A Review of the Literature
This literature review was used to develop the concepts and analysis for the full-length study, In Good Company: Effective Alliances for Conservation, published by BSP's Analysis and Adaptive Management Program in October 2000 and available in hard copy and electronically on the Web.
The Analysis and Adaptive Management program was established to learn about ways to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of conservation efforts around the world. We do this by conducting practitioner-focused, applied research to clarify the conditions under which certain conservation strategies work. The publication In Good Company: Effective Alliances for Conservation resulted from research we undertook to address two important questions:
- What are the characteristics of effective conservation alliances and their member organizations?
- What are key principles that can help organizations work together more efficiently?
The bulk of our research involved looking at the portfolio of projects of the Biodiversity Conservation Network (BCN), a large grant program within BSP that funded 20 different alliances. These alliances were primarily comprised of local, national, and international nongovernmental organizations. We looked at how these organizations interacted within the alliances, and what features seemed to be most associated with conservation success.
The foundation of our study was a framework of Conventional Wisdom that we developed from the literature and our preliminary exploration of conservation alliances, and we organized our results according to this framework. This review is published solely on the BSP Web site to provide additional detail for those readers interested in the secondary background research conducted in preparation forIn Good Company.
Organizations
A broad array of organizations is often involved in conservation projects. Governmental organizations, academic and research institutions, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) all participate in these projects to varying degrees. While the literature on these types of organizations within the conservation context is limited, there is a wealth of information on such organizations within the development context. Given the overlap between conservation and development projects, we reviewed the literature from both sectors.
The first step in our study was to examine the key characteristics of effective organizations. The key organizational characteristics that we discuss are as listed here.
- Typologies of Organizations
- Organizational Categories
- Organizational Resources
- Clarity of Goals
- Flexibility
- Decision Making
- Leadership
- Staff Characteristics, Size, and Location
- Age, Credibility, and Time at Site
- Encouragement of Local Participation
Typologies of Organizations
Numerous attempts have been made to describe and assess the variety of organizations involved in development projects. Most of the literature relevant to this study is found in a large and growing body of research focused specifically on NGOs. It is immediately clear to anyone working in this field that a dizzying variety of terms (often with a high degree of overlap) and acronyms are used to characterize NGOs. The clusters of local, national, and international organizations shown in Figure 1 demonstrate the variety of overlapping terms used in the literature to characterize NGOs. The figure also conveys the difficulty in categorizing such NGOs as local, national, or international organizations.
Figure 1. Categorization of NGOs by level. This diagram demonstrates the variation in terms used to describe NGOs found in the literature, and also conveys the difficulty in categorizing such NGOs.
Organizational Categories
The literature on conservation and development projects generally identifies organizations by what is referred to as organizational types and levels.
Organizational Type
The three types of organizations most commonly involved in conservation and development projects are NGOs, government agencies, and academic or research institutions (Wells and Brandon 1992, Brandon 1998).
NGOs that work on conservation projects usually have either a conservation or a development focus, although it is becoming more common for them to have asustainable development focus, or one that encompasses both conservation and development. Recent reviews of integrated conservation and development projects (ICDPs) found that NGOs had taken the most active role in project implementation. Furthermore, they indicated that conservation organizations had "previously proved effective in highlighting environmental issues and concerns, devising education and awareness programs, and lobbying governments and international agencies" (Wells and Brandon 1992). Conservation NGOs have also contributed substantially to establishing and managing protected areas by mobilizing funds and providing expatriate technical assistance. Development NGOs are now actively involved in many conservation projects, particularly those with a community development focus.
Government agencies, particularly those concerned with natural resource management and protected areas, are frequently involved in project activities (Wells and Brandon 1992; Little 1994; Clark 1995; Meyer 1996; Brandon 1998). Yet, several reports looking at the role of government in conservation and natural resource management have found that government institutions that deal with these issues are politically weak, underfunded, and have overlapping or unclear jurisdictional mandates (Wells and Brandon 1992; Brandon 1998). They have often relied upon NGO involvement to supplement activities and programs that they themselves would be unable to implement.
Academic and research institutions are often considered good partners because of their relative objectivity, independent funding base, and technical and analytical skills. Such institutions have supplemented the activities of NGOs and government agencies by undertaking analyses of problems or themes that NGOs might consider too long-term or narrow in focus.
Organizational Level
Organizational level refers to the location of a given organization along a continuum of levels, ranging from those closest to the field to those that function primarily at international levels. In general, organizations can be classified as local, national, or international.
Local organizations, also known as village or base-level organizations, are those groups that interact most directly with people at the most local scales—usually at the community level. The literature cites specific types of local organizations, including cooperatives, interest associations, village institutions, and resource user groups.
National organizations are those organizations that work at a national level in a given country. Oftentimes they can play the role of intermediary organizations, linking the smaller local organizations to the larger, international organizations. Donors consider intermediary organizations beneficial because they can improve program efficacy, lower cost per beneficiary, and increase chances of project sustainability (Josiah 1996). Intermediary organizations can be further classified in the literature into grassroots support organizations (GSOs) and membership support organizations (MSOs).
International NGOs are organizations that have a geographic scope that encompasses countries in more than one continent. Many such organizations also have offices based in the countries where they work that interact with the international headquarters office.
Clarity of Goals
There is a consensus in the literature that a clear vision and clear goals are necessary for any effective organization (Tendler 1982; Fisher 1993; Schmale 1993; Ridell et al. 1997; Margoluis and Salafsky 1998). A clear vision and clear goals should translate into the ability to create clear project objectives (Wells 1994; Margoluis and Salafsky 1998). Such clarity is particularly important for organizations whose headquarters office is located away from the field (Suzuki 1998). In a study of intermediate NGOs, Carroll (1992) found that maintaining a well-defined vision enabled organizations to focus on a single task without becoming overburdened and allowed staff to work independently while remaining a cohesive unit.
Flexibility
Flexibility allows organizations to adapt to changing conditions—whether site-based changes due to technical concerns or policy-level shifts at the national level. This applies not only to those intermediary and local organizations that implement programs, but also to international NGOs and donors (Jordan 1996; Howes 1997). Flexibility was the most commonly cited characteristic that makes working with NGOs desirable for other types of organizations (Tendler 1982; Brown and Korten 1991; Clark 199; Brandon and Wells 1992; Reilly 1992; Bebbington and Farrington 1993; Mezzalama and Schumm 1993; Meyer 1996). However, flexibility should not lead organizations "to sacrifice their consistency and core values" (Suzuki 1998). Therefore, NGOs need to balance flexibility with their clear and consistent vision and goals.
Decision Making
In discussing how decisions are made, the literature focused on decentralized and democratic decision making.
Decentralization
Decentralizing the decision-making authority within an organization relieves its headquarters of administrative burdens, enables field staff to make quick decisions, and reduces the communication demands between the headquarters and field offices. Fowler (1997) suggests that decentralization can also increase the trust and flexibility within organizations, and create a positive effect on participation. Decentralization may, however, cause problems by fragmenting the coordinating offices into separately functioning units (Suzuki 1998).
Democratic Process
Several authors discuss the role of a democratic process in decision making, although it is not specifically defined in this context. One can interpret democratic process as decision-making authority within an organization that is widely distributed among its members or staff. Organizations with a non-hierarchical management structure that approach decision making democratically are more likely to have staff that cooperate and participate (Carroll, Schmidt, and Bebbington 1996). By contrast, hierarchical and centralized organizations tend to distance decision makers from the action and therefore reduce the potential for organizational learning. Although there is general agreement in the literature on the need for democratic processes, some pracitioners acknowledge that this type of decision making can be cumbersome.
Leadership
Most people agree that organizations need effective leadership, characterized by creativity, courage, persistence, stamina and charisma, ability to inspire trust, and ability to communicate a clear vision (Josiah 1996). An effective leader should also have an enduring adherence to moral values (Fowler 1997). The literature identifies two broad types of leaders (Clark 1991). The first type is categorized as charismatic. Such leaders have a deep commitment and vision, and they lead by inspiration and personal qualities; however, they often maintain an ill-defined structure and can be somewhat dictatorial in decision making (Clark 1991). A charismatic leader, who is often the founder of an NGO, closely controls decision making, meaning that work can stagnate when this individual is absent. When such a leader leaves an organization, project and even NGO sustainability can become questionable. While charismatic leaders are often good at mobilizing and guiding organizations, they do not necessarily make good managers (Josiah 1996). The second type of leader is categorized as democratic. Democratic leaders generally make decisions through a "collegial process within a tight management structure" (Clark 1991), but this type of decision making can be slow. In addition, because staff members in this situation are more likely to be self-motivated, their individual motivations can lead them in different directions (Clark 1991). Leadership is clearly an important factor in any organization, but it is difficult to determine a style of leadership that both motivates staff and provides an uniting vision while ensuring the sustainability of the organization beyond an individual.
Staff Characteristics, Size, and Location
NGO staff play a central role in determining the performance of the organization. A dedicated, empathetic, and well-trained staff with technical competency is cited as a critical component for NGOs; the lack thereof is a major weakness (Tendler 1982; Brown and Korten 1991; Clark 1991). A number of staff characteristics can potentially affect projects.
Nationality. Local or national staff members allow for skills transfer to and capacity building of people who are more likely to stay and continue to use these skills in the area (Fowler 1997). Teaching skills to expatriates and foreigners is less likely to increase local capacity and lead to project sustainability. Staff members who are from the area may already have relationships formed, and can understand the social dynamics of the community and local customs. Inadequate knowledge of the social fabric has been cited as a major factor in projects that do not reach their potential (Cernea 1988).
Gender. Gender of the staff may also be important. Several authors believe that the presence of women on-site can increase the participation of women in the community. Howes (1997) states that, by appointing women and enabling them to become managers, the Agency for Cooperation and Research in Development (ACORD), an African NGO consortium, has allowed women's issues to be taken seriously and provided a role model for the community.
Experience. Although we did not find literature that directly addressed this issue, we assumed that staff without prior field experience might not be able to adapt and perform well under field conditions. Staff who have spent time at the site before the project began and have the language skills necessary to communicate with the community are likely to be able to form better relationships locally.
Technology Transfer. Finally, it is essential that site-based staff be able to determine the appropriate technology for a project, and effectively transfer that technology to the local community and organizations involved. The technological competency of local NGOs can affect their ability to create sustainable projects successfully (Tendler 1982; Kajese 1987; Reilly 1992).
Staff Size and Location. In addition to the characteristics of individual staff members, size and location of staff can also matter. Steedly and Foley (1990) found that the number of full-time employees was an indicator of the strength of groups involved with social protest, which helped to predict the outcome. Following this line of reasoning, we can assume that a greater number of staff would lead to a more effective organization. On-site staffing is a critical issue. If organizations are located away from the project site, they must decide whether they need field-based project staff. A field presence can increase the level of trust between the communities and the organizations involved in the project, which, according to Yadama (1995), can increase local participation.
The above-mentioned characteristics and issues are discussed briefly in the literature, but given their potential to affect projects, there is surprisingly little information available, possibly because it is assumed that projects have site-specific staff needs.
Age, Credibility, and Time at Site
Because credibility is established over time, it is no surprise that it may be affected by the age of an organization; older organizations may be seen as established and reliable. As the NGO sector continues to grow, more NGOs are being created and others are dissolving, often within a short time. Older organizations have an advantage since they have a verifiable track record. Even if an organization has experienced numerous changes over time, age often brings experience and learning. Credibility is advantageous, but it is unclear how much it affects the ability of an organization to implement successful projects or work with other organizations.
Encouragement of Local Participation
Encouraging local participation is probably the most widely covered topic in the literature. Most authors seem to agree that community participation is an essential component of any community-based project. The current question is not whether the community should participate, but how can it participate most effectively. Creating mechanisms for participation at the outset of a project can be an important first step. It is debatable if the actual origin of the project idea is important. Schmale (1993) argues that "the decisive question is not so much who initiates a development process but rather who eventually controls or owns it." Yet, several authors from developing countries have indicated that the origin of the idea is important, emphasizing that people in developing countries must cease to be only therecipientsof ideas (Nyoni 1987).
The issue of idea origination is complicated by the fact that most of the above-mentioned literature deals with development projects, where objectives are often aligned with the needs of the community. However, when the focus is shifted to conservation projects, it becomes more difficult to have an idea that originates from the community, as conservation objectives may not be directly aligned with the needs of local people. The problem, recognized by Brandon and Wells (1992), is that the community may think differently about how resources should be used, and therefore have project ideas that differ from what the conservation community would advocate.
Participation in the planning and designing of a project increases the sense of responsibility and ownership of it within the community (Hino 1996). This could prove beneficial because a sense of responsibility can lead to increased cooperation in participation (Esman and Uphoff 1984). The literature cites several cases where participation in the initial stages allowed (or could have allowed) for more effectively designed projects.
Another means of increasing participation is by working with local organizations. The current debate is whether projects should include existing local organizations or try to create new ones. Existing local organizations have certain strengths, such as trust and legitimacy, as well as weaknesses, such as domination by the elite and the reinforcement of inequality. On this point, most authors advocate including existing local organizations unless it proves necessary to create new ones (Esman and Uphoff 1984; Reilly 1992; Fisher 1993; Howes 1997). Several authors cite examples where incorporation or neglect of existing local organizations was a significant factor in the outcome of the projects. A review of 25 World Bank projects attempted to determine empirically the consequences of not involving local, grassroots NGOs: 13 out of the 25 projects failed the long-term sustainability test, a result which was attributed to this lack of involvement (Cernea 1988).
In addition to emphasizing the role of local NGOs to ensure local participation, the literature also emphasizes the role of gender and the need to actively include women in the projects. The argument has recently shifted from ensuring the inclusion of women to specifics abouthowto include them successfully. Because attempts by NGOs to change women's roles may have broad cultural and socioeconomic impacts, the approaches used to increase women's involvement must be culturally sensitive. However, Yudelman (1987) argues that attention must still be devoted to addressing the issue of empowering women and to actions that do not reinforce social inequality. One such approach is referred to as gender and development, or GAD. Unlike earlier approaches that created separate programs for women, GAD examines the roles of each gender in the community, looking for ways to enhance their complementary aspects and increase their equality (Fowler 1997). Increasing women's participation is promoted through a variety of means, such as increasing women's knowledge of resource and technology issues, and hiring female staff members at the site level where they can interact with women in the local community (Saad 1996; Howes 1997).
From Organization to Alliance: Forming Effective Relationships
The previous section focused on the organizations involved in projects and characteristics that influence their effectiveness. Yet, as both conservation and development NGOs broaden their scope of work, the number of organizations that choose to work together also increases. By collaborating, organizations can work with others who have complementary skills, allowing them to implement more complex projects than they could by working alone. Both the literature and conservation practitioners support this idea. For example, Esman and Uphoff (1984) conducted a study that found no instances "where only one institution was carrying the full responsibility for rural development or where complementarities were not important." Although there is a great emphasis on partnerships and alliances in conservation projects, there is less information on how they can be effective (Wells and Brandon 1992; McNeely 1995; Brandon1998).
A project implemented by an alliance is affected not only by the efficacy of the participating organizations but also by how well they work together. This section discusses relationships that organizations can develop with each other, donors, and government agencies. Although the literature on alliances or collaborative efforts is limited, many characteristics that are important within individual organizations can be applied to alliances. Where we believe this to be the case, we note our assumptions. The descriptions, characteristics, and effectiveness of organizational alliances that appear in this section are organized as follows.
- Justification for Alliances
- Participation in Alliances
- Membership, Structure, and Linkage
- Clarity of Goals
- Flexibility
- Decision Making
- Leadership
- Clarity of Roles
- Administrative Capacity
- NGO Relationships with Other Organizations
The literature on alliances is still developing. As alliances become more common, this body of literature will surely continue to expand. Currently greater standardization of terms is needed to facilitate learning within this literature. With each author using different terms, it is difficult to make accurate comparisons, which are needed to enable effective learning. As previously mentioned, we made numerous assumptions in this literature based on the organizational literature. In theory, many of the characteristics that are important at the individual organization level should be important at the alliance level as well.
Justification for Alliances
The need for multiple organizations to be involved in conservation activities is well established in the conservation literature. For example, in a study of 23 Integrated Conservation and Development Projects (ICDPs) in or adjacent to protected areas, Wells and Brandon (1992) noted that: "… working independently, none of these organizations can effectively plan and implement ICDPs. One of the clearest lessons from this study is that implementation of the next generation of ICDP initiatives linking ecosystem protection with local economic development needs to involve significantly larger collaboration among governments, conservation groups, development organizations, and aid agencies." The IUCN publication Expanding Partnerships in Conservation indicates that maintaining protected areas requires building "stronger partnerships to support conservation at international, national, and local levels" (McNeely 1995). In general, there is widespread acceptance that conservation efforts, particularly for complex projects, are unlikely to succeed unless several organizations are involved. While most current studies affirm that a variety of actors is needed for conservation projects to succeed, little attention is given to the forms or structures that lead to the most effective partnerships or alliances.
Participation in Alliances
The terms alliance, network, and partnership are often used interchangeably to connote a relationship among two or more organizations. In reality, several types of collaborative relationships are possible, but the literature lacks standard terminology to describe them, which makes comparisons difficult. For the sake of accuracy, we use the authors' terms and do not try to reconcile them in this section.
Networking is a term commonly used in the literature to denote several types of collaboration between organizations. It is loosely defined as "the process of being willing to listen and learn from each other" (Mezzalama and Schumm 1993). Networks are considered the key to increasing self-reliance and transparency, while reducing corruption (Fisher 1994). They can be an important means of information sharing for NGOs and can increase institutional stability and efficiency (Josiah 1996). NGOs working in proximity can increase their individual impact and reach a larger audience by loosely networking; when several NGOs work in physical proximity without coordination, the effect can be a patchwork of unconnected projects with limited impact (Smith 1987; Cernea 1988; Mezzalama and Schumm 1993).
Several authors discuss potential benefits of networks and partnerships. Participation in networks and partnerships is cited as being critical to the potential efficacy of NGOs and the success of their projects (Carroll 1992; Fisher 1993; Saint-Martin 1994; Edwards and Hulme 1996a; Ridell et al. 1997). In fact, studies by Tendler (1982) and Jordan (1996) cite the ability to network successfully as a major factor affecting project success, while the failure to create such linkages is a major weakness (Tendler 1982; Brown and Korten 1991).
Forming a partnership, a relationship that is more formal than a network, can provide the benefits of complementarity in production, which allows organizations to "…produce more public goods than would otherwise be possible" (Meyer 1996). For example, Yadama (1995) noted that NGOs could have an advantage in the marketplace if they pooled their resources at the regional level. Collaboration between NGOs allows for replication rather than duplication of projects. Duplication involves creating similar projects in different regions that are not connected and therefore do not learn from each others' mistakes: "…NGOs become so many islands in the sea of society, uncoordinated and with limited impact, full of goodwill but incapable of providing solutions that can be replicated" (Janssens 1995). Replication encourages the sharing of lessons learned, which encourages sustainability by ensuring that projects combine the successful ingredients of past projects and learn from their failures (Jordan 1996).
Despite the advantages of participating in a network or partnership, not all NGOs want to link with others. Some may find networks too time-consuming (Josiah 1996), and others may be fearful of competition over funding or autonomy (Mezzalama and Schumm 1993). For example, in the Vishakaptnam District of India, NGOs are so competitive that they refer to each village as belonging to a particular NGO. Ultimately, such competitiveness undermines local trust (Yadama 1995). At the other extreme, some NGOs become so involved in multiple networks that they are unable to deal with their own projects and objectives (Fowler 1997).
Given the emphasis on the need for collaboration, there is surprisingly little information about what can affect these collaborative efforts. Covey (1996) warns that too many members in a network can cause problems. Moeliono and Fisher (1991) make suggestions for increasing the effectiveness of networks; of these suggestions, the following are applicable to all types of alliances.
- Form around concrete activities that encourage participation and enthusiasm.
- Establish and maintain clear objectives.
- Identify a core group of people involved who take initiative and responsibility, while still seeking out participation from other individuals and agencies.
- Create dynamic structures that change and adapt over time.
- Lessen dependence on outside resources.
Terms and Definitions for Analytical Clarity
Because the literature lacks any level of standardization in terminology, we propose the following set of definitions for the purpose of analytical clarity.
Alliance—a broad term used to describe an arrangement between collaborating organizations. It includes the following specific types of arrangements, each of which has a particular structure and commitment:
- Consortium—three or more organizations working together on specific projects, involving, to varying degrees, joint liability and joint decision making. The relationship involves more than information sharing.
- Partnership—two organizations whose working relationship is similar to that of a consortium. The term is used inconsistently throughout the literature.
- Contractual Agreement—arrangement whereby the implementing organization hires other organizations and individuals for specific tasks and work. Contracted organizations may or may not share in the decision making or liability of the project, depending on the specific agreement.
Nested Alliance—alliance in which one of the organizations involved was created by one or more of the others.
Network—loosest form of collaboration, comprised of organizations that share information. The term is often used broadly to encompass all others.
The terms presented here are used throughout our complete study In Good Company: Effective Alliances for Conservation with the greatest possible degree of precision. However, in the remainder of this review, where we draw upon outside literature, it was not always possible to define clearly what the authors intended and to classify them within this framework.
Membership, Structure, and Linkage
Alliances inherently build on the strengths and weaknesses of their participating organizations. Organizations that enter into alliances may represent different sectors(e.g., conservation or development),types (e.g., NGOs, government, or academic), and levels (e.g., local, national, or international).
Organizations can be linked in alliances in several ways. Uphoff (1986) categorizes linkages by the levels at which the organizations involved work. Vertical linkages exist between organizations working at different levels (international, national, or local) and horizontal linkages exist between organizations working at the same level.
In the discussions of vertical linkages, the emphasis is on intermediary NGOs (also referred to as Membership Support Organizations (MSOs) and Grassroots Support Organizations (GSOs), because they provide the link between international agencies and local organizations. Intermediary NGOs are commonly the national NGOs from the country in which the project is based. They can play the valuable role of facilitating donors' ability to work with large, reputable NGOs at the local or regional level, while ensuring that funds reach the grassroots level. From the donor's perspective, intermediary NGOs provide improved program efficacy, lower cost per beneficiary, and increase chances of sustainability (Josiah 1996). From a local organization's perspective, intermediary NGOs provide technical and organizational support that would not be possible from large donors. They also increase funding potential by raising the visibility of local organizations with donors and government (Josiah 1996).
Both vertical and horizontal linkages can be found in any type of alliance. Carroll (1992) found that NGOs are most successful when they are linked in both ways. Having multiple linkages can be important as individual links may become ineffective or temporarily incapacitated (Esman and Uphoff 1984). There appears to be consensus in the literature on the benefits that alliances can offer; however, given the varying types of alliances, each organization must determine the level of linkage most appropriate to each situation.
Clarity of Goals
According to the literature, one of the most important factors for both individual organizations and alliances is having clear project goals (Moeliono and Fisher 1991; Fowler 1997). For an alliance, clear goals help keep the organizations working together and focused on common objectives. In a study of the efficacy of alliances, Covey (1996) found that a clear vision acts as a cohesive force within alliances that prevents the organizations from becoming too ideologically diverse.
The ability to establish and maintain clear goals can be affected by those in the alliance. To work together effectively, organizations must overlap, to a certain degree, in what they hope the project achieves. Such overlap is likely to occur when organizations are similarly oriented. For example, a conservation organization may find it easier to work with another conservation group because they both focus primarily on conservation outcomes. However, when development and conservation organizations work together, their respective goals may differ widely. Even if their goals overlap at the outset, changes in the project may bring about inevitable differences, as determined by their organization's orientation. One study that examined ICDPs found that difficulties arise when "the various organizations working in a particular area [do] not necessarily share any common philosophy or objective, nor is there coordination among activities undertaken by different organizations" (Brandon 1998). Clear goals are extremely important in an alliance, yet they may be more difficult to establish and maintain when member organizations are more diverse.
Flexibility
While flexibility is discussed at length in the organizational literature, there is less discussion of it when referring specifically to alliances. It would seem, however, to be equally important in both contexts. The literature does indicate that the flexibility of an alliance may affect its ability to maintain clear goals. Similarly, there may be trade-offs between the flexibility of an alliance and its ability to establish and maintain clear goals.
Decision Making
While decision making within alliances is not specifically discussed in the literature, we assume that lessons can be extrapolated from the organizational literature. Decentralization should be equally important at the alliance level and may have effects similar to those at the organizational level. Democratic processes may also be important. If they increase the trust and flexibility within an organization, we can speculate that they will have similar effects in an alliance. It is clear, however, that alliances need a clear, unified decision-making process. When looking at ICDPs, Brandon (1998) found that "In the absence of a unified coordinating authority, and when there is a high level of involvement from outside groups, a lack of coordination or of a common strategy among the institutions and projects working in those areas hinders conservation objectives."
Leadership
Like decision making, leadership within alliances was not specifically discussed in the literature. Given the importance of good leadership within an organization, we can assume that leadership is equally important within an alliance. The number of leaders necessary at this level, however, is unclear.
Clarity of Roles
A large body of literature discusses the division of labor in conservation and development projects. Writers from developing countries (which are often referred to as the "South" in these articles) express the need for a new division of labor that involves delegating more responsibility to the Southern NGOs (Kanyinga 1995). Such division would allow local NGOs to become more involved in project planning and design, rather than solely in implementation (Bebbington and Farrington 1993). It would enable decisions to be made closer to the grassroots level that they affect (Smith 1987). One author argues that all work on projects should be restricted to local labor unless outside help proves necessary (Kajese 1987).
By delegating more responsibility to NGOs involved in developing countries, NGOs in the "North," or more developed countries, could spend more time on education, information advocacy (Saint-Martin 1994), and fundraising (Smith 1987). Many authors argue that these NGOs should play a supportive role to local NGOs rather than a competitive one and provide Southern NGOs practical support for institution building, moral support, skills transfer, and financial assistance (Mezzalama and Schumm 1993). International NGOs (or those from the "North") should also commit to learning about the social environment of each community in which they work (Reilly 1993; Fowler 1997), which would help projects become more culturally sensitive, and thus enhance cooperation and participation (Meyer 1995).
The literature provides several suggestions on how organizations may be able to play more effective roles in conservation projects. In addition, it is clear that, in many projects, especially ICDPs, organizations working in the same geographic region, or even as alliance members, have failed to lay out a clear division of labor.
Administrative Capacity
Most of the literature has not addressed the administrative capacity of alliances, although this subject clearly deserves more scrutiny. One study of 23 conservation projects implemented largely by alliances found that administrative staff were "overwhelmed by requirements to write detailed proposals and evaluation reports and to meet regularly with donors. In some cases, these tasks were overwhelming the modest administrative capacities of the organizations and detracting from the pressing daily management needs of the projects" (Brandon 1998).
Nevertheless, it seems clear that weak overall administrative capacity makes difficulty on a variety of fronts more likely. In particular, all financial matters—from grants received by projects, to payroll for field-based staff—may be compromised if administrative capacity is low. Ultimately, the problems that can result from this lack of capacity may affect the project itself.
NGO Relationships with Other Organizations
A wide and growing body of literature focuses on the relationships between NGOs and other organizations, principally governments and donors.
Relationships with Goverments
Governments can be valuable members of alliances. As a wide range of relationships between governments and NGOs are possible, authors tend to classify these relationships slightly differently. Based on the literature, these relationships can be generally combined into three broad categories.
- Collaborative—working relationship
- Cooperative—non-conflictive, non-collaborative relationship
- Conflictive—unfriendly or hostile relationship
In a collaborative relationship, the NGO and government establish a working relationship. This relationship can range from purely collaborative to completely co-optive, where the NGO acts as an arm of the government. Many NGOs do not pursue a collaborative relationship because they fear the loss of autonomy. But such a relationship may offer some advantages. Meyer (1996) argues that the National Biodiversity Institute, one of the most successful NGOs in Costa Rica, owes at least part of its success to the monopoly it has over certain projects due to its relationship with the government. This type of relationship is becoming more common as many governments — including those of Chile, India, and Brazil—need additional help and hire NGOs to fill the gaps (Little 1994; Clark 1995). Although the categories used by the authors differ slightly, the collaborative relationship could include the dependent client position described by Clark (1995), the co-optation/absorption relationship described by Riker (1995a), and the government takeover described by Tendler (1982).
NGOs can also form a cooperative relationship with the government. This relationship is non-conflictive and non-collaborative, with the two actors exhibiting benign tolerance toward each other and cooperating on projects if desired. As the government provides the basic infrastructure to the country, the NGOs inevitably end up dependent on the government in some fashion (Bebbington and Farrington 1993; Wells 1994). Therefore, Bebbington and Farrington (1993) suggest that NGOs should maintain a friendly enough relationship with the government in order to have some influence over decisions that may affect them. This relationship could include a complementary component (Tendler 1982), as well as some of the collaborative elements described in the literature (Riker 1995a).
The relationship formed between an NGO and the government could also be a conflictive relationship. In many cases, governments view NGOs as a threat to national security or even as a competitor for international funds. Kanyinga (1995) suggests that this is what occurred in Kenya in the 1980s when disillusionment with the government led donors to bypass governmental agencies and channel more funds into NGOs. When threatened, governments typically take one of three actions: (1) claim credit for the NGO's accomplishments, (2) hinder NGO operations, or (3) create similar institutions with similar goals within the government (Brown and Korten 1991). Several authors imply that an inverse relationship exists between the level of security a government feels with its legitimacy and the relationships it forms with NGOs (Brown and Korten 1991; Josiah 1996).
How an NGO interacts with a government depends largely on the sociopolitical environment; however, most authors suggest avoiding an adverse relationship, if possible. The power and importance of a government are demonstrated by the role that it plays in all activities of the country, both directly and indirectly (Barrett and Arcese 1995). Esman and Uphoff (1984) found that "low linkage" with the government is better than none and that "high linkage with some reciprocity" with the government is better than "highest linkage," where interaction is controlled by the government. Clark (1995) agreed that the best relationship with the government occurs when restrictions are minimized and NGOs can receive funds from any source.
Donor Relationships
Although most of the literature discusses the relationships between individual organizations and donors, we include the relationships between NGO alliances and donors in this section because they are more relevant to our study sample. Many organizations feel a sense of multiple accountability—to their beneficiaries, donors, and other sources of funding (Edwards and Hulme 1996a). This is problematic if the organization changes its policy and actions primarily to please donors. Van Der Heijden cites an African proverb that captures this idea: "If you have your hand in another man's pocket, you must move when he moves" (Van Der Heijden 1987). Multiple accountability can also cause NGOs to become more concerned with their own financial survival than their programs. This shift in agendas due to funding concerns is considered one of the major weaknesses of many NGOs (Mezzalama and Schumm 1993). It causes NGOs to avoid tough issues because they cannot risk the prospect of appearing to donor agencies as having failed.
A common complaint is that donors' funding cycles are too short, which can variously affect projects. For example, NGOs may expect results sooner than are possible or may implement projects less effectively in order to meet a deadline. Longer funding periods can decrease NGO anxiety and instability (Van Der Heijden 1987) and reduce the chance of project collapse, which is one of the major weaknesses of NGO projects in general (Cernea 1988; Brown and Korten 1991). Long-term financing can also reduce the competition that accompanies short funding cycles, which in turn can cause NGOs to implement technology without thoroughly testing its effectiveness (Bebbington and Farrington 1993).
International and governmental donors pose additional problems for NGOs. International donors may be more concerned with a specific topic than the real issues of a particular community (Meyer 1995). As NGOs orient projects to respond to donor interest, changes in donor preferences can cause project discontinuities and funding delays (Fisher 1993). NGOs that are dependent on government funds face additional risks of losing autonomy (Brown and Korten 1991), drifting away from humanitarian issues (Fox 1987), and becoming unwilling to criticize the government (Van Der Heijden 1987).
Donors need to re-examine their expectations of NGOs. Restrictions on how money can be allocated within each project often accompany donor grants. Brown and Korten (1991) suggest that funding should be given as broadly defined grants to be evaluated in terms of general development rather than specific outputs. Evidence suggests that institutional support is correlated with better NGO performance than support that required specific outputs (Carroll 1992; Edwards and Hulme 1996a). If donors acknowledge capacity building as a priority and allocate money accordingly, the donors themselves will benefit as the local NGOs will be more effective and be able to tackle more complex problems (Josiah 1996).
To Learn More
The authors of this review encourage others to continue learning more about what makes for effective alliances in conservation. These resources can help support that learning.
Suggested Readings
Brandon, K., K. H. Redbird, and S. E. Sanderson, eds. 1998. Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Carroll, T. F. 1992.Intermediary NGOs: The supporting link in grassroots development. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Cernea, M. 1988.Nongovernmental organizations and local development. World Bank Discussion Paper 40. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Edwards, M., and D. Hulme, eds. 1996.Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Fisher, J. 1993.The road from Rio: Sustainable development and the nongovernmental movement in the third world. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Fowler, A. 1997.Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of nongovernmental organizations in international development. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.
Margoluis, R., and N. Salafsky. 1998.Measures of success: Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
References
Barrett, C. B., and P. Arcese. 1995. Are integrated conservation-development projects (ICDPs) sustainable? On the conservation of large mammals in Sub-Saharan Africa.World Development23(7):1073-1084.
Bebbington, A., and J. Farrington. 1993. Governments, NGOs and agricultural development: Perspectives on changing inter-organizational relationships. The Journal of Development Studies29(2):199-219.
Bhatnagar, B. 1991.Nongovernmental organizations and World Bank supported projects in Asia: Lessons learned. Departmental Papers Series, No. 2., Technical Department. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Biodiversity Conservation Network. 1997. Getting down to business. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.
_______. 1999b. Patterns in conservation. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.
Booth, G. A. 1993.Biological diversity monitoring indicators within a natural resources management framework for Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Brandon, K. and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and parks: Design dilemmas. World Development20(4):557-570.
Brandon, K., K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson, eds. 1998. Parks in peril: People, politics and protected areas. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Brown, L. D., and D. C. Korten. 1991. Working more effectively with nongovernmental organizations. InNongovernmental organizations and the World Bank, eds. S. Paul and A. Israel, pp. 44-93. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Carroll, T. F. 1992. Intermediary NGOs:The supporting link in grassroots development. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Carroll, T., M. Schmidt, and T. Bebbington. 1996.Participation through intermediary NGOs. World Bank Participation Series, No. 031. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Cernea, M. 1988.Nongovernmental organizations and local development. World Bank Discussion Papers, No. 40. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Clark, J. 1991.Democratizing development: The role of voluntary organizations. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
_______. 1995. The state, popular participation, and the voluntary sector. World Development23(4):593-601.
Cohen, J. M., and N. T. Uphoff. 1977.Rural development participation: Concepts and measures for project design, implementation and evaluation. Rural Development Committee Center for International Studies. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
Covey, J. G. 1996. Accountability and effectiveness in NGO policy alliances. InBeyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world, eds. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, pp. 198-214. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Donovan, R. 1994. BOSCOSA: Forest conservation and management through local institutions. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 215-233. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Edwards, M., and D. Hulme. 1996a. Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world? Lessons and conclusions. In Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world, eds. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, pp. 254-266. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
_______. 1996b. Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations.World Development24(6):961-973.
Egger, P., and J. Majeres. 1992. Local resource management and development: Strategic dimensions of people's participation. InGrassroots environmental action: People's participation in sustainable development, eds. D. Ghai and J. M. Vivian, pp. 304-324. London: Routledge.
Elliot, C. 1987. Some aspects of relations between the North and South in the NGO sector.World Development15(Supplement):57-68.
Esman, M. J., and N. T. Uphoff. 1984. Local organizations: Intermediaries in rural development. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Fernandez, A. P. 1987. NGOs in South Asia: People's participation and partnership. World Development15(Supplement):39-49.
Fisher, J. 1993.The road from Rio: Sustainable development and the nongovernmental movement in the third world. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
_______. 1994. Is the iron law of oligarchy rusting away in the third world? World Development22(2):129-143.
_______. 1998.Nongovernments: NGOs and the political development of the third world. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Fowler, A. 1997.Striking a balance: A guide to enhancing the effectiveness of nongovernmental organisations in international development. London: Earthscan Publications, Ltd.
Fox, T. H. 1987. NGOs from the United States.World Development15(Supplement):11-19.
Hino, T. 1996.A tale of two projects: Lessons drawn from World Bank NGO-partnerships. Poverty and Social Policy Department Discussion Paper Series, No. 90. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Hope, K. R., Sr. 1996. Promoting sustainable community development in developing countries: The role of the technology transfer.Community Development Journal 31(3):193-200.
Howes, M. 1997. NGOs and the development of local institutions: A Ugandan case study.Journal of Modern African Studies35(1):17-35.
Hyman, E., and K. Dearden. 1998. Tracking the impact of microenterprise programs: The experience of nongovernmental organizations.Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal16(3):195-202.
Janssens, A. 1995. Alternative financing: Cost recovery…and more.Grassroots Development19(2):23-28.
Johnson, A. 1997. Processes for effecting community participation in conservation drives: A case study of the Crater Mountain Wildlife Management Area. InThe political economy of forest management in PNG, ed. C. Filer. National Research Institute Monograph Series. Port Moresby: National Research Institute.
Jordan, P. L. 1996.Strengthening the public-private partnership: An assessment of USAID's management of PVO and NGO activities. Program and Operations Assessment Report, No. 13. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Josiah, S. J. 1996. Local action for global change: Expanding the impacts of NGO natural resource conservation programs. Ph.D. diss., University of Minnesota.
Kajese, K. 1987. An agenda of future tasks for international and indigenous NGOs: Views from the South.World Development15(Supplement):79-85.
Kanyinga, K. 1995. The politics of development space in Kenya. InService provision under stress in east Africa, eds. J. Semboja and O. Therkildsen, pp. 70-86. London: Villiers Publications, Ltd.
Kleymeyer, C. D. 1994. Cultural traditions and community based conservation. In Natural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 323-346. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Kumar, K. 1989.Indicators for measuring changes in income, food availability and consumption. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Little, P. D. 1994. The link between local participation and improved conservation: A review of issues and experiences. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 347-372. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Mahanty, S., and D. Russell. 1999. What's at stake? A study of stakeholder organizations in conservation and development projects. Draft.
Malena, C. 1997.NGO involvement in World Bank-financed social funds: Lessons learned. Environment Department Papers, No. 052. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Margoluis, R. and N. Salafsky. 1998.Measures of success: Designing, managing, and monitoring conservation and development projects. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Marklein, M. B. 1991. Putting the world right side up: The grassroots perspective. Grassroots Development: Journal of the Inter-American Foundation15(1):8-15.
McNeely, J. A. 1995.Expanding partnerships in conservation. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Metcalfe, S. 1994. The Zimbabwe Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 161-192. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Meyer, C. 1995. Opportunism and NGOs: Entrepreneurship and green North-South transfers.World Development23(8):1277-1289.
_______. 1996. NGOs and environmental public goods: Institutional alternatives to property rights.Development and Change27:453-474.
Mezzalama, F., and S. Schumm. 1993.Working with NGOs: Operational activities for development of the United Nations system with nongovernmental organizations and governments at the grassroots and national levels. Joint Inspection Unit. Geneva: United Nations.
Moeliono, I., and L. Fisher. 1991. Networking for development: Some experiences and observations. Paper presented at Workshop on Networking for LEISA, Philippines.
Murphree, M. 1994. The role of institutions in community based conservation. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 403-427. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Nyoni, S. 1987. Indigenous NGOs: Liberation, self reliance and development. World Development15(Supplement):51-56.
Otto, J. 1993.Seeking success: Where and how to look for success factors in USAID/NGO natural resource management plans in Africa. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Reilly, C. A. 1992. Who should manage environmental problems? Some lessons from Latin America. InGrassroots environmental action: People's participation in sustainable development, eds. D. Ghai and J. M. Vivian, pp. 325-347. London: Routledge.
_______. 1993. The road from Rio: NGO policy makers and the social ecology of development.Grassroots Development17(1):25-35.
Ridell, R. C., S. E. Kruse, T. Kyllönen, S. Ojanperä, and J. L. Vielajus. 1997. Searching for impact and methods: NGO evaluation synthesis study. Department for International Development Cooperation, Finland.
Riker, J. V. 1995a. Contending perspectives for interpreting government-NGO relations in South and Southeast Asia: Constraints, challenges and the search for common ground in rural development. InGovernment-NGO relations in Asia: Prospects and challenges for people centered development, eds. N. Heyzer, J. V. Riker, and A. B. Quizon, pp. 15-57. New York: St. Martin's Press.
_______. 1995b. From cooptation to cooperation and collaboration in government-NGO relations: Toward an enabling policy for people centred development in Asia. InGovernment-NGO relations in Asia: Prospects and challenges for people centered development, eds. N. Heyzer, J. V. Riker, and A. B. Quizon, pp. 91-130.New York: St. Martin's Press.
Saad, S. G. 1996. Integrating gender and environment into NGO training. Natural Resources Forum20(2):135-144.
Saint-Martin, J. G. 1994. Increasing NGO influence on development policy. Peace Research26(1):79-86.
Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 1999. Threat reduction assessment.Conservation Biology13(4):830-841.
Salafsky, N., and R. Margoluis. 2000. Measuring Conservation Project Success: The Threat Reduction Assessment Approach. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.
Salmen, L. F., and A. P. Eaves. 1989.World Bank work with nongovernmental organizations. Working Paper 305 (December), Public Sector Management and Private Sector Development. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Schmale, M. 1993. The role of local organizations in third world development. London: Avebury Press.
Sen, B. 1987. NGO self evaluation: Issues of concern.World Development 15(Supplement):161-167.
Seymour, F. J. 1994. Are successful community-based conservation projects designed or discovered? InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 472-498. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Shah, P., and M. K. Shah. 1996. Participatory methods for increasing NGO accountability. InBeyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world, eds. M. Edwards and D. Hulme, pp. 215-225. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
Smith, B. H. 1987. An agenda of future tasks for international and indigenous NGOs: Views from the North.World Development15(Supplement):87-93.
Statham, D. C. 1994. The farm scheme of North York Moors National Park, United Kingdom. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 282-299. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Steedly, H. R. and J. W. Foley. 1990. The success of protest groups: Multivariate analyses. InThe strategy of social protest, ed. W. Gamson, pp. 182-198. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Sundberg, J. 1997. NGO landscapes: Conservation in the Biosphere Reserve, Peten, Guatemala. Master's thesis, Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas, Austin.
Tendler, J. 1982. Turning private organizations into development agencies: Questions for evaluation. Program Evaluation Discussion Paper, No. 12. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Thomas-Slayter, B. P. 1992. Implementing effective local management of natural resources: New roles for NGOs in Africa.Human Organization51(2):136-143.
Twose, N. 1987. European NGOs: Growth or partnership?World Development 15(Supplement):7-10.
Uphoff, N. 1986.Local institutional development: An analytical sourcebook with cases. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press.
USAID. 1995. Agency's strategic framework and indicators 1995-1996. Washington, D.C.: United States Agency for International Development.
Van der Heijden, H. 1987. The reconciliation of NGO autonomy, program integrity and operation effectiveness with accountability to donors.World Development 15(Supplement):103-112.
Vetter, S. 1987. Portrait of a peasant leader: Ramon Aybar. InDirect to the poor: Grassroots development in Latin America, eds. S. Annis and P. Hakim, pp. 17-28. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers.
Wells, M. P. 1994. Community-based forestry and biodiversity projects have promised more than they have delivered. Why is this and what can be done? Paper presented at International Symposium on Rain Forest Management in Asia, Centre for Development and the Environment, Norway.
Wells, M., and K. Brandon. 1992.People in parks: Linking protected area management with local communities. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Western, D. 1994. Linking conservation and community aspirations. InNatural connections: Perspectives in community based conservation, eds. D. Western, R. M. Wright, and S. C. Strum, pp. 499-511. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yadama, G. N. 1995. Tales from the field: Observations on the impact of nongovernmental organizations.International Social Work40:145-162.
Yudelman, S. W. 1987. The integration of women into development projects: Observations on the NGO experience in general and in Latin America in particular. World Development15(Supplement):179-187.
Citation
Please cite this publication as: The role of NGOs in conservation. A literature review for In good company: Effective alliances for conservation. Margoluis, C. 2000. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program.
About the Biodiversity Support Program
The Biodiversity Support Program (BSP) is a consortium of World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conservancy, and World Resources Institute, funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). BSP's mission is to promote conservation of the world's biological diversity. We believe that a healthy and secure living resource base is essential to meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations. BSP began in 1988 and will close down in December 2001.
A Commitment to Learning
Our communications activities are designed to share what we are learning through our field and research activities. To accomplish this, we try to analyze both our successes and our failures. We hope our work will serve conservation practitioners as a catalyst for further discussion, learning, and action so that more biodiversity is concerved. Our communications programs include print publications, Web sites, presentations, and workshops.
Visiting BSP Web Sites
We invite you to visit our general and program-specific Web sites, even after the program closes down in December 2001.
Biodiversity Support Program
Biodiversity Conservation Network
CARPE: Central African Regional Program for the Environment
KEMALA: Supporting Indonesian NGOs for Community Based Natural Resource Management
BSP Listserv
Through June 2001, you can receive e-mail updates about BSP through www.BSPonline.org.
To join our listserv, click on stay informed and enter your e-mail address. We will keep you posted on project highlights, upcoming events, and our latest publications.
Contact BSP
For more information, to give us feedback, or to order copies of BSP publications, contact us.
Biodiversity Support Program
c/o World Wildlife Fund
1250 24th St. NW
Washington, DC 20037
USAPhone: 202-861-8347
Fax: 202-861-8324
E-mail: BSP@wwfus.org
Web Site: www.BSPonline.org
Publication Credits
Author: Cheryl Margoluis
Project Director: Richard Margoluis
Editor: Susan Grevengoed
Director of Communications: Sheila Donoghue
Director of the Analysis and Adaptive Management Program: Richard Margoluis
Executive Director: Judy OglethorpeThe publication of this literature review was made possible through support provided to BSP by the Global Bureau of USAID, under the terms of Cooperative Agreement Number DHR-A-00-88-00044-00. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID. © 2000 by World Wildlife Fund, Inc., Washington D.C. All rights reserved. Reproduction of this publication for educational and other noncommercial purposes is authorized without prior permission of the copyright holder. However, WWF, Inc. does request advance written notification and appropriate acknowledgment. WWF, Inc. does not require payment for the noncommercial use of its published works and in no way intends to diminish use of WWF research and findings by means of copyrights.
