Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

More documents

Recommendations

Info

indigenous knowledge. Biodiversity conservation and rehabilitation of degraded rangelands were to be the results of the development of these new management systems. There was to be a strong comparative research and comparative learning component to IVP cutting across the three countries/regions. Scope, objective & methods 25. The basic reference point of the FE is the Project Objective in the project document (PD). Both the design and the implementation of the project are evaluated in respect to the Project Objective, which is as follows: To develop models for the conservation of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded rangelands, and to develop sustainable management systems using indigenous knowledge. 26. The FE of IVP concentrates on findings and lessons learned at the end of the project rather than recommendations. The ToR requested the FE team to answer the following questions: 1. Has the project established appropriate indigenous management systems? Where? Over what land area? 2. Has the project provided regional and national data on indigenous production and management systems been significantly enhanced over their pre-project levels? 3. Has the project rehabilitated indigenous vegetation in degraded rangelands, through reducing pressure on the vegetation resources? If so, where and over what land area? 4. Has the project assisted in the provision of alternative livelihoods, improved livestock markets and feed resources in other arid areas? 5. Has the project transferred technology and information to the primary target audiences? 27. The Terms of Reference (ToR) also ask “what happened?” and “what would have happened anyway? The FE also focused primarily on what the project achieved in the field with communities. It rapidly became clear that most of the work revolved around community development rather than sustainable community-driven reversal of land degradation. One of the main results of IVP was the creation and empowerment of community management structures that must precede community-based management systems. These are scarcely mentioned in the PD but it soon became clear that they were fundamental pre-conditions. This improved since the MTE but whereas the creation of such community structures is manifest, the empowerment is not so obvious and this will impact sustainability. National consultants 28. The UNDP Country Offices visit recruited national consultants to provide local insight and to visit the IVP field sites to support the international consultant who visited Botswana first, then Mali, before returning to Kenya for a later visit to Turkana. In all three countries 15
and the RCU, the FE was organized efficiently, most documents were made available and the project hosts did their utmost to reschedule well-planned itineraries to fit with missed flights due to overbooking, lost baggage, and other last minute changes in plans. All the consultants extend their gratitude to the friendliness, courtesy and time provided by their IVP hosts. In Botswana, a national consultant was hired but his work did not coincide with the international consultant. One had been selected to coincide with the team leader’s visit to Botswana but it was too late. This was a clear demonstration of the rather ‘hands off’ approach of UNDP in Botswana as there had been plenty of time for the timely recruitment of a national consultant. In Mali, a national consultant was available and both consultants visited Nara together with the National Coordinator. Their reports are appended (Annexes I-III). 29. The methodology of the FE consisted of an analysis of the PD, review of key documents (Annex VII), and interviews with as many of the key actors as was possible during the time allotted. When a field visit was not feasible, the communities in question came for interviews and workshops with the consultant. Key questions were noted before each meeting. The Team leader would seek to compare impressions with the national consultant’s reports. At the end of each country visit, the Team Leader would review findings and recommendations of the national consultants. Project Design, Performance & Impact 30. The Project Title is “The Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa”. The first part of the title is unnecessary: not only did “Indigenous Vegetation” have little meaning to many of the beneficiaries, but also range rehabilitation means restoring the range to what it was viz. an area where the standing biomass of grass and other plants is sufficient for the available livestock on a yearround basis. That is to say, indigenous vegetation management is implicit in rehabilitating rangelands: one cannot rehabilitate rangelands without restoring range vegetation. There was however a role for conservation of indigenous vegetation of commercial importance (e.g. fruit, medicines, timber, gums, resins etc) that is not necessarily central to range management. The IVP should have either been a rangeland project (involving many more animal production specialists) or a IV project that stated clearly that IV (and IV alone) was going to be used improve the lives of the beneficiaries. 31. The project was designed with the objective of developing models for the conservation of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded rangelands, and to develop sustainable management systems using indigenous knowledge. The objective should have been broken down as three distinctly different objectives: 1. To develop practical methods for the conservation of indigenous plants with potential for economic development. 16
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 and 12: 13. The FE considered that the init
Page 13: Community-based projects 22. IVP wa
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?