Appel à candidature pour une consultation sur l’évaluation du projet -Securing the Nki and Boumba-Bek National Parks in the Cameroon Segment of the TRIDOM Landscape

Appel à candidature pour une Consultation sur l’évaluation du projet « Securing the Nki and Boumba-Bek National Parks in the Cameroon Segment of the TRIDOM Landscape « .

La date limite de dépôt de candidature a été fixée au 07 Janvier 2020

Terms of Reference : Project Evaluation

Project Title : Securing the Nki and Boumba-Bek National Parks in the Cameroon Segment of the TRIDOM Landscape

Donor : WWF-Netherlands (NL)

Background and Context :

Project Location Cameroon, East Region, TRIDOM tri-national Landscape, Western Congo Basin Moist Forest Eco-region ;

Project Name Securing the Nki and Boumba-Bek National Parks in the Cameroon Segment of the TRIDOM Landscape ;

Project Vision The biodiversity and ecological functionality of the Cameroon segment of the TRIDOM Landscape are conserved through secured and sustainable use of natural resources ;

Project Budget WWF NL: € 900,000 [July 2017 – June 2020] ;

Total program co-funding raised from other donors for the period [FY18-FY20] is approximately € 1000,000 ;

Beside WWF NL, for [FY17 – FY20]: CAWHFI (460,000 €), WWF Sweden (320,000€), WWF US / Save the elephants 220 000 €) ;

Project Duration July 2018  June 2020 ;

But note that this was preceded by other phases of WWF NL funding ;

Implementing agency and partners Implementing agency : WWF ROA/Cameroon Country Office ;

Main implementing partner: the Ministry of Forests and Wildlife (MINFOF).

Other partners: Logging companies, Local communities (IPLC)

Project Manager Gilles Etoga

History :

From 2002 to 2009, through it’s Jengi program, WWF provided management support for the three National Parks Lobeke, Boumba Bek and Nki and their surrounding areas from its office at Yokadouma, the capital of the Boumba-et-Ngoko Department. In 2009 it was decided to split the Jengi Program into three project components and to adjust WWF’s management structure accordingly. Until 2009 WWF technical and financial management staff had been based at Yokadouma with additional technical and petty cash accounting staff attached to the MINFOF headquarters at Mambele (Lobeke NP), Ngatto (Boumba Bek NP) and Ngoyla (Nki NP). In 2009 separate WWF management units to provide Park support were established at Mambele (Lobeke) and Ngoyla (Nki and Boumba Bek) National Park while a management unit at Djoum provided support for the Ngoyla-Mintom Forest Block (EU funded LUP/REDD project). The Mambele unit mainly provides support to Lobeke NP, which is part of a separate Landscape (TNS).

In 2017, after the end of the Ngoyla-Mintom project funded by EU, only one technical staff remain in Mintom, as a Wildlife officer with the main duty to coordinate WWF’s activities around Mintom-Djoum-Mengamé area in connextion with Gabonese and Congolese.

The new de-centralized structure provides for better alignment with the administrative and management structures of MINFOF and the transfer of WWF management staff from Yokadouma to offices in closer proximity to the parks was expected to strengthen management support for individual parks and to facilitate supervision, coordination and financial management of field activities.

For the evaluation, only the WWF NL-funded program at Boumba Bek and Nki NP/TRIDOM is targeted.

Threats :

The biodiversity and ecological process in the project area are threatened by a number of anthropogenic effects, including: killing of elephants primarily for ivory; unplanned ribbon development along roads; poaching (shooting and trapping) of various species for bushmeat for subsistence needs and supplying external markets; climate change; and forest conversion for domestic fuelwood and by extractive industries (including logging and mining companies). These direct threats are underpinned by a number of root causes and, in addition, there are further barriers to effective conservation in the area – including: general capacity issues with the government organisation with the mandate to manage protected areas, and oversee commercial logging and community forests (MINFOF); global demand for timber; low capacity of local communities; poor development planning; demand for ivory; demand for bushmeat.

In addition, climate change has emerged as a major threat to the ecological and evolutionary processes, the rich biodiversity and the dependent communities. Climate variability and change, combined with anthropogenic impacts will affect the capacity of the forests to deliver a wide range of products and services and sustain livelihoods, hence compromising the ability of dependent populations to escape the poverty trap. For the moment, the TRIDOM response to climate change has been largely speculative, highlighting the need for systems to support evidence-based decision making on climate change risks and impacts.

The current project :

The project was developed as a response to the threats, root causes and barriers, and builds on the foundations of previous work.

WWF-CCPO has been working in the southeast of Cameroon for over 25 years building on the initial surveys for elephants carried out by Richard Barnes in 1987. Since these initial surveys, WWF-CCPO has been pivotal to many key successes in the area including :

• Lobbied for the signing of international agreements with neighbouring States for the TRIDOM Accords, which facilitated the implementation of transboundary conservation initiatives, including anti-poaching patrols resulting in a decrease in cross boarder poaching ;
• Support to the gazettement of the national parks; Nki (2005), Boumba Bek (2005), and provision of basic infrastructure, equipment and personnel ;
• Law Enforcement has benefited considerable support from the project. Control and surveillance checkpoints were more closely followed up and their operational capacities reinforced. Law enforcement strategy meetings were organized and were marked by a greater involvement of judiciary authorities. An impressive number of poachers (over 100) were sent to court and imprisoned, and many AK47s (30 between 2007 and 2018), shotguns and rifles were seized. Traps and poaching camps were destroyed; And as from 2017, according to the new WWF approach on law enforcement support to MINFOF, WWF has set up a permanent presence system in two major clearings (Pondo in BB NP and Ikwah in Nki NP) which has led to reduced human pressure in those parks and increased sign of wildlife presence ;
• The project supported the setting up of community forest management committees, biophysical management of community forests and optimal utilization of revenue. A total number of 45 community forest for a surface are of 125 000 ha have benefited of WWF support ;
• The project support to SFM and certification was intensified during Phase V, including in multi-resource inventories, monitoring, updating of land use plans, etc ;
• Communication via Jengi Newsletter has performed well and editions have been sent to 320 international and national recipients. More than 1000 copies of the French version were distributed locally. A huge amount of copies of Cameroon Tribune and La Voix du Paysan were distributed to 8 WWF bases. Strong relationship established with media practitioners/organs saw the signing of collaborative conventions with local and national media, training of journalists and organization of press trips. Inputs were provided to newspaper and audio-visual correspondents – the international News Week Magazine and the national Mutations, Le Messager, Cameroon Tribune and The Post; radio and TV (CRTV, Canal 2, Vision 4, Equinoxe, Boumba FM) – for the publishing of articles on conservation in South East Cameroon ;
• The MoU between MINFOF and IP communities and the complaint mechanism linked to that , were facilitated by WWF ;
• A MoU has been signed with SIM, an Italian logging company, which is the largest in the area with 8 logging concession. The aim of this MoU is to support them in the certification process ;
• A huge wildlife inventory carried out in 2015 revealed that more than 75 % of elephant population in the area were lost (to poaching). WWF can partially be held responsible for that, because we have not been able to stop that decline. However, this is due to a combination of many factors in which some were completely out of our control (corruption, political will, International demand for ivory). The new proposal will try to address some, while at the same time other actions are awaited from within and without.

The wider “Jengi” program vision :

“The ecosystems are healthy, biodiversity is thriving, and both are supporting people and driving sustainable development in the TRIDOM landscape “

And the (WWF NL) project goal linked to that vision, is “By 2028, elephant populations in Nki and Boumba Bek national parks have increased by 20% relating to 2015 baseline.”

This goal is to be achieved through the implementation of three strategies, which, in turn, will lead to the achievement of five objectives all of which contribute to the programme goal :

Vision :

The ecosystems are healthy, biodiversity is thriving, and both are supporting people and driving sustainable development in the TRIDOM landscape Goal :

By 2028, elephant populations in Nki and Boumba Bek national parks have increased by 20% relating to 2015 baseline.

Strategy 1 : Effective biomonitoring in Boumba Bek and Nki national parks Objective 1.1: By 2020, signs of presence of elephants have increased by at least 50%, while illegal signs have reduced by 90% in Ikwah (Nki NP) & Pondo (BB NP) relative to 2018 baseline.

Strategy 2 : Strengthening law enforcement for elephant protection Objective 2.1. : By 2020, illegal activities/poaching signs in BB & Nki & their peripheries has reduced by 90% as a result of effective law enforcement and transboundary collaboration relative to 2018 baseline.

Strategy 3 : Promote IP (Baka) contribution to conservation activities Objective 3. By 2020, at least 50% of Baka involved in elephant poaching in and around Nki and BB national parks are converted to livelihood activities.

2 Evaluation Purpose and Use, Objectives and Scope.

The primary client of the evaluation is WWF Netherlands, who has formally requested the evaluation (as the program funding is higher than € 500,000 treshold). The timing of the evaluation is triggered by the conclusion of the current phase of WWF NL funding (June 2020). WWF NL has agreed “in principle” to a new 3 year phase of funding, and a proposal will be developed in February-May 2020.

In general the evaluation has the following purposes :

1. An evaluation of what has been achieved (impact and outcomes) and what hasn’t been achieved in the NL funded TRIDOM Cameroon program so far (and WWF’s role in this) and what lessons could be learned?
2. The drafting of recommendations for a new WWF NL funded phase of the program that will continue to focus on large mammal conservation in Nki and Boumba Bek in combination with the principles of inclusive conservation (indigenous people and local communities exercising their rights to access, use and management of natural resources) as a critical component of a wider TRIDOM conservation program. And a program that is aligned with the new TRIDOM.

Specific to the context of the evaluation is the dramatic decline of elephants in Nki and Boumba Bek NP as documented by WWF’s wildlife surveys or observer reports. It is expected that the evaluation will provide specific recommendations on adaptive management on how to address this decline in the next phase of the project.

Important sub-objectives are :

1. How have the three main strategies in the program been effectively covered/implemented? Have they all been implemented/covered and if so, have they been implemented/covered equally well? What is their impact on elephant conservation?
2. How effective has the collaboration between IPLC, WWF and MINFOF been and has it successfully contributed to reducing elephant poaching in the Parks?
3. Is there any need to shift or include an additional strategy in the coming phase? E.g. integrating climate adaptation into the next phase and/or designing of the new phase with a strengthened focus on inclusive conservation with a strong eye on ESSF/HRs?
4. Recommendations for identified weaknesses and shortfalls, in the context of dramatic elephant poaching affecting the site. In particular what would be key elements and conditions of a next phase that in particular would focus on halting the decline of elephants in Nki and Boumba Bek?
5. What are possible additional and innovative approaches to collaborative park management for Nki and Boumba Bek NP’s?
   Individuals who have commissioned the evaluation :
   Ingeborg Magi, WWF NL ;
   Those responsible for the oversight of the evaluation: Gilles Etoga, WWF Program Manager.

Those responsible to act on the results, including the writing of a management response: – Gilles Etoga WWF Program Manager :

• Cotilde Ngomba, WWF Cameroon Country Director ;
• Jaap Van der Waarde, TRIDOM Coordinator :
  Secondary audiences that benefit from learning generated by the evaluation: MINFOF ;
  Dissemination of results: WWF CCPO, WWF NL, WWF US, WWF TRIDOM, WWF International Safeguards Unit.

Scope :

Period of project implementation :

Geographical scope

Funders :

July 2018- June 2020 project implementation period

Nki, Boumba Bek and periphery

WWF NL

3 Evaluation criteria and Guiding questions :

It will be necessary to evaluate the extent to which activities conducted between July 2018 up to date were able to make progress towards the project goal and the project objectives. The evaluation should adhere to the following criteria :

The evaluator will use the WWF Evaluation Guidance for report structure and performance rating. Furthermore, the evaluator will use all documentation related to the implementation and application of the ESSF framework within the TRIDOM landscape to avoid double work.

3.1 Relevance and Quality of Design

Related questions :

• Given the fact that WWF and Tridom vision is to live in harmony with nature, are the goals and objectives relevant for this vision? How could we ensure communities, local people and especially IP like the Baka are more centrally focussed in the Jengi program, without loosing conservation objectives?
• To what extent is the third strategy relevant for the improvement of livelihood of the Baka in the Jengi area? What are the root causes for the Baka to be involved in elephant poaching? Does the current program strategy address these root causes? Which other stakeholders play a role in poaching itself or commissioning it? How could the startegy be improved to break the prevalent vicious circle of elphant poaching and ensure a sustainable alternative livelihood for the Baka and other local communities?
• Did project plans and activities sufficiently correspond to the identified threats and drivers of elephant depletion, where are gaps to be addressed?

3.2 Efficiency :

A measure of the relationship between outputs—the products or services of the intervention—and inputs—the human and financial resources the intervention uses.

• Was there a balance in terms of the resources (financial, material and human) available for the programme implementation and the expected outputs? (Appropriateness of the resources) ;
• What is the cost-benefit analysis in terms of delivering on the outputs? Where should the programme increase investment/cost or where should it reduce to ensure the -Pogramme goals and objectives are achieved?
• How successful has the programme being in terms of matching the timeframe and results, raising other funding for the program?

3.3 Effectiveness :

A measure of the extent to which the intervention’s intended outcomes—its specific objectives or intermediate results—have been achieved :

• What has and has not been achieved (both intended and non-intended) ;
• What is the effectiveness of the park’s anti-poaching service? How is corruption dealt with? Identification of possible external factors that may have impeded successful management of the project and achievement of objectives, including working relationships with partners ;
• Quality of the monitoring during implementation (including large mammal monitoring, law enforcement monitoring) ;
• Evaluation of the relationship with MINFOF in relation to effective park management ;
• Were project interventions able to reduce or mitigate the identified biodiversity threats?
• To what extent have the interventions (training on human rights, smart approach and used equipment) to the Ecoguards been effective taking the project goals into account? What can be improved/included in the next project phase?
• To what extent were project interventions able to improve environmental awareness, participation and livelihoods of the local population?
• To what extent did project support improve the capacity of MINFOF to effectively manage protected areas?
• How were project activities coordinated with related cross-border activities in neighbouring countries, e.g. joint anti-poaching and illegal wildlife trade activities?
• To what extent has strategy 3 been effective? And what are the actors and factors that influence effectiveness?
• What role is WWF playing in strategy 3, what roles are development CSOs and NGOs playing. With other words: Does WWF have the capacities to work with local communities and IPs? Should this be WWF’s role? How can this string of work be done most effective?
• Complaint mechanism for Baka? Is this functioning? What can be improved?

3.4 Impact :

• To what extent did project interventions improve the sustainable management of targeted National Parks and surrounding multiple use zones?
• Does MINFOF manage the protected areas more effectively and in line with developed park management plans, in particular with regard to anti-poaching and law enforcement strategies ? How can the government bend the curve/ trend of elephant poaching in a more effective way?
• Does the local population support conservation objectives, do they benefit from conservation activities and livelihood improvements and are they sufficiently involved in decision-making processes related to protected area and land use management?

4 Methodology Considerations :

The evaluation methodology should consist of :

1. The compiling and reviewing of all relevant project documents (will be provided by CCPO) ;
2. Review of relevant legal and regulatory framework (will be provided by CCPO) ;
3. Induction meeting and interviews with WWF/CCPO management staff in Yaoundé ;
4. Skype interviews with relevant WWF Staff (IWC, TRIDOM coordinator) ;
5. Interviews with national, regional and local MINFOF staff ;
6. Field trip to the program area and visits of selected project sites ;
7. Interviews with local communities also linked to the application of the current ESSF process ;
8. Interviews with other relevant stakeholders (other projects, ministries) ;
9. Workshop with WWF CCPO staff Yaoundé to present and discuss evaluation findings ;
10. The consultant may propose additional methodological components to be agreed upon with WWF CCPO.

4.1 Qualifications of Evaluator :

The Evaluator should be bilingual (English/French) in order to be able to evaluate all of the texts and reports, as well as to communicate with WWF staff and relevant stakeholders/partners of the project. The evaluator should also have proven experience with the evaluation of conservation projects implemented by non-governmental organisations, as well as significant experience with the issues surrounding wildlife conservation, PA management, inclusive conservation, community engagement and fight against wildlife crime & poaching. Central African experience would be much appreciated but is not obligatory.

4.2 WWF Support :

Gilles Etoga will consolidate the necessary information (documents) for the evaluation. Gilles will be responsible for planning meetings in Yaounde and the field and logistical arrangements.

4.3 Proposed Evaluation timeline :

• Activity Target Date (Duration) ;
• Selection of Evaluator January, 07th , 2020 ;
• Start date January 14th, 2020 ;
• Review of WWF materials provided (1.5 days) ;
• Interviews with WWF management (phone/skype) (0.5 days) ;
• Visit to Cameroon and field site 20 January 2020 (07 days) ;
• Debriefing meeting with management (1 day) ;
• Preparation of draft report (4 days) ;
• Submission of Draft report to WWF February 01, 2020 ;
• (allow 5 days for comments by WWF ROA and WWF NL) ;
• Preparation of final report (1 day) February 06, 2020 ;
• Total number of professional days 14 days.

The following indicative 07-day itinerary would allow the evaluator to visit the project site as well as to conduct in-depth discussions with the project manager, field staff, partners and stakeholders including local communities (Baka and Bantu).

4.4 Preparation and organisation of Evaluation

The following should be required pre-reading material for the evaluator :

• Project Description (appendix 1) ;
• Technical and Financial reports for FY18, FY19, and mid-term FY20 (if already available) ;
• Report of the last on-site evaluation of the project (2017) ;
• Other technical reports (large mammal inventory report, USFWS proposal, FPIC report, all documents related to the current ESSF process).
  The evaluator will conduct a preparatory briefing meeting by phone/skype with relevant WWF Netherlands staff charged with overseeing the TRIDOM Cameroon project prior to his/her site visit to Cameroon ;
• The evaluation will be based in great part on interviews and discussions with the following individuals and organisations including ;
• WWF staff responsible for the management and implementation of the project both in the Netherlands and Central Africa (Ingeborg Magi, Gilles Etoga) ;
• Key WWF network staff (TRIDOM Coordinator, IWT Coordinator, Bio-monitoring coordinator, National Director) ;
• Project technical team ;
• WWF partners in government administrations ;
• Private sector players ;
• Selected communities ;
• Interviews with national, regional and local MINFOF staff ;
• Interviews with other relevant stakeholders (other projects, ministries) At the end of the site visit, and before taking off a feedback meeting in Yaounde will take place with the program manager responsible for implementation and monitoring of the project. A debriefing meeting with WWF Netherlands staff and WWF TRIDOM Coordinator (with skype) will be scheduled following the site visit. A first draft of the evaluation report should be submitted no longer than two weeks following the site visit.

4.5 Financial Terms :

The costs of an international flight will be covered by the project. All domestic travel within Cameroon will also be arranged and paid for by the project transport, hotel, food (based on WWF per diem rates)). An honorarium will be offered based on the estimated number of days of work. Visa cost will be reimbursed based on real cost.

4.6 Deliverables :

1. Draft and Final Reports, 25 pages (maximum including annexes), with clear, tangible recommendations for the next phase conform chapter 6.1 ;
2. Feedback session on First Draft Report with WWF management ;
3. Expression of Interest.

All candidates interested in conducting this evaluation on a consultant basis should submit, no later than January 07th, 2020 a detailed & short technical proposal including :

• A curriculum vitae detailing his/her experience in project evaluation, inclusive conservation and NGO led conservation project implementation in Africa ;
• The proposed evaluation plan (description of approach, suggestions for interview questions, timeline and time allocation, etc.) and comments on the Terms of Reference ;
• A proposed date for the site visit in Cameroon ;
• The length of time the proposal will be valid ;
• A detailed budget proposal which takes into account the financial conditions specified in these ToR and specifies the honorarium (daily rate) as well as any other costs.

The estimated end date of the study will be February 15, 2020.

BUDGET: 7 000 000 FCFA

The proposal and all supporting material should be sent in electronic form to email: recruit-cam@wwfcam.org with CC to Getoga@wwfcam.org with reference “Nki-BBK Evaluation”

Technical and financial proposals should be submitted as separate files.

6 Report template and ratings table

To support more systematic recording of evaluation findings to advance WWF’s broader organisational learning, all evaluators should follow, to the extent possible, the evaluation report structure below and complete the following table (Part B), to be attached to the evaluation report.

6.1 Report Table of Contents Template :

The following provides a basic outline for an evaluation report. While this should be easily applied to evaluations of simpler projects or programmes, adaptation will be needed to ensure reports of more complex programmes (e.g. Country Offices, multi-country regions, eco-regions, Network Initiatives) are well organised, easy to read and navigate, and not too lengthy.

Title Page :

• Report title, project or programme title, and contract number (if appropriate), Date of report, Authors and their affiliation, Locator map (if appropriate) Executive Summary (between 2 to 4 pages) ;
• Principal findings and recommendations, organised by the six core evaluation criteria ;
• Summary of lessons learned ;
• Acknowledgements ;
• Table of Contents ;
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ;
• Body of the report (no more than 25 pages).

A. Introduction (max 3 pages) :

• Concise presentation of the project/programme characteristics ;
• Purpose, objectives, and intended use of the evaluation (reference and attach the ToR as an annex) ;
• Evaluation methodology and rationale for approach (reference and attach as annexes the mission itinerary; names of key informants; a list of consulted documents; and any synthesis tables containing project/programme information used in the exercise) ;
• Composition of the evaluation team, including any specific roles of team members.

B. Project/Programme Overview (max 4 pages) :

• Concise summary of the project or programme’s history, evolution, purpose, objectives, and strategies to achieve conservation goals (attach theory of change including conceptual model, results chain or logical framework and project monitoring system as annexes) ;
• Essential characteristics: context, underlying rationale, stakeholders and beneficiaries ;
• Summarise WWF’s main interest in this project or programme.

C. Evaluation Findings (3-5 pages) :

• Findings organised by each of the core evaluation criteria, including sufficient but concise rationale ;
• Follow up on recommendations given in previous evaluation ;
• Tables, graphics, and other figures to help convey key findings.

D. Recommendations (3-5pages) :

• Recommendation organised each of the core evaluation criteria, including sufficient but concise rationale – recommendations should be specific, actionable and numbered ;
• Project/programme performance rating tables to provide a quick summary of performance and to facilitate comparison with other projects/programmes (see the Summary Table Part B, below).

E. Overall Lessons Learned (max 3 pages) :

• Lessons learned regarding what worked, what didn’t work, and why ;
• Lessons learned with wider relevance, that can be generalised beyond the project.

F. Conclusions : General summation of key findings and recommendations

Annexes :

• Terms of Reference ;
• Evaluation methodology detail ;
• Itinerary with key informants ;
• Documents consulted ;
• Project/programme theory of change/ logical framework/ conceptual model/ list of primary goals and objectives ;
• Specific project/programme and monitoring data, as appropriate ;
• Summary tables of progress towards outputs, objectives, and goals ;
• Maps ;
• Recommendations summary table.

6.2 Evaluation Summary Table – scoring against core evaluation criteria :

Evaluators are to assign the project/programme a Rating and Score for each criterion as follows :

• Very Good/4: The project/programme embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a very good extent ;
• Good/3: The project/programme embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a good extent ;
• Fair/2: The project/programme embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a fair extent ;
• Poor/1: The project/programme embodies the description of strong performance provided below to a poor extent ;
• N/A: The criterion was not assessed (in the ‘Justification,’ explain why) ;
• D/I: The criterion was considered but data were insufficient to assign a rating or score (in the ‘Justification,’ elaborate).

Evaluators are also to provide a brief justification for the rating and score assigned. Identify most notable strengths to build upon as well as highest priority issues or obstacles to overcome. Note that this table should not be a comprehensive summary of findings and recommendations, but an overview only. A more comprehensive presentation should be captured in the evaluation report and the management response document. Even if the report itself contains sensitive information, the table should be completed in a manner that can be readily shared with any internal WWF audience.

Rating/Score Description of Strong Performance Evaluator Rating/ Score Evaluator Brief Justification Relevance The project/programme addresses the necessary factors in the specific programme context to bring about positive changes in conservation targets – biodiversity and/or footprint issues (i.e. species, ecosystems, ecological processes, including associated ecosystem services supporting human wellbeing).

Quality of Design :

1. The project/programme has rigorously applied key design tools (e.g. the WWF PPMS) ;
2. The project/programme is hitting the right ‘pressure points’ to meet necessary and sufficient conditions for success ;
3. Efficiency 1. Most/all programme activities have been delivered with efficient use of human & financial resources and with strong value for money ;
4.  Governance and management systems are appropriate, sufficient, and operate efficiently ;
5. Effectiveness 1. Most/all intended outcomes—stated objectives/intermediate results regarding key threats and other factors affecting project/programme targets—were attained ;
6. There is strong evidence indicating that changes can be attributed wholly or largely to the WWF project or programme ;
7. Impact 1. Most/all goals—stated desired changes in the status of species, ecosystems, and ecological processes—were realised ;
8. Evidence indicates that perceived changes can be attributed wholly or largely to the WWF project or programme.