible agro-investments in collaboration with FAO, UNCTAD, IFAD and

Japan.

This was an extremely important and influential study, responding to specific concerns expressed by the World

Bank‟s President. The quality of the work is highly regarded, the report has helped frame the issue in international

policy debates, and the conclusions appear likely to have significant impact.

While this study appears very cost effective in relation to the attention and impact it has already generated, it is

not completely clear why PROFOR was considered an appropriate funding source as the study is only indirectly

related to forests. This may reflect the paucity of flexible funding that can be mobilized quickly within the World

Bank for timely natural resource policy studies as well as the desirability of attaching the PROFOR brand name to

such a study.

2 http://nyti.ms/eSgRob

19 Impact Note 1

C08 – ASSESSING THE POTENTIAL FOR FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION3

Contractors IUCN, WRI

Key

Partners

DFID, IUCN, South Dakota University, Forestry Commission of Great Britain, Global Partnership

for Forest Landscape Restoration

Duration 2009-11

Scale Global, with case studies

TTL Peter Dewees

PROFOR

Support

$96,000 (Total cost $142,000)

Major

Outputs

Global Map of Forest Landscape Restoration Opportunities (2010)

Growing demand for forest products and bioenergy, together with growing interest in carbon stocks, had brought

increasing attention to the restoration of degraded forest lands. While a variety of organizations had worked on the

issue since about 2005 (including IUCN with support from an earlier PROFOR Activity, see G22), little was known

about the scope, extent, geographical variation and priorities of the restoration potential.

PROFOR supported WRI and IUCN, representing the Global Partnership on Forest Landscape Restoration

(GPFLR), to build on their ongoing work, assess the potential for forest landscape restoration worldwide and

develop awareness of this potential among decision-makers and the public.

The authors produced a global map showing where forests have the potential for recovery, the first of its kind.

This revealed: (a) 1.5 billion ha of deforested and degraded forest land offering opportunities for restoration as

well as sequestration of an estimated 140 GtCO2e by 2030, (b) additional restoration opportunities within the

world‟s croplands, and (c) that restoration opportunities tend to occur where degradation and deforestation have

already taken place. This map has been used to help convince decision makers of the importance of forest

restoration in addressing poverty, climate change, and sustainable forest management.

The project has been influential in shaping wider international discussions on landscape restoration. For example,

the preliminary results were presented to the governments of the USA, UK and Norway (all significant investors in

REDD+), at a 2009 high-level round table on forest landscape restoration in London co-hosted by the UK

Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the President of IUCN on behalf of GPFLR.

3 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/assessing-potential-forest-landscape-restoration

Evaluation Series 20

Subsequent statements by the US Secretary for Agriculture and an op-ed in the NY Times4 confirmed the role that

the assessment has played in increasing recognition of the potential for forest restoration. The results were also

reported at UNFCCC COPs 15 and 16 and CBD COPs 9 and 10. The CBD has recently targeted the restoration

of 15% of degraded lands globally by 2020.

The potential for forest restoration to contribute to carbon stocks has also broadened the number of countries

anticipating REDD+ financial benefits as a reward for enhancing carbon stocks, especially countries with highly

depleted forests that did not expect to benefit from REDD as originally conceived (i.e., REDD without the +).

It seems clear that PROFOR support was critical, providing not only needed financial support but credibility at a

time when there was relatively little interest in the issue as well as considerable convening power through the

World Bank when it came time to disseminate the findings.

Based on the very positive feedback received from the activity, PROFOR provided an additional $25,000 to co-

host with CIFOR a Forest Landscape Restoration for Adaptation event at UNFCCC COP 16‟s Forest Day 4. This

high-profile event gave PROFOR a level of recognition they have not had before, with an opportunity to profile

many of the other Activities supported. PROFOR has also agreed to finance a 2011 Investment Forum at ICRAF

to raise awareness about land restoration investment opportunities in Africa.

While the global map provided valuable in drawing attention to the issue and related opportunities, its inevitably

coarse scale was not suitable as a basis for planning specific actions. National level assessments have been

identified as the next step as a basis for priority setting and to help integrate forest landscape restoration into

national forest planning processes. Subsequent discussions between IUCN (on behalf of the GPFLR) and the

World Bank have identified opportunities for linking some of these national assessments with the selection of pilot

initiatives of the Forest Investment Program. Together with other partners, PROFOR recently agreed to support a

pilot project in Ghana aiming to provide decision-makers with information and analyses of opportunities for forest

restoration as part of the national REDD+ strategy, and Mexico has expressed considerable interest in conducting

landscape restoration pilot projects to build on the high profile the country achieved during UNFCCC COP 16 in

late 2010.

The results have been presented at a variety of international events, including the Global Conference on

Agriculture, Food Security, and Climate Change at the Hague in 2010. This gathering brought together the

agendas of agriculture, food security and climate change to develop a Roadmap for Action in which landscape

approaches and agroforestry are as climate change mitigation tools.

Every indication strongly suggests this has been an excellent investment by PROFOR. During the next phase it

will be interesting to see whether and how (a) the World Bank includes forest restoration within national lending

programs or GEF grant-funded operations, and whether the potential for investments in restoration encourages

the Bank regions to expand their forestry work, and/or (b) other donor partners respond.

4 http://nyti.ms/fhpLie

21 Impact Note 1

F22 – FOSTERING PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND THE PRIVATE

SECTOR IN KENYA5

Contractors IIED, RFF (for background papers)

Duration 2004-5

Scale Kenya

TTLs Gerhard Dieterle & Richard Kaguamba

PROFOR

Support

$150,000

Major

Partners

IFC, WWF, World Business Council for Sustainable Development

Major

Outputs

Workshop, background papers

This activity followed a Forest Investment Forum held in Washington, DC in 2003, also supported by PROFOR6,

aiming to identify investment opportunities in environmentally and socially sustainable forestry as prioritized by the

World Bank‟s 2002 Forest Strategy. The Forum participants– including the forest products industry, NGOs and

policy researchers – had recommended that similar forums be held at regional and national levels.

PROFOR chose Kenya as the first country to host a national forum, influenced by the perceived opportunity to

influence (a) the development of a new National Forest Strategy and (b) a reorganization of the Kenya Forest

Service, both following a recent change in government (the end of the Moi regime). A new and well-regarded

Forest Act was also about to be ratified. This represented a potentially important turning point in Kenya following

many years of large-scale illegal logging, corruption, mismanagement of government-owned timber plantations

and the prospect of total collapse of the country‟s forest products industries, all linked to major social and

environmental problems. These factors had led the World Bank and other donors to essentially withdraw from the

sector.

The Kenya Forum drew on the convening power of the World Bank and PROFOR to try to find innovative ways in

which the Government could reduce its dependency on the commercial logging of indigenous forests, by

5 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/fostering-partnerships-between-local-communities-and-private-sector-kenya 6 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/forest-investment-forum

Evaluation Series 22

encouraging partnerships between privately-owned forest products companies and local communities and

smallholders. PROFOR commissioned three background papers: Economic and Financial Viability of Forest

Plantations and Farm Forestry; Possible approaches to Development of Forestry Partnerships in Kenya; and An

Industrial Wood Supply Strategy for Kenya.

The target audience and beneficiaries were clearly defined. The Forum successfully created an opportunity for

communities and the private sector to discuss with government how they could participate successfully in forest

management. The Forum promoted the idea that reforestation could be undertaken on farmland and not only on

formerly-forested areas already converted to plantations. Topics such as access to credit, forest sector taxes, and

replanting of tea plantations and farmland fringes with timber were all discussed, as well as pilot projects to

engage smallholders together with the private sector.

But there were significant barriers to further progress. The Government was still unwilling to divest forest

management authority to the private sector and unwilling to adopt IFC recommendations to streamline the forest

products industry (the pulp mill industry soon closed down with a loss of 30,000 jobs). Ethnic tensions and the

possibility of protests by smallholders made further reform seem unattractive. Progress at this time seemed limited

and neither the World Bank nor other donors were eager to invest further in the troubled and controversial Kenya

forestry sector.

A few years later the picture changed once again. The Government introduced a system of transparent

competitive bidding for plantation output, the sawmilling industry began to recover, and restructuring of the pulp

and paper industry has recently been discussed. A new national forestry policy was adopted, the Kenya Forest

Service was established as a semi-autonomous government agency, and a $60 million World Bank Natural

Resources Management Project (NRMP) was launched in 20097. Both the new policy and the forestry

components of the NRMP include many of the ideas and pilot schemes that had been identified during the Forum,

especially the engagement of local communities in management of forested watersheds and an expansion of farm

forestry. The NRMP is currently being restructured, with a renewed focus on helping the Kenya Forest Service be

“open for, and to, business”.

Inspired by the Kenya Forum, the World Bank and PROFOR supported a follow-up South and East Africa Region

Forest Investment Forum in 2006 in South Africa8. This Forum contributed useful inputs to subsequent World

Bank forest conservation and development projects in Cameroon, Gabon, Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia, as well

as IFC investments in Tanzania and Mozambique. More recently, PROFOR has agreed to support an Investment

Forum at ICRAF 2011 to raise awareness of land restoration investment opportunities in Africa.

The content and timing of the Kenya Forum appears to have been well judged and important in Kenya, helping

keep forestry issues alive during a period of donor disenchantment, supporting a gradual process of change and

introducing ideas that later became more firmly established in both policy and practice. The Forum helped to

move the national dialogue forward by providing information on a range of partnership schemes and guidelines for

engaging companies, communities, and smallholders. The Forum also paved the way for similarly influential

7 The NRMP includes assistance to strengthen institutional support for the creation of an enabling environment for community and private sector

involvement in the management of plantation forests....and assist the capacity of the Kenya Forest Service to motivate and manage private investment in sustainable forest management (World Bank Appraisal Report, 2007).

8 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/eastern-and-southern-africa-regional-forest-investment-forum

23 Impact Note 1

events in other African countries. While cause and effect must be interpreted cautiously, this appears to have

been an outstandingly successful investment by PROFOR.

Evaluation Series 24

G22 – FORESTS IN LANDSCAPES: ECOSYSTEM APPROACHES TO SUSTAINABILITY9

Contractors IUCN, WWF

Duration 2004-5

Scale Global, with case studies

TTL Gerhard Dieterle

PROFOR

Support

$150,000

Major

Outputs

„Forests in Landscapes‟ (2005) book.

Arborvitae special issue „Changing realities: Ecosystem Approaches and Sustainable Forest

Management‟ (2004)

While various international agreements, government, NGOs and the private sector had committed to implement

sustainable forest management (SFM) and/or an ecosystem approach (ESA) in the early 2000s, there was a lack

of clarity on the two concepts. SFM had emerged from forestry circles and been pursued through the United

Nations Forum on Forests (UNFF) and organizations such as FAO and ITTO, while the Ecosystem Approach had

mainly been developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Following a request from the UNFF

and CBD Secretariats, PROFOR initiated an activity to analyze the similarities and differences between the two

terms, their applicability and how to operationalize them. Support was provided for a UNFF discussion paper, an

international workshop, case studies and a book.

The book documents several case study examples of innovations in both ESA and SFM where forests were

increasingly being managed as a part of the broader social and ecological systems. A key conclusion of the cases

studies and discussion was that many ESA principles were already being applied on the ground, and had inspired

much of the reform of policies and practices of forest management that had occurred in the previous decade. This

was interpreted to mean that ESA was not competing with SFM, but instead provides a useful conceptual

framework and guidelines that SFM and other natural resource management approaches can draw on. As the

study authors observe, however, ESAs had emerged from an international process and were intended to provide

general guidance on big-picture issues; they were never intended to provide a detailed prescription for

management.

9 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/forests-landscapes-ecosystem-approaches-sustainability

25 Impact Note 1

This timely activity contributed to an important debate and helped mitigate a potential conflict between two

separate international processes emphasizing forestry and biodiversity. The studies and related discussions have

contributed to a growing consensus on the need for a new institutional model for forest management agencies,

with broader roles that respond to a wider range of stakeholders and go well beyond commercial timber

exploitation.

This solid analysis and the associated high quality outputs by knowledgeable and respected authors contributed

to a broader shift in the emphasis of forested land management that has helped raise the profile of payments for

forest ecosystem services, an idea successfully promoted by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2006.

There was no direct Bank or GEF participation in the activity beyond the engagement of PROFOR staff, and no

explicit buy-in from the Bank‟s regional operations. However, while hard to pin down precisely, the advances

supported by this activity probably helped advance the thinking on forestry and biodiversity priorities within both

the World Bank and the GEF, including an increasing focus on managing landscapes based on mosaics of

different land uses.

Two related PROFOR activities are reviewed in this evaluation cluster: Multifunctional Agriculture and Forest

Landscape Mosaics (L07) and Landscapes of Opportunity: the Potential for Forest Landscape Restoration (C08).

Evaluation Series 26

L04 – PREPARING FOR REDD+ IN DRYLAND FORESTS10

Suggestion to reader: read L15 before L04

Contractors IIED

Duration 2008-9

Scale Southern Africa (Mozambique, Namibia, Zambia)

TTL Diji Chandrasekharan

PROFOR Support $148,000

Major Outputs REDD+ in dryland forests: Issues and prospects for pro-poor REDD in the Miombo

woodlands of southern Africa

The Miombo Ecoregion in eastern and southern Africa includes eleven countries and contains about 100 million

people, most of which are poor and rely on the woodlands as a resource and a safety net in times of stress.

This study of potential pro-poor payments for reduced emissions for deforestation and forest degradation

(REDD+) sought to build on earlier Miombo woodlands livelihoods studies supported by PROFOR (L15). This

time the case studies were located in three countries offering relatively successful examples of community-based

natural resources management: Mozambique, Namibia, and Zambia.

IIED was contracted to carry out the work, which included: national analyses with a focus on

drivers of deforestation, how existing legal and policy frameworks could support REDD+, the

opportunity costs of land uses, and the institutional arrangements needed. The aim was to build

awareness as well as national decision makers‟ capacities to develop and articulate their countries‟ position on

REDD+.

PROFOR developed the Terms of Reference, commented on each of the reports and supervised the entire

activity. But the activity was not strongly marketed to the World Bank country and regional offices prior to its

launch, and there was relatively little direct interest shown within the Bank.

The studies provided one of the first opportunities for stakeholders in this region to learn about and discuss

REDD+. They were discussed at national REDD+ consultations, facilitating exchanges of ideas and information

among the private sector community and government representative, together with regional partners including

10 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/preparing-redd-dryland-forests

27 Impact Note 1

CIFOR, WWF, Resource Africa and Indufor (a Finnish consulting firm). Clear contributions from the study to

national REDD+ strategy development processes were reported in Mozambique, especially, as well as in

Namibia, while impacts in Zambia were less clear (according to UN-REDD they were non-existent in Zambia,

although others have disputed this). There seems little doubt that subsequent consultations on REDD+ in these

countries would have been significantly less informed without the study.

While the national studies each stimulated in-country dialogue on REDD+, the final regional synthesis workshop

was unable to engage national level policy and decision makers. Nevertheless, the opportunity to exchange

national experiences appears to have been useful, especially the realization that much of the technical information

needed to plan for REDD+ was similar across the countries of the region. The engagement of regional

organizations helped engage wider networks of actors and provided useful feedback to the individual country‟s

participants. CIFOR funded the participation of representatives from Malawi and Tanzania at the regional level

workshop and, as a follow-up to the activity, IIED expanded their related work in Mozambique.

The synthesis report identified lessons for the Miombo Ecoregion countries to consider when developing REDD+

strategies. While these recommendations to some extent echo the REDD+ best practices identified in many other

countries, the IIED reports very usefully examine the links between forest management, agriculture and other land

uses, a mix of topics that has only recently entered the REDD debate. They also highlight the critical importance

of charcoal as an energy source and the recognition that viable REDD+ schemes will need to provide adequate

compensatory benefits if charcoal use is to be curtailed in order to maintain or enhance carbon stocks, which

again few other studies had connected convincingly to REDD. These impacts justify PROFOR‟s investment and

differentiate the Activity from the host of somewhat formulaic “REDD readiness” studies being conducted in many

forested countries.

IIED made a presentation to the PROFOR board on the results, which have been widely disseminated through the

IIED and CIFOR network as well as part of PROFOR‟s visible role at UNFCCC COP 16 in Cancun.

This study also links to L15 Improving Rural Livelihoods and Sustainable Management of Dryland Forests of

Eastern and Southern Africa.

Evaluation Series 28

L05 – SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL RESOURCES IN EAP: INDONESIA11

Contractors CSIRO

Duration 2007-9

Scale Indonesia

TTLs Tim Brown

PROFOR

Support

$194,000 (total cost $2,000,000+)

Major

Partners

AusAid, ANU

Major

Outputs

East Kalimantan Case Study: Energy Prices, Natural Resources and Livelihoods (World Bank

report 2009)

Various models listed and described on CSIRO‟s web site12

This activity was carried out by CSIRO with support from PROFOR and AusAid as part of a $2 million

macroeconomic project Analysing Pathways to Sustainability in Indonesia. The goal of this project was “to

increase understanding of triple bottom-line outcomes of proposed macro policy decisions by assessing

economic, ecological and social consequences of alternative development pathways”. The project developed an

“inter-regional Computable General Equilibrium model with environmental and social variables for analysis at

national level. The project also produced an Agent Based Model (ABM) that works in a bottom-up fashion to

explain how local agents‟ behavior in response to macro level policy signals produces consequences for society,

the environment and the wider economy” (quotes are from the World Bank‟s case study report).

PROFOR‟s contribution was to support the collection of data for the models from a case study site in East

Kalimantan, based largely on a survey of 3,000 households and detailed interviews with 540 households. These

interviews were used to identify potential changes in natural resource use in response to changing energy prices

(the government was contemplating removing a fuel price subsidy).

While the survey was designed largely to develop behavioral response functions as a base for the agent-based

model, it also – the proponents argue – provided valuable stand-alone information about household use of a

range of natural resources as well as information about the values that people place on them. For example, a high

11 http://www.profor.info/profor/node/1908

12 http://www.csiro.au/resources/Indonesian-Pathways-Resources.html

29 Impact Note 1

proportion of households were found to use or value natural resources in the study area, although this result does

not seem particularly surprising.

The extent to which Indonesian government agencies have either used this data or adopted this modeling

approach as a useful analytical tool and aid to decision making is debatable. Opinions on the value of this activity

are sharply divided, compounded by the difficulty most people have in understanding the model. As an applied

research activity it may well have been successful. The models (i.e., the macro model developed by ANU and the

micro ABM developed by CSIRO) are apparently so highly regarded that they will soon be used in the Mekong

region.

This Activity appears to have come about from AusAid‟s interest in starting to work with the World Bank on macro

issues in Indonesia in the early 2000s. The Bank‟s then President agreed and the Environment Department in the

Jakarta office was engaged to lead the collaboration on behalf of the Bank. CSIRO had modeling expertise and

funding, and the East Kalimantan case study was identified as a relatively stand alone component that PROFOR

could support. This package was offered to the Government of Indonesia, which accepted.

The main research activities and model development was managed by CSIRO from Canberra and did not have a

genuine base in Indonesia. The final versions of the models were presented to BAPPENAS without potential

Indonesian users having been significantly involved in their development, there were few – if any – genuine policy

dialogues on the results, and the tools appear to have achieved only limited traction. We found no indications that

the project has had any impact on World Bank policies or projects in Indonesia. World Bank staff reportedly found

the models unable to cope with any variants of the original policy question posed, and therefore to have limited

use.

The principal researcher and an evaluation team commissioned by AusAid both seem convinced that the National

Planning Agency BAPPENAS has taken full ownership of the models, which are now embedded in their

operations. But our own experiences and enquiries suggest that such a conclusion is too optimistic, for the

reasons mentioned in the preceding paragraphs

The PROFOR funds were only used on Indonesian field work related to the case study. Training was provided in

collecting and analyzing household survey data and the Activity has at least helped to highlight some key lessons

in working with governments. PROFOR‟s contribution seems to have added practical value to what would

otherwise have looked like a rather academic exercise. Two evaluations conducted by CSIRO, which we have not

seen, were apparently more concerned with the scientific robustness of the models rather than their uptake and

subsequent use on policy decision making.

According to CSIRO, AusAid is now in discussion with BAPPENAS to continue the project with $5 million for

several new case studies.

Evaluation Series 30

L07 – MULTIFUNCTIONAL AGRICULTURE AND FOREST LANDSCAPE MOSAICS13

Contractors EcoAgriculture Partners, IUCN, Cornell University

Duration 2006-8

Scale Global, with cases studies in Congo, Ghana, Honduras, Indonesia, Kenya, Uganda

TTL Jill Blockhus

PROFOR

Support

$150,000

Major

Outputs

Landscape Measures Resource Center (online toolkit)

Arborvitae special issue „Learning from Landscapes‟ (2008)

Following expressions of interest by the World Bank and several international conservation NGOs, PROFOR

provided support for Ecoagriculture Partners to develop an outcome measures toolkit to help local stakeholders

define and measure the impacts of ecoagriculture/forest landscape restoration on productivity, local livelihoods,

institutions, ecosystem services and biodiversity.

The most tangible result was an online toolkit or platform, the Landscape Measures Resource Center (LMRC)14,

that includes a variety of tools and resources for landscape management. There is a notable emphasis on

smallholder agriculture and local stakeholders. The case study participants assessed their experience in

workshops and the lessons were included in a special issue of Arborvitae (IUCN‟s forestry newsletter). LMRC is

well regarded by partners and users, although an assessment workshop in 2009 called for the toolkit to be made

more user friendly and less complicated.

This activity follows from, and was partly inspired by, a previous PROFOR activity, „Multifunctional Agriculture and

Forest Landscape Mosaics (L07). IUCN played an important role in both projects by providing forest policy

expertise while ensuring, through their extensive network, that the toolkit did not duplicate comparable efforts

elsewhere.

The activity was developed at a time when landscape thinking was emerging and the interested partners felt they

did not know enough about integrating conservation and development at a landscape scale to justify making large

scale investments (which is probably still the case five years later). The PROFOR financing provided a platform to

engage stakeholders and stimulate conversation at the international level.

13 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/multifunctional-agriculture-and-forest-landscape-mosaics-toolkit

14 http://www.landscapemeasures.org

31 Impact Note 1

The work appears to have been thorough and of high quality, with all outputs produced as planned and

EcoAgriculture Partners is highly regarded by all participants. The project has stimulated some debate among

project partners concerning whether expert-driven and developed indicator sets produce better results or whether

participatory processes in which indicator sets are locally constructed have greater impact.

Impacts are hard to identify. The toolkit responded to a need that continues to be expressed by a variety of

organizations – how to monitor and assess landscape-scale interventions. The work was certainly of interest to

World Bank and GEF staff. The activity‟s proponents argue that it has contributed to a more coordinated approach

among international partners to build upon lessons learned and promote more sustainable land management,

particularly within IUCN‟s broad membership network, although that claim has proven hard to verify. Other related

programs have subsequently emerged, including CIFOR‟s Managing Landscape Mosaics for Sustainable

Livelihoods, IUCN‟s Landscapes and Livelihoods and Global Landscape Restoration Network, WWF‟s Forests

and Livelihoods and the Satoyama Initiative, all aiming to promote and support landscapes that combine

conservation and production objectives. All of these programs have benefitted to at least some extent from

PROFOR‟s investments in forest management within landscapes.

There is little sign that the LMRC toolkit has been used or applied directly. This does not seem due to any

deficiency in the toolkit, despite its complexity. Experience has shown that simply providing toolkits to local

stakeholders can do relatively little to change the balance of power and lead to sustainable management, a

constraint recognized by the toolkit proponents. While there are few examples of local and national institutional

commitments to actually manage natural resources on a landscape scale with all of the political complexities

involved, those recent landscape initiatives that are underway do not appear to have used LMRC.

The activity generated some promising results from using a variety of participatory approaches to helping local

stakeholders conceptualize and communicate their ideas and priorities at a landscape scale.

Evaluation Series 32

L10 – MEASURING POVERTY IMPACTS OF FOREST PROGRAMS IN INDIA15

Suggestion to reader: read L17 before L10

Contractors CIFOR

Duration 2006

Scale India

TTLs Grant Milne, Jill Blockhus

PROFOR

Support

$135,000

Major

Partners

Jharkhand State Forestry Department, FAO

Major

Outputs

Poverty Impact Assessment of Joint Forest Management in Jharkhand, India (World Bank report

2006)

This activity was developed in response to a growing perception that credible methods of measuring the poverty

impacts of community forestry were needed. Indian states had begun to share rights and responsibilities with

communities for managing forests through Joint Forest Management (JFM) arrangements. PROFOR supported

the development of a methodology for low-cost and systematic monitoring of social, environmental and economic

impacts from community forestry programs in Jharkhand. CIFOR led the work in partnership with national experts,

local NGOs and research institutions. The methodology adopted was based on a background study conducted by

Oxford Policy Management with the government of Madhya Pradesh, supported by DFID. In a closely-linked

Activity, PROFOR helped support a forest policy dialogue in India. For more on the context of both of these

Activities, see L17.

The original intention was to use the tools and methods developed to measure the effectiveness of an anticipated

World Bank community forestry project in Jharkhand. The PROFOR-supported Activity was completed to general

satisfaction, with CIFOR‟s contribution being particularly highly regarded, but a change in state government and

consequential shift in priorities caused the related project to be delayed and eventually cancelled. So the result

was a monitoring system without a project to apply it to.

15 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/measuring-poverty-impacts-forest-programs-india

33 Impact Note 1

The methodological progress made through this Activity has attracted considerable interest in follow-up work. KfW

and JICA have reportedly incorporated parts of the monitoring approach within their own programs in India, while

elements of the methodology have been taken up by a multi-country ODI study planning to examine whether and

how participatory forest management provides benefits to poor people. PROFOR reports that its Poverty-Forests

Linkages toolkit (not included in this evaluation) also benefitted from the methodology advances made by this

Activity16.

The Jharkhand work is also expected to provide a case study for a forthcoming high-level, multi-agency study of

forests and livelihoods linked to PRSPs and NFPs. PROFOR has also proposed further survey work to collect

new data in a sample of villages while testing and calibrating the monitoring tool.

Monitoring has been recognized as a persistent weakness of JFM in India as well as community forestry in

general, and the work supported by this Activity has demonstrated potential to become very valuable.

16 http://www.profor.info/profor/node/3

Evaluation Series 34

L11 – PRIVATE AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY - DEVELOPING LIVELIHOODS ON THE

BASIS OF SECURE PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SELECTED COUNTRIES OF SOUTH EAST

EUROPE17

Contractors Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF)

Duration 2008-9

Scale Albania, FYR Macedonia, Serbia

TTLs Diji Chandrasekharan, Gerhard Dieterle

PROFOR

Support

$150,000

Major

Partners

FAO National Forest Programme (NFP)

Major

Outputs

Workshops, national assessments, web site

This activity aimed to encourage and support an enhanced role for private and community forests within national

forest policy processes in three former communist countries with virtually no tradition of non-state forest

management. The major outputs were national and regional workshops and status reports. CEPF, which designed

and managed the entire project, is the umbrella association of national forest owner organizations in the European

Union, promoting the values of private property ownership.

CEPF developed the concept together with PROFOR staff in 2005, although CEPF was requested to revise their

proposal several times and the activity did not launch until 2008. PROFOR had insisted that MOUs be signed with

the national forestry authorities in each of the three countries, an important step that took some time to achieve.

The startup was also delayed by resistance from World Bank regional and country staff who felt that they had not

participated in the project development.

CEPF appears to have done a solid job, producing high quality national reports in a difficult context. The planned

outputs were all achieved, producing useful inputs to national forest planning processes, especially in Serbia and

FYR Macedonia where new forest legislation was being developed, although less so in Albania. This relatively

small activity helped launch a discussion of private forest ownership as a novel concept that could not be

expected to lead to radical change in a brief period of time. The regional approach was also innovative, as there

was little history of collaboration between these countries on forest management. The targeted countries face

17 http://www.profor.info/profor/node/1911

35 Impact Note 1

further constraints from being considered within the EU realm of influence, with donor support often hard to obtain

as a consequence even though only FYR Macedonia is an EU accession candidate.

The Serbian National Forest Owners Association was established and its initial activities facilitated as a direct

result of the project consultations. Private forest owners in all three countries appreciated the need to get

organized, although financial resources are lacking, there is little public support and state forestry officials

continue to resist. Links were established with civil society activities in Albania and FYR Macedonia being

supported by FAO, SNV (Netherlands) and SIDA. According to CEPF, there is local interest in continuing this type

of work in the three countries, while other countries in the region have also expressed strong interest, including

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Croatia.

Bank staff outside PROFOR were kept informed but did not engage convincingly at any point in this Activity, even

though the Bank has recently supported promising community forestry activities in Albania through a Natural

Resources Development Project. Both this Bank Project and CEPF partnered with the same national forestry

authorities and private forest owners associations but not each other, probably because CEPF‟s relatively small-

scale activities were more focused on privately-owned rather than community-managed forests. CEPF received

little substantive guidance and would have welcomed more involvement from Bank staff and feedback on whether

their results would be taken up by the Bank or discussed with the governments.

The Activity Completion Report submitted by CEPF to PROFOR adequately describes the context and the

progress made while being refreshingly frank about the remaining challenges. In this sense it is a model report

that is considerably more informative and convincing than more typical completion reports that tend to be bland

and overly focused on long list of outputs and lacking any real sense of the significance of what actually

happened.

Evaluation Series 36

L15 – POLICIES AND INCENTIVES FOR MANAGING THE MIOMBO WOODLANDS18

Contractors CIFOR/WWF

Duration 2005-8

Scale Southern Africa (Mozambique, Zambia, Tanzania)

TTL Peter Dewees

PROFOR

Support

$15,000

Major

Outputs

Managing the Miombo Woodlands of Southern Africa: Policies, incentives and options for the

rural poor

The Miombo woodlands cover 2.4 million km2 in Southern Africa, stretching from Angola to Mozambique. They

constitute the most extensive dry forest in Africa, supporting about 100 million mainly poor people. PROFOR

supported a study of the linkages between these woodlands and rural livelihoods, to explore incentives and

options for poverty mitigation policies. World Bank and CIFOR jointly developed the study proposal and obtained

initial funding from the Bank Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development. CIFOR

carried out the study. PROFOR funded a final workshop in Zambia.

The studies identified the impoverished rural population‟s dependence on the forests for firewood, building

material, wild foods, medicines, and for grazing and beekeeping sites. The study identified four needed

reforms: (i) policies and institutions must embrace decentralization and devolution; (ii) governments must foster

markets for the local products and services that good management can produce; (iii) forestry organizations must

switch their emphasis from regulation of use to delivery of services, empowering local people to become better

woodland users and managers; and (iv) planners must keep in mind the cost of deforestation and degradation to

rural populations.

The national case studies generated findings that proved of value elsewhere in the region. For example, the

Zambia case study demonstrated the critical importance of the miombo woodlands to rural households as a safety

net, while the decentralized management experience in Tanzania proved relevant in both Mozambique and

Zambia.

18 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/policies-and-incentives-managing-miombo-woodlands

37 Impact Note 1

The study helped to establish recognition of miombo woodlands as a distinct and important ecological system

requiring specific management approaches. Perhaps more significantly, this was one of the first studies outside

the context of tropical moist forests to highlight links between woodland management and poverty mitigation,

thereby helping forest management connect with household poverty alleviation strategies in drier regions, a theme

recently taken up as part of the World Bank‟s emerging forest strategy for Africa.

Peer reviewers considered this study an excellent and pioneering piece of work and a significant contribution to

understanding a system that had not received much attention previously. It was originally anticipated that the

study papers would be developed into a book and published, but this did not happen and dissemination was

therefore less than optimal.

From a policy perspective it would be hard to argue that significant impacts on decision makers were achieved,

although key researchers involved in this work have gone on to work on miombo projects and policies elsewhere.

Very little work on miombo systems now takes place at a regional level, with most efforts fragmented within

individual countries. Links between livelihood and woodlands have recently tended to focus on charcoal

production and trade, and their impact on the resource base. World Bank has recently discussed with GEF a

possible regional charcoal study using an approach similar to and based on the miombo work. Within the World

Bank and most other donor agencies there is now broad acceptance of the policy and institutional

recommendations made by the study.

This study links to two other PROFOR Activities: (i) L04 Preparing for REDD+ in Dryland Forests19, and (ii) the in-

progress Improving Rural Livelihoods and Sustainable Management of Dryland Forests of Eastern and Southern

Africa20, an Activity supporting the development of a sub-Saharan forestry strategy by building on the Miombo

study and bringing in analyses from Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Botswana, Namibia and South Africa.

Despite investing only $15,000 in this study, PROFOR receives a considerable amount of the credit from most

stakeholders. From the perspective of brand enhancement, this appears a very strong investment, in addition to

the value of the study itself as a contribution to knowledge.

19 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/preparing-redd-dryland-forests

20 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/improving-rural-livelihoods-and-sustainable-management-dryland-forests-eastern-and-souther

Evaluation Series 38

L16 – JUSTICE IN THE FORESTS - RURAL LIVELIHOODS AND FOREST LAW

ENFORCEMENT21

Contractors CIFOR

Duration 2003-5

Scale Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada, Honduras, Indonesia, Nicaragua

TTL Gerhard Dieterle & Marcus Colchester

PROFOR

Support

$42,000

Major

Partners

DFID (provided about $75,000)

Major

Outputs

Justice in the Forest: Rural Livelihoods and Forest Law Enforcement (2006)

Prior to this activity, the Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) approach had just started to emerge as

a major policy response by international agencies and national governments seeking to promote good forest

management. The direct social implications of FLEG, and in particular the effects of forest law enforcement

measures on the livelihoods of rural communities had not been fully considered in FLEG processes.

Spurred by these concerns and with the aim of developing a better understanding of the possible negative

implications of law enforcement for poor and marginalized communities, PROFOR teamed up with CIFOR and

DFID to conduct a literature review, a review of community experiences in Bolivia, Cameroon, Canada,

Honduras, Indonesia and Nicaragua, and a range of interviews with key informants. A workshop was held in

Indonesia to discuss the case studies and develop the synthesis report. PROFOR staff played a minor role in

implementation (at the time, PROFOR was staffed by only two individuals who managed the tendering process

with very little operational follow up).

The report Justice in the Forest: Rural Livelihoods and Forest Law Enforcement examines the social and political

economy implications of forest law enforcement and highlights important lessons to ensure that FLEG initiatives

better serve the needs of poor rural communities. The review argues that many existing forest laws are

contradictory, restrict livelihoods and actually harm the poor while favoring large-scale forestry. Lack of adequate

21 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/justice-forests-rural-livelihoods-and-forest-law-enforcement

39 Impact Note 1

legal protection of community rights makes much small-scale forest use 'illegal'. Illegal forest use, including by

communities, tends to be enmeshed in wider political economies, so major commercial players tend to be

politically protected while local communities are vulnerable. Enforcement has at times focused narrowly on

forestry laws to the neglect of laws that secure rural livelihoods. Crude enforcement measures have reinforced

social exclusion and tended to target poor people while avoiding those who are well connected. Trade-based

FLEG measures may also ignore the social implications.

The report recommended that future FLEG initiatives aim to correct unfair legal frameworks through regulatory

reform and lobby governments to practice more even-handed enforcement in order to level the playing field in

favor of local communities, to be developed transparently with broad civil society engagement.

These recommendations have been adopted by the European Union (EU) in its negotiations with timber producing

countries for a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA). The EU has so far signed VPAs with Ghana and Congo,

and is negotiating with Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Liberia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, and Central

African Republic.

The VPA requires that each partner country develop a Legality Definition that outlines the legislative and

regulatory requirements that must be systematically fulfilled and verified to ensure legal compliance of timber

products before an export license can be issued by the VPA partner country. The development of the Legality

Definition now involves a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society and community representatives to

ensure that forest enforcement is reviewed with a lens towards the adoption of a rights- based approach. The EU

also encourages each partner country to identify any legal and governance reforms necessary to ensure that their

laws as well as the Legality Definition do not reinforce exclusionary forestry. Each country is also encouraged to

include social indicators in the Legality Definition.

The report fitted well into CIFOR‟s other work on illegal logging. It was widely used by the Asia Forest Partnership

and shared through the Rights and Resources/Chatham House dialogue process on illegal logging.

This was an academically rigorous project with full peer review of both the national studies and the final report.

Following Canadian government objections, the Canadian study was redone, peer reviewed a second time and

retained without substantive changes. Originally included as a model country to benchmark against other

countries included in the review, the Canadian example reported that the legal regime in BC enabled privileged

corporate access to the forests and undermined the ability of communities, small enterprise and First Nations (the

indigenous population) to gain access to tenure and the ability to practice small scale enterprise.

While much of the report content is now conventional wisdom, this was one of the very first studies to

comprehensively examine laws and regulations with the objective of exploring how they affected people‟s use of

the forest. It was a landmark success in terms of its influence on the EU‟s VPA process which is the primary

mechanism for restricting the import of illegally harvested wood into Europe.

Evaluation Series 40

L17 – FOREST POLICY DIALOGUE IN INDIA22

Contractors Forest Trends

Duration 2004-6

Scale India

TTLs Grant Milne & Jill Blockus

PROFOR

Support

$46,000

Major

Partners

State forestry agencies

Major

Outputs

Unlocking Opportunities for Forest-Dependent People in India (World Bank report 2006)

The Indian forest sector has been in transition during three decades from commercial timber production to

community-based forest management. About 173,000 km2 (23% of the country‟s forests) were under Joint Forest

Management (JFM) by 2003, with 84,600 JFM committees registered. However, the development of JFM into a

model that could be recognized as community forest management had been fraught with difficulty, with state

governments at uneven stages of implementation.

To support the transition, the National Forest Commission (NFC) requested the World Bank to submit inputs from

sector studies (which had partly been designed by PROFOR staff) and help share global experiences in

community forestry. In response, PROFOR funded Forest Trends to share global experiences with NFC and other

stakeholders, while PROFOR staff contributed international case studies. These policy events were held in 2004,

with a concurrent workshop for NGOs, tribal leaders and state government agencies. These interactions opened

some doors for further discussions on forest sector reform and engaged the Prime Minister's Office. Culminating

this effort, the World Bank published "Unlocking Opportunities for Forest-Dependent People in India" in 2006, an

extensive study of the performance and prospects of JFM, with further PROFOR support for dissemination of the

report. According to the World Bank, many of the report‟s recommendations were implemented within the

subsequent Andhra Pradesh Community Forestry Management project, which closed in 2010.

In a closely-linked activity, PROFOR helped support CIFOR and FAO work undertaken in Jharkhand to develop a

better understanding of the poverty linkages with forestry and to develop a system to monitor social,

environmental and economic impacts from community forestry (L10).

22 http://www.profor.info/profor/knowledge/forest-policy-dialogue-india

41 Impact Note 1

While the description above largely corresponds with the external reports on this activity, the context for assessing

PROFOR‟s contribution is considerably more complex. For the World Bank, India had been a flagship forestry

program in the 1980s. JFM projects were launched in several states with very high expectations. But these hopes

were put under severe pressure in the 1990s as the forestry authorities became involved in widespread conflicts

with local communities, there were protests and people were shot. Allegations were made that, rather than helping

mitigate poverty, the Bank was helping the forest department forcibly move people. Soon Indian forestry came to

be regarded within the World Bank as a high risk sector to be avoided. In the early 2000s there was a

considerable debate over whether JFM could work at all, and it was realized there was very little reliable data to

inform analysis of this issue. This is the (greatly simplified) context in which the “Unlocking Opportunities” study

was launched, largely encouraged by PROFOR, in an attempt to (a) re-engage with the Indian Government and

especially with the states that had more progressive forestry departments, and (b) demonstrate to Bank regional

management that forests in India could be a sound investment. Around this time, concerted efforts were underway

to get the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act ratified (the

act was passed in 2006 and notified into force in 2007). This was monumental in recognizing rights for forest

dwellers beyond the use and joint management rights that underpin JFM.

Just recently – i.e., five years later – a new dialogue on forestry in India has started, new programs have been

proposed, with the Ministry of Environment and Forests approaching the Bank with concrete areas of engagement

at the national level. This has received support at different levels within the Bank and among donor partners. This

dialogue is occurring at a time when forest lands in India are finally being transferred to local communities, despite

continued resistance from some forest departments, ad there are opportunities to build capacity at the national

level to coordinate state-level community forest management programs.

The results of the sector studies to which PROFOR contributed both funding and staff expertise are providing key

inputs to new rounds of discussion and planning. The confluence of the Tribal Forest Rights Act, findings from the

study, and Government‟s interest to engage with the Bank has provided an opportunity to show that it is possible

to move away from the old JFM models and towards a more progressive approach that genuinely improves the

lives of communities.

Had this evaluation been conducted a few years earlier, the conclusion might well have been that this PROFOR

Activity had not been successful, that neither the Bank nor the Government of India had been persuaded to re-

enter into a forestry dialogue. Today, it seems reasonable to argue that the Activities in India reflect PROFOR at

its best, drawing on the considerable expertise of its staff to work closely with World Bank task managers and

grasp a strategic opportunity that no other donor or World Bank funding source could support. While a risk was

taken on a very uncertain outcome with a very modest amount of money, the policy leverage achieved may turn

out to be very high.

Evaluation Series 42

ANNEX 1 – EVALUATION QUESTIONS

RELEVANCE

Where did idea for the activity originate?

Were the target audience and/or beneficiaries of the activity clearly defined, and how well did the

outcomes /outputs maintain these in focus?

Was the high priority/potential of the activity clearly demonstrated and documented?

How innovative and/or timely was this activity?

How relevant was the activity to PROFOR‟s objectives and criteria?

How well did the activity „fit‟ with or complement related activities of other actors?

SELECTION

How rigorous was the proposal development process? Was there peer review?

Were comments received incorporated in the final proposal/Concept Note?

IMPLEMENTATION PERFORMANCE

Which components worked best and which worked the least well?

Were any problems encountered during implementation? How effectively were these

addressed?

What were the actual and budgeted expenditures?

Were any significant changes made in the approach during implementation?

Compare activities planned with those actually completed

What role did PROFOR management and staff play?

Could PROFOR or World Bank have helped/acted differently to increase impacts?

43 Impact Note 1

ACHIEVEMENTS AND IMPACT

Were the outputs proposed consistent with those achieved?

Assess the quality of the outputs

Were the outputs peer reviewed?

To what extent were the outputs taken up as inputs into policy processes or catalytic in

stimulating other related processes?

Where they any unintended impacts (positive or negative)?

Have the impacts been strengthened or weakened by subsequent developments in the forest

policy field?

Can synergies be identified with other PROFOR studies?

FOLLOW-UP AND SUSTAINABILITY

What has been the longer term impacts and relevance of the activities supported?

Are there indications that activities been followed up and that outcomes have been

mainstreamed?

Evaluation Series 44

ANNEX 2. PEOPLE INTERVIEWED

Jill Blockus, The Nature Conservancy

Marjory-Anne Bromhead, World Bank

Tim Brown, World Bank

Louise Buck, Cornell University

Bruce Campbell, CCAFS

Kerstin Canby, Forest Trends

Muyeye Chambwera, IIED

Diji Chandrasekharan, PROFOR

Marcus Colchester, Forest Peoples Programme

Klaus Deininger, World Bank

Flore de Preneuf, PROFOR

Peter Dewees, PROFOR

Gerhard Dieterle, World Bank

Davison Gumbo, CIFOR Zambia

Peter Hazlewood, WRI

Richard Kaguamba, UNDP

Nalin Kishor, PROFOR

Lars Laestadius, World Resources Institute

Atilla Legyel, CEPF

Edgar Maravi, PROFOR

Grant Milne, World Bank

Isilda Nhanytumbo, IIED Mozambique

Christian Peter, World Bank

Idah Pswarayi-Riddihough, World Bank

Simon Rietbergen, World Bank

Carole Saint-Laurent, IUCN

Sara Scherr, Ecoagriculture

Roger Sedjo, Resources for the Future

Jeff Sayer, IUCN

Frances Seymour, CIFOR

45 Impact Note 1

Alex Smaijgl, CSIRO

John Spears, World Bank Consultant

Hugh Speechly, DFID

Martin Thoroe, CEPF

Dan Tunstall, WRI

Jake Werksman, WRI

Evaluation Series 46

ANNEX 3. ACTIVITIES ELIGIBLE FOR PROFOR SUPPORT

PROFOR will support global, regional, national, and subnational level collaboration among

Governments, the World Bank, donors, the private sector, regional and non-governmental

organizations, and civil society to:

- provide analysis with a focus on (a) the role of forest resources in poverty alleviation,

sustainable economic growth, addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation, and

in protecting and valuing environmental services, (b) forest law enforcement and

governance (FLEG), including issues related to tenure, community rights, benefit sharing,

trade in timber and wood products, etc., (c) sustainable forest management, including

biodiversity conservation; and (d) reducing emissions from deforestation and forest

degradation (REDD+);

- mainstream various aspects of sustainable forest management (SFM) and forest

governance within international agreements, national development strategies, policy

dialogue, and other relevant policy and technical instruments;

- test innovative instruments and approaches, and promote processes leading to better

governance outcomes in forestry;

- develop knowledge products and dissemination to a targeted audience; and to

- build and strengthen networks, partnerships, processes, and stakeholder dialogue.

Source: PROFOR Operational Guidelines (May 2010)

47 Impact Note 1

ANNEX 4. PROFOR LIST OF ACTIVITIES

Sorted and color coded by Region. Theme: Financing SFM (F); Forest Livelihoods (L); Cross-Sectoral Cooperation (C); Forest

Governance (G)

N=84 Activity The

me Region: Countries

C12

Economic Growth and Drivers of Deforestation in the Congo Basin

Cameroon, Central African Republic, Gabon, Democratic Republic of Congo,

Equatorial Guinea and Republic of Congo

C AFR: Congo Basin*

F19 Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Forest Investment Forum F AFR: Eastern and

Southern Africa

L12 Improving Rural Livelihoods and Sustainable Management of Dryland Forests of

Eastern and Southern Africa L

AFR: Eastern and

Southern Africa

G07 Supporting the Global Legal Information Network in Gabon G AFR: Gabon

C07 Forest Landscape Restoration: Ghana C AFR: Ghana

F22 Fostering Partnerships between Local Communities and the Private Sector F AFR: Kenya

G13 Supporting the Development of Liberia's Chain of Custody System G AFR: Liberia

C05 Impact of Artisanal and Small Scale in Protected Areas C AFR: Liberia, Gabon

L15 Policies and Incentives for Managing the Miombo Woodlands L AFR: Miombo

L04 Preparing for REDD+ in dryland forests (11 countries) L AFR: Miombo *

F13 Carbon payments for afforestation/ reforestation work in small scale forest plantations

in Mozambique F AFR: Mozambique

C13 Forestry in the Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenges & Opportunities C AFR: Sub Saharan

G08 Defining Forest Governance Indicators G AFR: Uganda

C11 West Africa Forest Strategy

Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Cote d‟Ivoire, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau C AFR: West Africa

F17 Mobilizing Ecosystem Service Payments in China F China

F21 Developing Forest Policy Analytical Capacity in China F China

G06 Reform of State Forest Management in Northeast China G China

Evaluation Series 48

N=84 Activity The

me Region: Countries

G14 Reforms for China's Collective Forests: Analytical Support on Tenure, Rural

Institutions and Forest Policy and Regulation G China

F02 Certification as a Tool for Sustainable Forest Management and Good Governance -

South East Asia F EAP

G09 ASEAN regional FLEG process G EAP: Asia & Pacific*

F14 Analysis of the Potential for Reducing Carbon Emissions from Deforestation and

Degradation (REDD) in EAP: Indonesia F EAP: Indonesia

L05 Sustainable Use of Natural Resources in EAP: Indonesia L EAP: Indonesia

G11 Forest Governance and Law Enforcement in the Mekong Region

Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam, China, Indonesia, EU G

EAP: Mekong

+China, Indonesia*

F05 Innovative Financing for Sustainable Forest Management in the Southwest Balkans F ECA: Albania,

Kosovo

L06 Forests and Rural Livelihood in the Kyrgyz Republic - Development Potentials L ECA: Kyrgyz Rep.

L11 Private and Community Forestry - Developing Livelihoods on the Basis of Secure

Property Rights -- 2008 L

ECA: Macedonia,

Albania, Serbia

G24 Changes in Forest Management in the Russian Federation and Transition Economies G

ECA: Russia

Federation +

transition

F04 Best Practices in Financing Protected Areas - Lessons for Southeastern Europe F ECA: Southern

Europe

L18 Institutional Changes in Forest Management Experiences L ECA: Transition 18

countries

G25 Forest Institutions in Transition G ECA: Transition

Economies

C10 Targeting watershed rehabilitation investments in Turkey C ECA: Turkey*

G17 Ukraine Forest Sector: Status and Opportunities - 2006 G ECA: Ukraine

C02 Using Forests to Enhance Resilience to Climate Change C Global

C03 Forests and Fragile States C Global

C04 Biochar systems for smallholders in developing countries C Global

49 Impact Note 1

N=84 Activity The

me Region: Countries

C06 Large-scale acquisition of land rights for agricultural or natural resource-based use C Global

C08 Assessing the Potential for Forest Landscape Restoration C Global

C15 Development Policy Lending - Best Practice Case Studies C Global

F01 Evaluating the Effectiveness of Public Spending in Forestry F Global

F07 The Matrix: Mapping Payments for Ecosystem Services F Global

F09 Maximizing learning from REDD Demonstration Activities F Global

F10 Social Impact Assessment of Forest Carbon Projects (toolkit) F Global

F12 Developing A Carbon Payment Scheme On Certified Forest Concessions F Global

F15 Analysis of Financing Flows and Needs to Implement the Non-Legally Binding

Instrument (NLBI) on All Types of Forests F Global

F16 Exploring the Potential for Avoided Deforestation F Global

F18 Catalyzing Payments for Ecosystem Services F Global

F24 Forest Investment Forum F Global

F25 Reforming Forest Fiscal Systems F Global

G10 Information Management and Forest Governance G Global

G12 Community Round Table on Decentralization

Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Philippines G Global

G18 The Role of CITES in Controlling Illegal Logging G Global

G19

Institutional Choice and Recognition in Forestry

Benin, Botswana, Brazil, China, India, Nicaragua, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique, Russia,

Senegal, S. Africa, Zambia.

G Global

G20 Tools for Civil Society Action to Reduce Forest Corruption G Global

G22 Forests in Landscapes: Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability G Global

G26 Implementing the Proposals for Action of the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and

the Intergovernmental Forum on Forests G Global

L01 Making Benefit Sharing Arrangements Work for Forest Dependent Communities L Global

Evaluation Series 50

N=84 Activity The

me Region: Countries

L07 Multifunctional Agriculture and Forest Landscape Mosaics (toolkit)

Congo, Ghana, Uganda, Kenya, Honduras, Indonesia L

Global

L16 Justice in the Forests - Rural Livelihoods and Forest Law Enforcement L Global

F06 Forest Connect: Supporting Small and Medium Forest Enterprises (toolkit) (Phase

AII) F Global*

G15

Building Local Democracy through Natural Resources Interventions – Oct. 2008

Benin, Botswana, Brazil, China, SAR: India, Nicaragua, Malawi, Mali, Mozambique,

Russia, Senegal, S. Africa, Zambia

G Global*

F23 Evaluating the Flows of Financing for Sustainable Forest Management F Global UN Support*

L09

Poverty-Forests Linkages Toolkit

Indonesian Papua and Tanzania. A consortium carried out pilots of the Toolkit in

Cameroon, Ghana, Madagascar, Uganda.

L Global*

C01 Knowledge Sharing for REDD Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean C LAC

C14 Examining Land Management Policies in the Brazilian Amazon C LAC: Brazil

F20 Searching for Viable Alternatives to Secure Basis for the Financial Sustainability of

Forests F LAC: Costa Rica

L13 Forest Resource Access and Local Livelihoods L LAC: Guat, Hond,

Nicarg, Bolivia, Brazil

G02 Auditing Timber Supply to the Forest Industry in Guatemala G LAC: Guatemala

G05 Strategy to Combat Illegal Forest Activities in Guatemala (2 Phases) G LAC: Guatemala

G03 National Timber Yield Tables for Mahogany (2 Phases) G LAC: Guatemala,

Peru*

G01 Supporting Forest Stakeholders' Participation in Forest Consultative Councils G LAC: Honduras

L08 Community Forestry Enterprise Competitiveness and Access to Markets in Mexico L LAC: Mexico

G23 Forests: A Resource for Development G LAC: Mexico, Guat,

Bolivia, China

F03 Strengthening the Value Chain for Indigenous and Community Forestry Operations F LAC: Mexico, Guat,

Honduras

51 Impact Note 1

N=84 Activity The

me Region: Countries

G16 Informal Institutions and Forest Resource Governance G

LAC: Nicar,

Honduras, Brazil,

Bolivia,

G04 Independent Forest Monitoring in Nicaragua G LAC: Nicaragua

F11 Competitiveness of Forest Products in Paraguay F LAC: Paraguay

C09 Implications of the changes in agro-food and fuel prices on rural livelihoods and

forests C MENA: Syria

L03 Desert Cloud Forests in Yemen and Oman L MENA: Yemen,

Oman

F08 Forest Enterprise Information Exchange (FEINEX) F SAR: India

G21 Benchmarking Public Service Delivery at the Forest Fringes in Jharkhand, SAR: India G SAR: India

L14 Lessons from SAR: Indian Watershed Management Projects L SAR: India

L17 Forest policy dialogue in SAR: India L SAR: India

L10 Measuring Poverty Impacts of Forest Programs in SAR: India L SAR: India*

L02 Nepal Forest Sector Strategy L SAR: Nepal