10.03.09 Conservation for Development. An organisational review of WWF-Norway

This review of WWF-Norway, commissioned by Norad, examines the organisation’s ability to provide effective aid, with a focus on four areas:

- WWF’s role as a civil society agent and its capacity to support civil society development
- Relevance of WWF’s work to Norwegian development policies, national policies and local communities
- Capacity and risks within financial management, project management and general institutional capacity
- Results: focusing on quality of reporting, effectiveness and efficiency, and added value

The focus is on the programmes that are supported by the Norad frame agreement in Africa, but within the context of other international activities of WWF-Norway. WWF-Norway works closely with WWF International in all of its programmes to support nature conservation in other countries, so the assessment also takes into account the capacity of WWF International and its Programme Offices. With regard to other implementing partners, including government and civil society organisations, the WWF’s selection of partners and its role in supporting partners’ capacity is considered, not the partners’ capacity in general.

The methodology is based on qualitative analysis of data collected from documents providing general presentations of the organisation, management systems, projects and programmes; demonstrations and sample documents of actual management practice; interviews with WWF and non-WWF stakeholders; focus group discussions; project visits in Uganda and Kenya, media coverage and scholarly literature. Countries for case studies were selected by Norad.

The review team finds that WWF-Norway is a major actor in civil society in Norway and its role has increased dramatically in recent years. It fills several roles, including close collaboration with decision makers on policy development, contributions to better knowledge and awareness in general public and among specific target groups, and active participation in a public discourse often confronting policy makers. In these roles it takes up issues related to conservation in the South and development issues in line with expectations towards NGOs in Norwegian development policy.

Other parts of the WWF network fill some of the same roles with some exceptions. In some areas WWF has taken on roles in policy and advocacy that differ significantly from WWF-Norway’s role in Norway as well as general expectations towards civil society organisations in development. In most African countries WWF has chosen limited involvement in public discourse in particular on controversial policy issues compared to other environmental NGOs, and it rarely confronts policy and decision makers in public. The limited experience and indications of relatively poor understanding in the WWF network of such key aspects of civil society, in combination with mission and objectives that are not directly related to civil society development in general, led the review team to consider whether WWF-Norway, given its dependence upon the WWF network, has the capacity to support the strengthening of civil society in the South. However, for activities explicitly targeting civil society development, the project design seems relevant and well informed and qualified personnel are allocated. Even if not explicitly targeting civil society development most or all programmes of WWF-Norway contribute to strengthening of institutional capacities in collaborating civil society organisations; selected as partners because they represent key stakeholders or for other reasons are seen as crucial to success of its programmes.

The work of WWF-Norway is highly relevant to selected Norwegian development policies, in particular those relating to nature conservation and natural resource management. It is also seen as relevant to national priorities in the countries supported. Less clear, however, is the relevance to local communities. Conservation is a pre-set objective of WWF engagement, but it is not necessarily in line with local communities’ own priorities regarding development support. Although WWF-Norway rarely supports interventions that may conflict with community interests and generally supports communities in better coping with and benefiting from conservation, there are nevertheless inherent dilemmas in some of WWF-Norway’s work with regard to the conflict between conservation and community interests. The team believes there is a potential to further improve WWF-Norway’s positive involvement in this sense.

This report also identifies some weaknesses and potential inconsistencies with cross-cutting principles of Norwegian development assistance, in particular a rights-based approach, and gender sensitivity.

In terms of capacity, the assessment finds that WWF-Norway, supported by WWF International, has very high capacity and within its area of work is probably the agency most capable of producing highquality results as measured against widely held standards and expectations to development cooperation. There are few risks identified, and those are relatively easily managed. Financial management is sound with few risks of fraud. Some potential constraints to efficiency are identified in the report.

Further, the team finds that a generally good system of reporting results on the project level enables aggregate-level reporting to Norad that reflects the actual results produced, and the results demonstrate high degree of effectiveness. Among the weaknesses found are that results along socio-economic parameters are relatively poorly developed and reported, and that failures to achieve objectives in individual projects are poorly communicated in reports to Norad on the aggregate level.

The team also finds that WWF-Norway, supported by WWF International, also adds value to its government and civil society partners beyond the specific project results reported, in areas like implementing capacity, technical capacity and general institutional capacity. By introducing effective modalities of working with local communities WWF may also potentially support aspects of good governance in general. To some extent these results are likely to last beyond project periods.

Recommendations are provided in chapter 7. Among them are recommendations to improve focus, expertise and communication around aspects of community and socio-economic development, including a rights-based approach; gender sensitivity; responding to community interests beyond those related to conservation; monitoring and reporting of socio-economic changes; communication and management of the often inherent conflicts between nature conservation and community interests. Other recommendations relate to WWF’s involvement in controversial policy issues and reconsideration of WWF’s choice of roles in civil society and public discourse in general. Within financial management and administrative requirements the team provides some recommendations of which some are also within the mandate of Norad.