DOI: 10.
1007/s00267-001-2613-3
Conservation and Development Projects in the
Brazilian Amazon: Lessons from the Community
Initiative Program in Rondônia
JOHN O. BROWDER*
Department of Urban Affairs and Planning
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA
ABSTRACT / Community-based conservation and develop-
ment has become the prevailing programmatic paradigm of
conservation organizations and development donors over the
last 20 years, spawning a myriad of integrated conservation
and development projects (ICDP) around the world. Appealing
for its ambitious aspiration to harmonize sustainable economic
development at the local level with the conservation of legally
established protected areas (e.g., parks and reserves), the
ICDP approach recently has drawn criticism from conserva-
tion biologists for failing to ensure adequate protection of
biodiversity. Development planners and economists have also
raised questions about the financial sustainability of ICDPs in
practice and the replicability of the model from highly local
contexts to larger regional scales. This paper briefly reviews
the central elements of the concept of integrated conservation
and development and the emerging debate over its effective-
ness. A description of the Community Initiative Program (CIP),
a pilot program of the Rondônia Natural Resources Manage-
The concept of setting aside undisturbed wilderness
areas for preservation, the hallmark of the US conser-
vation movement since 1916 (Hays 1987), has also been
the template for protecting natural habitats elsewhere
around the world. Approximately 2250 protected areas,
covering 2.4 million square kilometers, are located in
the tropics (Brandon and Wells 1992), representing
about 10% of the world’s total tropical forest biome. A
growing consensus among conservationists asserts, how-
ever, that with few exceptions protected areas in the
tropics are in a state of crisis, becoming “paper parks”
subject to rampant degradation by loggers, poachers,
tourists, settlers, and soldiers (Kramer and others
KEY WORDS: Integrated conservation and development; Tropical forest
conservation; Community-based conservation and de-
velopment; PLANAFLORO; Rondônia; Brazil; Amazon
*email: browder@vt.edu
Environmental Management Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 750 –762
ment project (PLANAFLORO) in the western Brazilian Ama-
zon state of Rondônia, follows. The CIP is a significant ex-
periment because it boldly attempted to apply the
principles of ICDP to the regional scale involving numerous
different communities in one program simultaneously.
Based on the author’s mid-term review of the CIP in 1999,
the development and conservation impacts of the program
are considered. While the CIP has not significantly curbed
the degradation of protected areas in Rondônia as in-
tended, the evidence suggests lower rates of deforestation
in municipios (i.e. counties) with the highest concentrations
of CIP projects. Although the economic development im-
pacts are mixed, approximately 50% of the projects deliv-
ered tangible benefits to local communities. Lessons
learned from the CIP are presented in the final section.
Among the lessons learned from the CIP, detailed in the
final section, are several that will be familiar to other ICDP
evaluators: the importance of thematic coherence in initial
project design, the need for explicit attention on environ-
mental conservation objectives, deficient institutional ca-
pacity of implementing organizations, inadequate attention
to women’s concerns and roles in community projects, and
lack of technical criteria for measuring project sustainability.
1997). Indeed, the World Bank notes that only 1%
percent of the national parks and wildlife refuges in
developing countries are “permanently secure”
(Briscoe 1999).
In the 1970s, growing disillusionment with the tra-
ditional protected-areas approach prompted the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) to propose the Man and the
Biosphere (MAB) program, which introduced the con-
cept of integrating conservation and community devel-
opment (Batisse 1982, 1986). By the mid-1980s the
conservation discourse had focused on the presumed
connection between biodiversity conservation and sus-
tainable development in developing countries (Wilson
1988, IUCN and others 1980). It was argued that pro-
tected areas must address human concerns (Western
and Pearl 1989) and that “[n]o environmental protec-
tion programs can make headway without removing the
day-to-day pressures of poverty. . .” (Leonard 1989, p.
8). Many conservationists argued that “[t]ropical forest
© 2002 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

conservation projects must. . . include not only forest
reserves, but innovative approaches to economic devel-
opment as well” (Gradwohl and Greenberg 1988, p.
18). Tropical forest conservation, noted Anthony
Anderson in the preface to his book Alternatives to De-
forestation, is “how tropical forests can be used sustain-
ably—which, in the final analysis, must be a part of any
long-term effort to promote conservation” (Anderson
1990, p. 11).
In the mid-1980s, the various ideas about combining
conservation and sustainable use came together in the
form of integrated conservation– development projects
(ICDPs) or community-based conservation and devel-
opment. By the mid-1990s, the popularity of ICDPs had
grown such that community-based conservation and
development had become the leading conservation
paradigm among the mainstream environmental orga-
nizations and major donors. As the World Wildlife
Fund’s President Kathryn Fuller noted, “WWF bases its
conservation work on the conviction that if people
living in and around important natural areas can ben-
efit economically and socially from careful use of na-
ture, they will have a stake in conserving it” (Fuller
1996, p. 2).
Despite its rising popularity among donors and en-
vironmental NGOs, integrated community-based con-
servation and development projects have also drawn
strident criticism, mainly from conservation biologists
(Oates 1999, Terborgh 1999). For example, Terborgh
(1999, pp. 165–169), in one of the most stinging cri-
tiques, writes:
. . .Despite the gilded rhetoric presenting them as conservation en-
deavors, ICDPs represent little more than wishful thinking. Project
objectives typically have little direct relevance to the protection of
biodiversity. . . By stimulating the local economy, an ICDP attracts
newcomers to a park’s perimeter, thereby increasing the external
pressure on the park’s resources. . .I see these projects as misguided
efforts that mostly fail to advance conservation, regardless of any
success that may be achieved on the development side. . .The basic
concept is flawed. Meanwhile, millions of dollars are being poured
into ICDPs in the name of conservation.
What lessons have been learned about the experi-
ences with ICDPs? Have they been effective in saving
tropical forests? Following standard evaluation re-
search methodologies (Patton 1982, Ramashia and
Rankin 1995), this paper presents some preliminary
lessons learned from one ambitious community-
based conservation and development program, the
Community Initiative Program (CIP) (1995–
present), part of the PLANAFLORO regional devel-
ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 751
opment program in the western Brazilian Amazon
state of Rondônia.1
ICDPs Defined
Brandon (1997, p. 94) defines ICDPs as
. . .land uses, activities, and projects whose primary aim is to foster
conservation in parks by promoting socioeconomic development to
provide local people with livelihoods that do not threaten the park’s
resources. They are based on the premise that management of pro-
tected areas must reach beyond the traditional conservation activities
inside park and reserve boundaries to address the needs of local
communities outside the boundaries.
The ICDP approach is predicated on several assump-
tions about the human relationship to the nonhuman
world and the quality of local community life that di-
verge from those underlying the earlier conservation
paradigm based on the traditional wildlife preserve.
Some of these assumptions are summarized in Table 1,
and require no further elaboration here.
According to Brandon (1997) ICDP consists of three
major strategies: enhanced park management and/or
buffer zones around protected areas; compensation or
substitution to local people for lost access to resources
they once enjoyed in areas before they became pro-
tected; and local social and economic development
(Brandon 1997, p. 93). While ICDPs are usually di-
rected toward communities living in or near protected
areas, in some cases communities dwelling well beyond
parks and reserves are targeted. This latter was the case
with the CIP.
PLANAFLORO Community Initiative Program
(CIP)
The western Brazilian Amazon state of Rondônia has
been the site of two ambitious government-sponsored
farmer resettlement and agricultural developments
since the early 1980s. The first, the Northwest Region
Development Program (POLONOROESTE), sought to
open-up this tropical forest frontier to small farmers
displaced by the forces of agricultural modernization in
the Brazilian Southeast and South. Farmers typically
received titles to 100-ha lots and engaged in commer-
cial shifting cultivation involving temporary crops
1
The research methodology relied on interviews with 19 key infor-
mants, the review of 20 program documents, and 21 project dossiers
systematically selected from all CIP projects approved in 1997, and
personal visits to 4 CIP project sites accompanied by local project
sponsors in December 1999.
752 J. O. Browder

Table 1. Comparison of key attributes of traditional wildlife preserve with integrated conservation and development
approach
Traditional park/wildlife Integrated community-based
Criteria preserve/refuge/sanctuary conservation and development
Key assumptions Humans inherently conflict with nature Humans complementary to nature
Orientation Biocentric/ecocentric Anthropocentric
Normative basis Aesthetic, intrinsic value of nonhumans Utilitarian, functional
conservation
Focus Protectionist through human exclusion Conservation through sustainable
use
Implementation approach Coercion and enforcement (stick) Economic incentive and voluntary
self-restraint (carrot)
Implementation agency National park agency with international Local (community) with
monitors international (NGO MLI)
support
Conception of property National government land Local common property
Conception of local Potential threat to ecological integrity Homogeneous population with
human community of protected area strong sense of shared interest,
egalitarian, autonomous
Institutional/statutory source US Organic Act of 1916 UNESCO (MAB) 1979

(maize, cowpeas, upland rice, cassava), perennial crops
(mainly coffee and cacao), and pasture-based cattle
raising (Browder 1988, 1994). With financing from the
World Bank, POLONOROESTE (1981–1985) suc-
ceeded in paving a 1500-km highway from Porto Velho
(capital city of the state of Rondônia) to Cuiabá (capital
city of the state of Mato Grosso) and from there to the
Brazilian national highway network. The program also
provided land demarcation, rural credits, some agricul-
tural extension, and indigenous land demarcation.
However, the project was severely criticized by environ-
mental organizations in Washington and Brazil for un-
leashing a wave of destruction on the tropical forests
and tribal peoples of Rondônia (Rich 1985, 1989).
In 1992 the World Bank approved a second loan for
the Rondônia Natural Resources Management Project
(PLANAFLORO). The original goal of PLANAFLORO
was to implement an improved approach to natural
resources management, conservation, and sustainable
development through the introduction of agroecologi-
cal and socioeconomic zoning in the State of Ron-
dônia. The language used to define the specific objec-
tives of the project clearly was consonant with the spirit
of the conservation and development ideas emerging
from the environmentalist discourse and focused on
assisting the government:
3. to protect the boundaries of conservation units,
indigenous, forest, and extractive reserves;
4. to develop intensive and integrated systems of per-
manent agriculture, agroforestry, and forest man-
agement systems (World Bank 1995).
While the programmatic focus of PLANAFLORO
was on socioeconomic and ecological zoning in the
state, concerns about stabilizing local populations in
areas near conservation units (protected areas) became
the basis for the first Community Initiative Program
(Programa de Iniciativa Comunitária), initiated in 1995
and reformulated in 1997 as the Community Initiative
Assistance Program (Programa de Apoio às Iniciativas Co-
munitárias) (Figure 1).
The general goal of the Community Initiative Pro-
gram was “to encourage actions that favor community
initiatives contributing to the sustainable development
of the rural areas of Rondônia consistent with the
principles of socioeconomic and ecological zoning of
the State and of the sustainability of the natural re-
sources being utilized” (PIC 1995, n.p.). The basic as-
sumptions of integrated conservation and development
were embedded in the language of the program’s state-
ment of objectives:

1. to institute policy reforms aimed at propitiating a
coherent structure of incentives for sustainable de-
velopment;
2. to conserve biodiversity for the direct economic
benefits of the local population;
(a) To finance community projects encouraging production, health
and education in areas proximate to environmental conservation and
protection units, integrated to the principle of assistance to and
vigilance over the physical integrity of the environmental units [pro-
tected areas];
(b) To finance productive projects integrated to educational and

Figure 1. Agricultural settlement areas and conservation units in Rondônia, Brazil.
conservationist actions in areas of environmental conservation units,
like extractive reserves and sustained yield forests;
(c) To finance productive projects, health and education in areas of
agricultural intensification, provided that such production-oriented
projects are rigorously integrated with actions that do not involve
deforestation. . .; (PIC 1995, n.p.).
The prevailing notions of integrated conservation
and development—supporting environmentally com-
patible economic activities that benefit local popula-
tions in areas surrounding conservation units—provide
the underlying philosophy behind the CIP. From 1995
through 1998, 241 small-scale community initiative
projects were funded (in amounts up to R $150,000
each) representing a total investment of R $19 million
(approximately US $16.1 million) (GAT 1998).
CIP Implementation
The CIP is somewhat unusual among ICDPs in that
it attempted a large-scale, top-down collaborative ap-
ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 753
proach to community conservation and development
involving local stakeholders, state and national govern-
ment agencies, and a multilateral lending institution in
a multitiered, hierarchical project design and imple-
mentation process. The CIP was centrally administered
by a PLANAFLORO management unit in Porto Velho.
The geographic scope of the program was state-wide,
involving community organizations from most of the
state’s municipios. The implementation process of the
CIP entailed four elements.
Project Elaboration and Approval
Eligible community organizations submitted propos-
als to one of three CIP regional offices in Rondônia for
a preliminary screening to ensure technical soundness
and compliance with program objectives.2 Initially,
2
Three general types of organizations were invited to submit project
proposals: (1) associations, cooperatives, syndicates, and federations
754 J. O. Browder
technicians from both state and civilian sectors were to
review project proposals submitted to the regional of-
fice and assist community organizations in the process
of proposal formulation.3 Proposals successfully
screened at the regional level were forwarded to the
CIP central office (Gerência Central, GC) at PLANA-
FLORO headquarters in Porto Velho, for further tech-
nical review by the technical analysis group (Grupo de
Analise Técnica, GAT). GAT staff then were expected to
visit each proposed project site to verify the commit-
ment and capacity of the community organization to
implement the proposed project. Proposals successfully
passing this stage were forwarded to the CIP delibera-
tive council (Conselho Deliberativo) for final approval.
Most proposals examined in a mid-term review of
CIP failed to receive any substantive technical review or
assistance at the regional level, leading to the prelimi-
nary approval of flawed projects. In 1997, for example,
of 161 projects that were forwarded from the regional
level, only 59 were finally approved—a 36.6% survival
rate. In 1998, none of the 88 projects approved and
executed were visited by program staff prior to proposal
submission due to lack of GAT staff time.
Project Execution and Monitoring
Once a CIP project proposal was approved by the
deliberative council, PLANAFLORO staff executed a
(of rural workers and small-scale producers); (2) environmental non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in preservation, conser-
vation, and protection; and (3) nongovernmental organizations in-
volved in assisting indigenous communities with projects involving
health, education, and economic alternatives. Local farmers associa-
tions were the most prevalent beneficiary group of the CIP, garnering
177 (73%) of the 241 projects approved under PIC and PAIC (1995–
1998). Only 4 (1.6%) of the community projects were allocated to
environmental NGOs, and 21 projects (8.7%) went to other local
population groups (e.g., indigenous organizations and traditional
riberinho community associations).
3
Several eligibility criteria applied to project sponsors: Only organiza-
tions in existence for a minimum of six months prior to application
were eligible to submit project proposals. Proposing organizations
were required to commit to counterpart funding equal to 20% of total
project expenditures (10% for “environmental projects”). Total finan-
cial requests could not exceed R $150,000. In addition, projects were
required to include some “environmental action” and identify mech-
anisms to guarantee the sustainability of the project after its one-year
installation period. The PAIC (CIP) operations manual also identifies
three other criteria for project approval. First, approved projects must
entail “practical activities” that are replicable and have potential ap-
plication to other communities, i.e., demonstration and multiplier
affects. Second, all projects should entail some “innovative aspect”
(e.g., new organizational management model, sustainable production
technology). Third, all projects should seek to increase the income of
the community (e.g., via processing, storing, marketing of agroforest
projects).
contract (convênio) with the implementing community
organization. The contract specified a chronogram of
activities and project completion benchmarks and a
corresponding funds disbursement schedule. A typical
CIP project might have four or five benchmark/fund-
ing installments to be completed within the one-year
life of the contract. Once the benchmarks covering the
first installment were achieved and verified by GAT
through a monitoring visit (monitória) to each project,
the implementing organization petitioned PLANA-
FLORO for disbursement of the next installment.
In 1998, implementation of the program was signif-
icantly behind schedule. All contracts required spon-
soring organizations to implement their projects within
one year of approval (in many cases an unreasonable
expectation). Yet, of 59 projects approved in 1997, not
even one had been completed by the end of 1998.
Indeed only 35.6% of the total funds committed in
1997 had been disbursed by the end of 1998. Fewer
than half the projects (45.8%) had received their sec-
ond installments. Three explanations were given by the
CIP coordinator and GAT staff for these chronic delays:
(1) accumulated backlog of work within the GAT, pre-
venting staff from undertaking monitoring visits out-
side Porto Velho on a timely basis; (2) delays in the
internal allocation of federal funds to CIP within
PLANAFLORO; and (3) procrastination by individual
project implementing organizations in completing the
initial installments of their work plans (excessive re-
porting requirements were also cited by program ben-
eficiary organizations).
Community Participation
A central expectation in the CIP was that projects
submitted by community organizations would reflect
authentic community participation and consensus. To
assist local communities in elaborating projects,
PLANAFLORO sponsored training sessions through-
out the state during the second half of 1996. Training
focused on how to prepare a CIP proposal and in-
cluded a component on participatory project planning
(diagnóstico participativo). Approximately 290 techni-
cians from local communities were trained and creden-
tialed in participatory project elaboration, only 40 of
whom actually applied for CIP grants by the end of
1998. While training project design trainers did not
appear to be a very productive program activity in terms
of generating new qualified projects, virtually every
project proposal approved under CIP involved the par-
ticipation of some intermediary from outside the com-
munity, raising questions about the authenticity of com-
munity participation in CIP projects. Because the CIP
offered consultants a commission of 2% of the total

value of a project to assist communities in proposal
preparation and another 6% for ongoing technical
assistance over the one-year life of the project (PLANA-
FLORO 1997, p. 19), the CIP spawned a small consult-
ing industry (indústria de projetista). In one case, a single
project proposal written by a technician credentialed by
CIP was used as a clone for 19 different community
initiatives. In another case, virtually identical proposals
were prepared by a single consultant for six different
indigenous associations, all of which had been hastily
created within four months of each other solely, one
suspects, for the purpose of qualifying for a CIP grant.
Unlike the former case, all six of these indigenous
community projects were approved, and the consultant
stood to reap R $56,850 for his services. The extent to
which this problem existed has not been accurately
quantified, but 30%–50% of the projects approved by
1998 may be a realistic estimate. Informants from both
the deliberative council and the GAT report that 100%
of the CIP project proposals received some type of
external technical assistance.
Programmatic Themes
Finally, the CIP’s operations manual identifies four
general thematic priority areas: (1) the Environmental
area includes monitoring and policing of protected
areas, environmental education, environmentally com-
patible economic activities and demonstration projects,
and biodiversity conservation; (2) the Productive area
emphasizes income generation and alternative produc-
tion practices (especially agroforestry); (3) the Social
area covers health and education; and (4) the Infra-
structure area covers bridge rebuilding, roads, electri-
cal power generation or grid enhancement, building
construction, etc. Since the beginning of the CIP in
1995, only 10.8% of total project resources were slated
for the environmental area. The two largest program
areas in the CIP have been for productive activities
(e.g., income generation, technology diffusion, and
production assistance), accounting for 44.2% of total
CIP-approved commitments, followed by social activi-
ties (e.g., health assistance, education, and community
organization development) representing 36.3% of total
project commitments. The infrastructure area (rural
road and bridge repair, rural electrification, commu-
nity association buildings, etc.) accounts for the small-
est relative share as of July 1998.
Development Impacts of CIP
While a comprehensive evaluation of the economic
development impacts of the CIP remains to be com-
pleted, approximately 50%– 60% of the projects that
ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 755
received financing by 1998 show indications of produc-
ing positive economic benefits for local communities.
While the main focus of this paper is on the tropical
forest conservation impacts, one project is profiled
here to illustrate the community response to the CIP
that led to immediate, but not necessarily enduring,
economic benefits for local people.
One Tentative Success Story: The Associação de
Produtores Rurais de São Domingos, Porto Velho
São Domingos is a small riverine community located
about 25 km from Rondônia’s major market center and
capital city, Porto Velho, and derives its livelihood from
fishing, manioc, cheese, and fruits and palm (bananas,
limes, cupuaçu, and native açai). The existing commu-
nity association applied for and received a CIP grant in
1996. The total budget of R $68,946 supported the
acquisition of a medium sized truck (1800-kg capacity)
and a motor boat, construction of one pond for fish
farming, the remodeling of the community center, con-
struction of a rural school, and on-site training for rural
producers. The first effect of the CIP was that the
community association was able to directly transport
local fruit products to the relatively large local Porto
Velho market, thereby eliminating a commercial mid-
dleman who had been paying local producers about
50%– 60% of the wholesale market price for their prod-
ucts. The direct access provided by the truck to Porto
Velho’s wholesale markets increased the value of the
community’s production— ecologically sound agrofor-
estry and fish farming. In consequence, other farmers
began to reclaim abandoned bush fallows and plant
perennial tree crops. With the additional investments
in social capital (community center and grade school),
community real estate values increased and outsiders
began to inquire about purchasing land there. Hypo-
thetically, with rising asset values as collateral, farmers
in the community would be able to borrow more money
from commercial lending institutions to make further
productive improvements, although there was no evi-
dence that this extension of the community’s financial
capacity had occurred. Given the termination of a ma-
jor rural credit program (FUNDAGRI) in 1996, one key
source of subsidized credits for small-scale producers
disappeared. The association, however, applied for a
new community initiative grant to purchase a walk-in
freezer to store perishable tropical fruit pulps until
after the harvest season when prices rise and to encour-
age increasing the scale of production. The ability of
the association to maintain a freezer was made possible
by an electrical power-line connection that the associa-
tion financed with surplus funds from the CIP project.
The CIP clearly delivered benefits to some residents
756 J. O. Browder
Table 2. Total area of natural vegetation alteration by year and average annual deforestation for State of Rondônia
and target CIP municipios (Porto Velho, Ouro Preto, and Guajara Mirim)a
Area (km2)
1978 1980 1983 1995
RO 418.5 757.9 1,395 50,696
PV 3,227
OP 1,505
GM 1,060
a
RO: Rôndonia (state-wide), PV: Porto Velho municipio, OP: Ouro Preto D’Oeste municipio, GM: Guajara Mirim municipio. Source: IBAMA
(1999).
of São Domingo. First, the community association grew
in membership from 50 to 70 between 1996 and 1998,
an indication of the local population’s perception of its
success. Second, the project induced some farmers to
reclaim degraded fields and pursue ecologically
friendly agroforestry plantings. Third, it appears that
the project stimulated some increase in community
land values. Finally, and most importantly, the project
provided productive inputs that this community was
able to use to increase revenues.
Were these benefits sustainable? The association
charged its members R $1.00/60-kg sack (R $1.50/sack
for nonmembers) to transport produce to Porto Velho.
To be financially sustainable (amortizing vehicle re-
placement through member fee revenues), the associ-
ation needed to recover about R $3,300/yr for its trans-
port service. Given its rate structure, the association
only was able to pay the basic operating costs of the
truck (fuel, insurance), with no funds left over for
vehicle amortization—a common problem facing com-
munity organizations participating in the CIP. While
the prices the community established for this service
make it financially unsustainable in the long-term, the
income benefits of the project have given local resi-
dents tangible benefits. Perhaps this is the first step in
a longer process of communities without much experi-
ence in accounting: to recognize the requirements of
financial sustainability.
Conservation Impacts of CIP
A thorough evaluation of the conservation impacts
of this ICDP program, yet to be completed, would
require community and household level research to
ascertain how the program might have changed the
land-use behavior of participating residents. Short of
that, two general program impact indicators are con-
sidered: the rate of deforestation in the state and the
integrity of official protected areas in Rondônia.
Average annual deforestation rate (%)
1998 1975–1983 1983–1995 1995–1998
55,842 58.4 252 3.38
3,440 2.2
1,584 1.75
1,101 1.18
Deforestation
State-wide, the area of natural vegetation cover
deforested nearly tripled every year after 1983
through the 1980s following the paving of the inter-
state highway. Then, during the early 1990s, the pace
of new forest clearing slowed. Between 1995 and
1998, corresponding with the CIP, official estimates
of the area of “natural forest cover altered,” based on
satellite image analysis, rose from 50,696 km2 to
55,842 km2 in 1998, indicating an average annual
deforestation rate of only 3.4% (IBAMA 1999) (Table
2). By 1998 the total area deforested in Rondônia was
equivalent to 23.5% of the entire area of the State
(237,464 km2).
While annual deforestation rates state-wide slowed
considerably during the 1995–1998 period, the three
municipios that together had most (52.7%) of the CIP
projects during this period—Porto Velho (PV), Ouro
Preto (OP), and Guajará Mirim (GM)— exhibited
rates of deforestation significantly lower than the
state average of 3.4%: 1.65%, 1.3%, and 0.4%, respec-
tively. Several factors may explain differential rates of
land-cover change (e.g., changes in interest rates,
crop prices, land rents, wage rates, etc.), and no
claim is made here that the CIP was a decisive factor
in reducing those rates either state-wide or in these
three key municipios. Clearly, more detailed ground-
level analysis would be required to quantify the spe-
cific influence of the CIP on deforestation rates at
the local level. Yet, the data suggest the real possibil-
ity that this ICDP may have played a role in reducing
deforestation rates on private farm properties in
those municipios where the program was most active.
Intuitively, farmers who have successfully shifted
some of their labor to alternative environmentally
compatible economic activities sponsored by the CIP
would have less labor time available for traditional
farming activities that require forest clearing.
 ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 757

Table 3. Status of conservation units in Rondôniaa

Type Name Area (ha) Status
1. Ecological Station Mujica Nava 18,280 Demarcated, no installations/personnel; area intact,
no degradation
2. Ecological Station Samuel 71,060 Demarcated with research installations; area intact,
controlled access, no degradation
3. Ecological Station Tres Irmãos 102,678 Demarcated with research installations; land
invasions and illegal hunting reported
4. National Park Pacaá Novos 764,801 Not demarcated, installations under construction;
management plan not implemented; land
invasions and timber poaching reported
5. State Park Corumbiara 424,339 Demarcated; 3 installations, sporadic enforcement;
NGO participation; illegal hunting reported;
periodic uncontrolled fires; river pollution from
upriver deforestation
6. State Park Guajará-Mirim 207,148 Demarcated; 2 installations; 2 installations/no
permanent personnel; NGO participation; land
invasions and widespread illegal hunting reported
7. State Park Serra dos Reis 36,442 Demarcated; original area reduced due to land
ownership conflicts; 2 installations (deactivated);
land invasions and timber poaching reported
8. National Biological Guaporé 600,000 Not demarcated; management plan (1984) never
Reserve implemented; land invasions, illegal hunting and
sporadic timber poaching reported
9. National Biological Jaru 268,150 Not demarcated; management plan (1984) never
Reserve implemented; significant land invasions, illegal
settlements, and timber poaching reported
10. State Biological Rio Ouro Preto 56,581 Demarcated; no installations/personnel; area intact;
Reserve no invasions reported due to remote location
11. State Biological Traçadal 20,164 Demarcated; located inside military “special use
Reserve area”; 2 permanent households in residence, area
intact
Total area protected 2,569,643
Total protected area intact 166,085
(6.4%)
a
Source: SEPLAN (1998).

Protected Area Integrity 89.336 in 1984) are dedicated to biological preservation

The logic of the ICDP approach is that by promoting
alternative environmentally compatible welfare-en-
hancing activities in human communities located near
protected areas, community residents will refrain from
overexploitation and even protect the natural resources
of those areas from nonlocal interlopers. The govern-
ment of Rondônia recognizes two general categories of
“conservation units”: indirect use conservation units
(IUCUs) and direct use conservation units (DUCUs);
the former comes closest to matching the general def-
inition of a “protected area” (SEPLAN 1998). In IUCUs
the exploitation of natural resources is prohibited and
the objective is the preservation of biodiversity with
minimal human interference. There are three types of
IUCUs: ecological stations, parks, and biological re-
serves, administered by either federal or state agencies,
spanning a total area of 2,569,643 ha (10.8% of the
state’s territory). Ecological stations (created by Decree
for scientific research and education. At the time of this
writing, there were three ecological stations in (Table
3) encompassing a total area of 192,020 ha (0.8% of the
total area of state). “Parks,” according to the Brazilian
Forestry Code (Law 4,771, 1965) are conservation units
with important “ecological, scenic, scientific, cultural,
educational, and recreational characteristics” (SEPLAN
1998, p. 52). The goal is nature preservation with public
visitation permitted for recreational and educational
purposes and for scientific research according to a
management plan. There is only one national park and
three state parks in Rondônia, totaling 1,432,730 ha
(6.01% of the state’s territory). Biological reserves and
conservation units are limited to biological preserva-
tion without human interference for the purpose of
protecting biodiversity and natural ecological pro-
cesses. Visitation is restricted to educational purposes
and scientific research on a case-by-case permitted ba-
758 J. O. Browder
sis, in accordance with a management plan as deter-
mined by the responsible agency. There are two federal
biological reserves and two state biological reserves cov-
ering a total of 944,893 ha (3.96% of the state’s terri-
tory).
In 1990 an international workshop sponsored by the
Brazilian Institute for the Environment (IBAMA) and
several Brazilian and international research and envi-
ronmental conservation organizations, entitled “Work-
shop 90 —Biological Priorities for Amazon Conserva-
tion,” was held in Manaus to determine priority areas
for conservation in the Amazon Basin. These priorities
were based on a synthesis of biodiversity and species
endemism criteria. In Rondônia, priority areas were
designated that included federal biological reserves,
one national park, one state park, and all three ecolog-
ical stations. Several other DUCUs (extractive reserves,
state forests) are located on areas recommended for
protection by Workshop 90.
A recent report prepared by the Secretary of Plan-
ning (SEPLAN 1998) reviews the status of each of Ron-
dônia’s conservation units corresponding in time with
the CIP. A summary of those findings (Table 3) reveal
that only four of the 11 protected areas have avoided
some form of degradation since being created. Land
invasions by squatters and illegal hunting, fishing, and
timber poaching were the most frequently reported
threats. In other cases (Corumbiáira), forest burning by
smallholders upstream outside the park led to down-
stream sediment contamination of the river segments
inside the park or fire encroachment from along the
park’s borders. Other problems cited in the report
associated with inappropriate park location, poor plan-
ning and management have contributed to degrada-
tion. Two conservation units are located in close prox-
imity to existing colonization projects, giving easy
access to interlopers. Three of the largest protected
areas have not been completely demarcated (i.e., sur-
veyed) and posted. Many units were downsized from
their original dimensions due to conflicting land
claims. Both of the state’s large national biological
reserves have yet to see management plans imple-
mented, although such were formulated in 1984. Most
of the conservation units do not have permanent facil-
ities or resident personnel for monitoring and enforce-
ment.
Of the four IUCUs, representing 6.4% of the total
conservation area of the state, that report no significant
degradation, three owe their protection to their remote
location far removed from active settlements. Only one
area (the Samuel Ecological Station), which is relatively
accessible, is intact because of effective regular patrol-
ling by paid guards of the Amazon’s electrical power
company (ELECTRONORTE).
It is noteworthy that most of the CIP projects ap-
proved (GAT 1998) have been awarded to community
organizations located in settlement areas, not located
in close proximity to the state’s protected areas. Con-
sequently, although the data considered here are in-
conclusive, it is not apparent that the CIP had any
decisive effect on the conservation of Rondônia’s offi-
cial protected areas (conservation units). Almost two
thirds of the state’s protected areas suffer from external
sources of degradation.
Lessons Learned from CIP
Many of the lessons learned from the CIP to date
echo the experiences with ICDPs elsewhere as re-
ported, for example, by Robinson (1993) in Latin
America, Newmark and Hough (2000) in Africa, and in
synoptic global reviews by Brandon and Wells (1992)
and the Biodiversity Support Program (e.g., Brown and
Wyckoff-Baird 1992). While the CIP in Brazil cannot be
considered an unqualified success or failure, certainly
several important lessons can be learned from this bold
experiment in community-based conservation and de-
velopment at the regional scale. Seven lessons are note-
worthy.
Defective Project Design
The CIP project eligibility criteria included 58 dif-
ferent project descriptions, half of which were classified
as “environmental.” While it may be said that this wide
range of programmatic options gave CIP technical staff
the flexibility to select the best projects, in practice it
has fostered an institutional “more is better” attitude:
the more elements a project has, the better the project.
This resulted in many defectively designed projects con-
sisting of a smorgasbord of unrelated activities and
functional elements that were not logically linked to
each other. One of the most serious consequences of
this practice was neglect of environmental conservation
outcomes in project design.
Inadequate Attention to Environmental Conservation
A frequent concern about ICDPs is that the conser-
vation components are poorly articulated in project
design and implementation, a point raised elsewhere by
Andrews and others (1998) regarding the Rı́a Celestún
and Rı́a Lagartos biosphere reserve projects in Mexico.
In most of the approved CIP project proposals, the
functional linkages between specific development activ-
ities and desired environmental conservation outcomes
were very vaguely described or underspecified. GAT

staff admitted that environmental activities were not
popular among project proponents because of the
widespread belief that such activities fail to confer tan-
gible benefits to communities. Many activities and
project inputs financed by the CIP that are classified as
“productive,” “infrastructure,” or “social” are likely to
be used by community organizations in ways that pro-
mote the environmental conservation goals of PLANA-
FLORO. However, the program management made
little effort to identify specific factors that determine
how different types of project inputs are used by com-
munity organizations and the environmental impacts of
such use. These remain key research questions that CIP
administrators might wish to address.
Pushing Unwanted Activities: The Case of
Agroforestry
GAT staff members were unanimous in their obser-
vation that the project proposals they reviewed tended
to lack the thematic balance of activities that the pro-
gram strives to attain (e.g., between production and
environmental conservation). The typical proposal em-
phasized one or two production-oriented objectives
(e.g., vaccination of dairy cows, pasture restoration) or
infrastructure investments (e.g., road or building re-
pair). Apparently under some pressure from World
Bank supervisory staff to attain some programmatic
balance, GAT staff admitted that they frequently
pushed unwanted activities upon project proponents.
The case of agroforestry was salient. Agroforestry and
forest recuperation/enrichment were the most preva-
lent components in the MIP, found in 76% of all (CIP)
projects. Existing monitoring reports proved to be in-
sufficient to enable a comprehensive characterization
or analysis of outcomes of these project activities. Based
on a review of ten project monitoring reports, however,
at least 50% of these agroforestry projects show exceed-
ingly high first-year seedling mortality rates due to:
● General lack of farmer interest in agroforestry. In
one failed CIP project 71.4% of the association
members chose not to plant agroforest plots as part
of the community project, even though such plots
were proposed by the association.
● Species chosen were less well known or not well
adapted to the microenvironments in which they
were planted.
● Failure to plant seedlings early enough in the rainy
season to ensure adequate root development before
the dry season. This problem arises from several
causes: lack of available or interested community
labor, failure of PLANAFLORO to disburse funds
ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 759
before the planting season begins, unavailable seed-
ling supplies when funds are disbursed.
● Lack of sufficient and timely technical assistance
(cited in about one-third of the monitoring reports
reviewed).
● Inappropriate agroforestry plot location, usually in
a remote location from dwelling (e.g., abandoned
coffee field toward the rear of a farmer’s lot).
● Instability within the community arising from de-
mographic mobility. Examples included high farm
property turnover rates in some communities or
dissension within the community association (usu-
ally over use of project-funded equipment and re-
sources).
The experience in degraded forest recuperation
and enrichment, although more sketchy, appears to
be even worse. Seedling mortality rates averaging
90% in the first year following planting are not un-
common, mainly due to lack of genuine farmer in-
terest in this activity. This poor performance should
not be generalized to the rural population overall in
the state. In other projects, like the Rondônia Agro-
forestry Pilot Project, farmers drawn from the same
population who are motivated to integrate agrofor-
estry practices into their farming systems achieve
seedling survival rates ranging from 60% to 90%
during the first critical year following planting
(Browder and Pedlowski 2000). Yet, the ability to
carefully select project farmers who are ready to in-
novate represents a challenge to the success of IC-
DPs. This lesson resonates with experiences else-
where in which ICDP participants were reluctant to
adopt innovative land use practices proposed in
project packages [e.g., Eder (1996) in relation to the
Palawan Integrated Area Development Project in the
Philippines].
Deficient Institutional Capacity
By 1998 several community organizations had been
invented for the sole purpose of illegitimately obtaining
CIP funding. Ironically, in some instances CIP-trained
community facilitators were active accomplices in such
misadventures. Because GAT personnel were stretched
too thinly across a wide range of administrative duties,
the capacity of most community groups to implement
CIP projects was rarely assessed. The CIP program co-
ordinator estimated that “80% of the associations with
approved projects did not have the organizational ca-
pacity to effectively utilize the level of funding they
received.” Deficient organizational capacity is a seem-
ingly universal issue, as noted by Newmark and Hough
(2000) in their critiques of ICDPs in Africa. A related
760 J. O. Browder
concern regards the conception of “community” as a
cohesive, democratically governed entity embedded in
many ICDPs. Although few informants in the CIP pro-
gram review were willing to speak extensively on this
subject, schisms in the community have been cited
elsewhere as a factor limiting the capacity of commu-
nity organizations to sustain ICDPs projects (Fiallo and
Naughton-Treves 1998).
Inadequate Attention to Women’s Concerns
Approximately 18,878 families were beneficiaries of
the 146 CIP projects approved in 1997–1998, although
it would be difficult to corroborate this claim from the
available program data. In very few of the project pro-
posals is there any mention made of development issues
of specific concern to women members of the commu-
nity. While project proposals having productive compo-
nents were required to demonstrate financial viability
(usually established through simple benefit– cost anal-
ysis), there was no comparable requirement that pro-
posals demonstrate “social viability,” especially the anal-
ysis of the workload implications of CIP activities by
gender. Gender was simply ignored in CIP, and it is
unclear whether projects entailed negative impacts on
women by increasing their workloads. These issues war-
rant some investigation, as well.
Lack of Technical Criteria for Implementing and
Measuring Sustainable Practices
Many community leaders share a limited under-
standing of the costs and complexity of ICDPs, and a
frequently cited problem is the lack of training and
technical support needed to enable local project staff to
implement and measure ICDP outcomes. Defining ap-
propriate project sustainability guidelines, especially
when such projects include social components that are
functionally unrelated to economic or conservation ac-
tivities, poses enormous challenges for local ICDP staff
(e.g., Cuello and others 1998, McNeely 1988). The CIP
operations manual requires that each project “demon-
strate the conditions of continuity and sustainability of
proposed actions after the end of financing” (p. 15).
Also required are “utilization plans” for capital goods of
“community use” (vehicles, machinery, facilities), pre-
sumably to ensure accountability in the use of such
items. Moreover, the operations manual (Cademo 2 -
Instruções para Elaboração de Projectos, p. 13) requires that
each project proposal include a section that addresses
the sustainability of the project, and gives examples of
the types of mechanisms that might be devised to
achieve this. Finally, the same document requires pro-
posals to assess the financial viability of the projects,
including a benefit– cost analysis. Despite these explicit
guidelines, in practice the CIP coordinator frankly con-
ceded that “90% of the projects were approved by GAT
without adequate treatment of the sustainability of the
project over the medium and long-terms. . . [because]
we didn’t have our own ideas about appropriate sus-
tainability indicators” (confidential personal communi-
cation). None of the projects that I reviewed defined
any specific mechanisms for cost recovery, deprecia-
tion, and replacement of equipment or community
facility maintenance that minimally would be required
to ensure continuity of benefits over the medium term.
Most project proposals reviewed contained a simple
ex-ante benefit– cost analysis based on hypothetical in-
put prices and unrealistically low discount rates that
tended to overstate probable net benefit streams.
Project proposals contained totally inadequate descrip-
tions of sustainability indicators. Defining easy-to-mea-
sure indicators of sustainability remains an unresolved
challenge with many ICDPs.
Lack of Community Partnerships to Enhance Project
Benefits and Sustainability
Project benefits can be multiplied when implement-
ing organizations establish partnerships with other in-
stitutional stakeholders in a project area to share costs
and exchange information. Opportunities for such
partnerships, especially between community organiza-
tions and local (municipio) governments in infrastruc-
ture and social projects, were not actively pursued in
the CIP. Of the 146 CIP projects approved since 1996,
only 11 (7.5%) involve partnerships with municipios that
help cover the community’s counterpart funding com-
mitment. These types of local cost-sharing would seem
particularly appropriate in projects involving road re-
pairs, electrification, public school refurbishing, and
similar infrastructure ventures. Without cost sharing,
the CIP ended up subsidizing normal municipio capital
programs.
Conclusions—Community-Based Tropical
Forest Conservation from Above?
The evidence from the Community Initiatives Pro-
gram does not conclusively support the claim that com-
munity-based development has significantly helped to
save tropical forest protected areas in Rondônia. Cir-
cumstantial evidence does suggest a positive correlation
between the number of CIP projects in a given locality
and lower than average deforestation rates at the muni-
cipio level, but this tentative observation will require
confirmation through local-level, site-specific field re-
search.

There are three important conclusions about the
experience of the CIP. First, the definition of commu-
nity as used in this conservation strategy implies a co-
hesive, relatively homogeneous and autonomous unit
of permanent residents dwelling in a common place.
The very logic underlying ICDP strategies virtually re-
quires these assumptions about community. In prac-
tice, however, the individuals submitting CIP proposals
do not really represent socially unified communities.
Many community associations were opportunistically
created solely to seek the funding provided by the
program and did not constitute long-standing, orga-
nized segments of civil society. The CIP illustrates the
dilemma of planning ICDP from the top down via a
state agency or international development organiza-
tion, when the basic premise of the strategy calls for a
community-based bottom-up approach. Whenever this
is done, there will likely be a considerable gap between
the expectations of the program sponsors and the ca-
pacities and intentions of the program participants.
Second, the CIP displayed the classic planning trap
of failing to clearly and logically link project actions to
outcomes, especially in relation to environmental con-
servation. Project design was seemingly driven more by
political desire to show attention to multiple program-
matic objectives than a desire to achieve functional
coherence and concrete results, often maximized
through programmatic simplicity. As indicated in “Les-
sons Learned” section above, individual projects were
packaged to display a diversity of program elements
(e.g., pasture reformation, bee-keeping, agroforestry,
road repair) without much consideration to the func-
tional relationship between elements. Not surprisingly,
only an estimated 50% of the projects financed under
the CIP were considered promising in terms of support-
ing community development objectives, and fewer still
reflect the successes recounted in the case study above.
This systemic project design deficiency was most pro-
nounced in terms of linking specific community devel-
opment actions to tropical forest conservation out-
comes. None of the projects reviewed displayed any
clear functional relationship between proposed devel-
opment actions and specific environmental conserva-
tion outcomes.
Finally, as in so many development programs, the
CIP was afflicted by a general misunderstanding of
sustainability and a lack of clear indicators of program
effectiveness. Program staff were aware of this problem,
but, given the enormity of the administrative demands
placed upon them, simply found shortcuts that enabled
them to bypass the messy issues associated with imple-
menting the program sustainably (i.e., with a concrete
long-term vision of how the desired outcomes of the
ICDPs in the Brazilian Amazon 761
program could be perpetuated). As long as a project
contained some environmental element, it was assumed
to be sustainable. On paper this may appear pleasing to
program donors, but, in practice few projects were
designed in ways to ensure even the most basic require-
ments of sustainability (e.g., operating cost-recovery,
energy self-sufficiency, etc.).
The World Bank and the State Government of Ron-
dônia are to be credited with accepting the risks of
launching an innovative, ambitious, and thoughtful ef-
fort to integrate economic development with protected
area conservation in the CIP. The experience of the
CIP is neither one of unqualified success nor failure.
This ICDP case study experience suggests that the con-
servation benefits for tropical forests are localized to
those forest fragments found on private holdings in
program-beneficiary communities. Nearby conserva-
tion units do not appear to be affected by the ICDP
program. The lessons of this program may be of con-
siderable interest to project planners seeking to im-
prove upon the ICDP approach elsewhere.
Literature Cited
Anderson, A. (ed.). 1990. Alternatives to deforestation: Steps
towards sustainable use of the Amazon rain forest. Colum-
bia University Press, New York.
Andrews, J. W., R. M. von Bertrab, S. Rojas, A. S. Méndez, and
D. A. Rose. 1998. Mexico: Rı́a Celestún and Rı́a Lagartos
special biosphere reserves. Pages 79 –106 in K. Brandon,
K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson (eds.), Parks in peril;
People, politics, and protected areas. The Nature Conser-
vancy and Island Press, Washington, DC.
Batisse, M. 1982. The biosphere reserve: a tool for environ-
mental conservation and management. Environmental Con-
servation 9(2):101–111.
Batisse, M. 1986. Developing and focusing the biosphere re-
serve concept. Nature and Resources 22:1–10.
Brandon, K. 1997. Policy and practical considerations in land-
use strategies for biodiversity conservation. Pages 90 –114 in
R. Kramer, C. van Schaik, and J. Johnson (eds.), Last stand:
Protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiversity.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Brandon, K. E., and M. Wells. 1992. Planning for people and
parks: Design dilemmas. World Development 20(4):557–570.
Briscoe, D. 1999. Many world parks not safe. Amazon Alliance
for Indigenous and Traditional Peoples of the Amazon
Basin, Washington, DC. www.amazoncoalition.org; accessed
2 December 1999.
Browder, J. O. 1988. Public policy and deforestation in the
Brazilian Amazon. In R. Repetto and M. Gillis (eds.), Public
policy and the misuse of forest resources. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, Cambridge.
Browder, J. O. 1994. Surviving in Rondônia: The dynamics of
colonist farming strategies in Brazil’s Northwest Frontier.
Studies in Comparative International Development 29(3):45– 69.
762 J. O. Browder
Browder, J. O., and M. A. Pedlowski. 2000. Agroforestry per-
formance on small farms in Amazonia: Findings from the
Rondônia Agroforestry Pilot Project. Agroforestry Systems 49:
63– 83.
Brown, M., and B. Wyckoff-Baird. 1992. Designing integrated
conservation and development projects. Biodiversity Sup-
port Program. World Wildlife Fund, The Nature Conser-
vancy, and World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.
Cuello, C., K. Brandon, and R. Margoluis. 1998. Costa Rica:
Corcovado National Park. Pages 143–192 in K. Brandon,
K. H. Redford, and S. E. Sanderson (eds.), Parks in peril:
People, politics, and protected areas. The Nature Conser-
vancy and Island Press, Washington, DC.
Eder, J. F. 1996. After deforestation: Migrant lowland farmers
in the Philippine uplands. Pages 253–271 in L. E. Sponsel,
T. N. Headland, and R. C. Bailey (eds.), Tropical defores-
tation: The human dimension. Columbia University Press,
New York.
Fiallo, E. A., and L. Naughton-Treves. 1998. Ecuador: Macha-
lilla national park. Pages 249 –286 in K. Brandon, K. H.
Redford, and S. E. Sanderson (eds.), Parks in peril: People,
politics, and protected areas. The Nature Conservancy and
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Fuller, K. S. 1996. President’s note. Page 2 in Conservation
issues. World Wildlife Fund, Washington, DC.
GAT (Grupo de Analise Técnica). 1998. Metas Fı́sicas Finan-
ciadas Pelos PICs im 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998. Unpublished
documents listing individual CIP projects.
Gradwohl, J., and R. Greenberg. 1988. Saving the tropical
forests. Earthscan Publications, London.
Hays, S. P. 1987. Beauty, health and permanence: Environ-
mental politics in the United States, 1955–1985. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
IBAMA (Instituto Brasileiro de Meio Ambiente). 1999. Defor-
estation, State of Rondonia, Brazil.
IBDF (Instituto Brasileiro de Desenvolvimento Florestal).
1985. Alteração de Cobertura Vegetal Natural da Região
Amazônia. Programa de Monitoramehto da Cobertura Flo-
restal do Brasil, Brasilia.
IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature),
UNEP (United Nations Environment Program), and WWF
(World Wildlife Fund). 1980. World conservation strategy:
Living resource conservation for sustainable development.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Kramer, R., C. van Schaik, and J. Johnson (eds.). 1997. Last
stand: Protected areas and the defense of tropical biodiver-
sity. Oxford University Press, New York.
Leonard, H. J. (ed.). 1989. Environment and the poor: Devel-
opment strategies for a common agenda. Transaction
Books, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
McNeely, J. 1988. Economics and biodiversity: Developing and
using economic incentives to conserve biological resources.
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Newmark, W. D., and J. L. Hough. 2000. Conserving wildlife in
Africa: Integrated conservation and development projects
and beyond. Bioscience 50(7):585–592.
Oates, J. F. 1999. Myth and reality in the rain forest: How
conservation strategies are failing in West Africa. University
of California Press, Berkeley.
Patton, M. Q. 1982. Practical evaluation. Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills, California.
PIC (Programa de Iniciativa Comunitária). 1995. Relatório
No. 5, de Acompanhamento da Execução Orçamentária/
Financeira dos Programas de
PLANAFLORO. 1997. Programa de Apoio às Iniciativas Co-
munitárias-PAIC, Intruções Técnicas. Porto Velho, Ron-
donia: PLANAFLORO. Technical instruction manual for
entities preparing proposals to PAIC. State Secretariat of
Planning and General Coordination, Rondonia. Iniciativas
Comunitárias—PICs e Produtos Inovadores SESAU e
SUDEC. PLANAFLORO, Porto Velho.
Ramashia, R., and S. Rankin. 1995. Managing evaluation: A
guide for NGO leadership. PACT, Johannesburg, South
Africa.
Reid, W. V., and K. R. Miller. 1989. Keeping options alive: The
scientific basis for conserving biodiversity. World Resources
Institute, Washington, DC.
Rich, B. M. 1985. The multilateral development bank’s envi-
ronmental policy and the United States. Ecology Law Quar-
terly 12:681–745.
Rich, B. M. 1989. The “greening” of the development banks:
Rhetoric and reality. Ecologist 19(2):44 –52.
Robinson, J. G. 1993. Community based approaches to wildlife
conservation in neotropical forests. Case Study 12a, Com-
munity based conservation workshop, Airlie, Virginia: Liz
Claiborne/Art Ortenberg Foundation, 18 –22 October.
SEPLAN (Secretaria de Estado do Planejamento e Coorde-
nação Geral). 1998. Unidades de Conservação de Ron-
donia: Relatório Final. Porto Velho.
Terborgh, J. 1999. Requiem for nature. Island Press, Wash-
ington, DC.
Wells, M., and K. Brandon. 1992. People and parks: Linking
protected areas management with local communities. The
World Bank, Washington, DC.
Western, D., and M. Pearl (eds.). 1989. Conservation for the
twenty-first century. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wilson, E. O. (ed.). 1988. Biodiversity. National Academy
Press, Washington, DC.
World Bank. 1995. Brazil. Rondonia Natural Resources Man-
agement Project (Loan 3444-BR). Report on the status of
implementation, December 15. Washington, DC.