Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

where the objectives did not directly address even one of the perceived needs of the community does not have great potential for success. Community-based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) 17. CBNRM is fashionable but is it achievable? If it is, we are a long way from achieving it. Considerable more intellectual effort should be invested in how it can be addressed. Likewise, biodiversity and land degradation are often difficult terms for communities to accept, especially in the vernacular. Such projects will not be successful in isolation without trying to link modern concepts of environment with community perceptions of their environs. First, one must address the problems and needs of communities but it is clear that the integration of local and scientific knowledge using degradation indicators and remedial options can empower land users (Reed, undated). 18. One idea for future projects might be for GEF funding to cover the environmental aspects and seek co-funding from other financiers to address the socio-economic needs of the beneficiaries. That way, the GEF component can remain focused on environmental issues. Simplification of objective, outcomes and activities 19. The logframe of IVP was too complex and unfocussed. There should have been one achievable objective with a limited number of outcomes, outputs and activities directly related to plant biodiversity and land degradation. Justification of regional projects 20. A transboundary project would be more relevant than a regional project. The three countries in IVP had very little in common. Where a regional project is justified, it is important than the regional component is strengthened a priori before national components go their own way with regard to implementation. Simplifying partnerships 21. GEF should consider simplifying partnerships in their projects. The FE poses questions about the realistic functioning of a partnership including UNEP/ UNDP/ UNOPS/ University of Oslo/ Government and other Institutional partners, which in most cases was difficult. It was classic scenario of “too many Chiefs and not enough Indians”. The project was top heavy, with too many decision-makers, and bureaucracy having a negative impact on project implementation. 13
Community-based projects 22. IVP was implemented by ministries within the three Governments. Governments are inclined to pay lip service to development of the poor in arid lands but in reality the populations are low priority and marginalized. GEF should consider truly bottom-up projects whereby the beneficiaries are encouraged to take full responsibility for the management of their lands and their projects. Government input should be restricted to the process of giving communities legal access to their land and ensuring that boundaries are legally defined. Sustainability is more likely to be achieved if communities feel ownership. Governments are unlikely to be able to sustain projects like IVP without external funding. 23. The future of pastoralism is arguably largely in the hands of the pastoralists themselves not of Governments which must take a lead in land tenure, legislation and enforcement, and policies in formally recognizing community rights of access. The communities themselves control land use and hence loss of biodiversity or land degradation. Projects should recognize that the only way to achieve sustainable and non-destructive use of arid lands is bottom-up planning and complete involvement of the beneficiaries at all stages. Some might proffer that the prognosis for uncontrolled communal grazing of rangelands is doomed and that privatization (albeit by defined community groups such as trusts) is the only way forward. The project closed before there was any demonstration of whether this prediction can be refuted. What is certain is that communally managed arid lands are under ever-increasing threat, that communal lands are being privatized, and that it is very difficult to know what the answers are. Hundreds of projects in Africa’s arid lands have faced the same quandary. The broad objective of IVP remains relevant: conserving biodiversity from the effects of land degradation and ensuring that the beneficiaries involved see that doing so makes economic sense. It is therefore essential that each country project seek further funding so that the expectations of the beneficiaries are met. Introduction & Background 24. The Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa Project (more commonly called the Indigenous Vegetation Project {IVP}) was conceived to address the problems of biodiversity loss and land degradation, two of the greatest environmental problems of the arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) that cover about 60% of Africa. Most of these areas are moderately to severely degraded. The main causes of land degradation on Africa’s ASALs are overgrazing, unsustainable use of range products (charcoal etc), and conversion to agriculture (rain-fed or irrigated, much of which is also unsustainable). The Indigenous Vegetation Project was developed between 1998 and 2000. Countries and sites representative of conditions in Africa’s ASALs in southern, western and eastern Africa were selected. IVP was to develop community-based indigenous vegetation management systems building strongly on 14
Page 1 and 2: UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMM
Page 3 and 4: Involvement of rural populations in
Page 5 and 6: MADEMA: Marsabit District Environme
Page 7 and 8: Only two years separated the MTE fr
Page 9 and 10: systems operated by indigenous peop
Page 11: 13. The FE considered that the init
Page 15 and 16: and the RCU, the FE was organized e
Page 17 and 18: 34. The key objective should have b
Page 19 and 20: not been The specificity of the dat
Page 21 and 22: importantly, livestock production i
Page 23 and 24: egarding the constraints to achievi
Page 25 and 26: provided the distance to other wate
Page 27 and 28: communities. IVP Botswana views the
Page 29 and 30: the existence of management plans,
Page 31 and 32: Micro-projects and IGAs. 83. Micro-
Page 33 and 34: Kenya Arid Lands Research Station (
Page 35 and 36: and Egerton University for research
Page 37 and 38: induction training workshop in 2006
Page 39 and 40: for better financial management. Th
Page 41 and 42: This should not have been an outcom
Page 43 and 44: 122. To an extent yes, but it is di
Page 45 and 46: define the contents and structure o
Page 47 and 48: in 2004 by the project managers of
Page 49 and 50: leaders to Mali. Apart from the M.S
Page 51 and 52: elevant information on dry land deg
Page 53 and 54: Stakeholder involvement 162. The pr
Page 55 and 56: 173. The project has applied approp
Page 57 and 58: communities for CBRM development. I
Page 59 and 60: Botswana. Kenya has since been done
Page 61 and 62: challenge in all countries. It pres
Page 63 and 64:
199. Successful CBNRM requires effe
Page 65 and 66:
206. UNEP-GEF projects are often re
Page 67 and 68:
Annex I: National consultant report
Page 69 and 70:
Sigles et Abréviations AG Assembl
Page 71 and 72:
Sommaire Introduction …………
Page 73 and 74:
En second lieu : les perspectives e
Page 75 and 76:
3.1.1 La pertinence des objectifs 3
Page 77 and 78:
• La conception d'actions identif
Page 79 and 80:
projet, de l’élaboration des bud
Page 81 and 82:
3.2.1.4 Mais des réalisations impo
Page 83 and 84:
Encadré 7 : Point de vue d’un no
Page 85 and 86:
été entravée par la pénurie de
Page 87 and 88:
malgré la déception que l’on pe
Page 89 and 90:
• Réalisation de nombreuses étu
Page 91 and 92:
d'accompagnement, de suivi, de cons
Page 93 and 94:
5.4 Les pistes de financement Il s
Page 95 and 96:
Annexes A1 : TdR de l’évaluation
Page 97 and 98:
• Décrire et évaluer les effort
Page 99 and 100:
Annexe 2 : CALENDRIER DE L’EVALUA
Page 101 and 102:
• Une réunion d’échanges et d
Page 103 and 104:
Annexe 5 : INSTANCES DU PVA : missi
Page 105 and 106:
106
Page 107 and 108:
ACTIVITÉS PRÉVUES ET PLANIFIÉES
Page 109 and 110:
110
Page 111 and 112:
2006 Identification des villages te
Page 113 and 114:
Annexe 9 : LISTE DES DOCUMENTS REAL
Page 115 and 116:
5 Alima SIBY Ménager 6 Ziriki DIKO
Page 117 and 118:
12 Guegue NAMA Ménager 13 Masoude
Page 119 and 120:
21 Handoul Moctar COULIBALY Cultiva
Page 121 and 122:
38 Fatma Kaoufa COULIBALY Ménagèr
Page 123 and 124:
17 Assa SILLA Ménagère 18 Kadeye
Page 125 and 126:
7 Abou BERTHE IER Sotuba 8 Mahamane
Page 127 and 128:
List of Acronyms ALRMP: Arid Lands
Page 129 and 130:
Executive Summary The objective of
Page 131 and 132:
1.0 Introduction 1.1 Background The
Page 133 and 134:
• Key stakeholders have knowledge
Page 135 and 136:
Lokichar and Juluk. Appendix 2 give
Page 137 and 138:
contribution in the initiation of t
Page 139 and 140:
egeneration especially of Acacia se
Page 141 and 142:
after the project mid-term review a
Page 143 and 144:
Timeliness and effectiveness of sup
Page 145 and 146:
Effectiveness of regional mechanism
Page 147 and 148:
Turkana Project Site were housed by
Page 149 and 150:
Budgeting for the project was withi
Page 151 and 152:
However, given that NEMA did not se
Page 153 and 154:
• Identify lessons learned in ter
Page 155 and 156:
38 Lorugum Elders and Environmental
Page 157 and 158:
Annex III: Terms of Reference for L
Page 159 and 160:
Objective and Scope of the FE The o
Page 161 and 162:
Sometimes, adequate information on
Page 163 and 164:
likelihood that any required financ
Page 165 and 166:
throughout the project implementati
Page 167 and 168:
• Assess the mechanisms put in pl
Page 169 and 170:
iv) Project Design, Performance and
Page 171 and 172:
Executing Agency and Technical Staf
Page 173 and 174:
which local communities actively pa
Page 175 and 176:
For the development of viable commu
Page 177 and 178:
symbolized by opportunistic decisio
Page 179 and 180:
management is concerned, most polic
Page 181 and 182:
the two in which their strengths in
Page 183 and 184:
Incentives can also take the form o
Page 185 and 186:
Annex V: Non-IVP persons & groups m
Page 187:
Kaburu, H.K., Ekiru, B., Situma, C.
show all

Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?