Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

scientific knowledge to support national arid lands policy”. This comprised five outcomes
(listed below) and seventy-five activities:
1. A bio-socio-economic knowledge base created to support integration of indigenous and
scientific approaches for improved resource management.
2. Appropriate indigenous management systems strengthened that integrate biodiversity
conservation
3. Livelihood means that reduce pressure on the ecosystem adopted (sic; {adapted?}) to
diversity (sic; {diversify?}) economic base, increase socio-economic benefits and promote
biodiversity conservation.
4. Key stakeholders have knowledge (skills and awareness) to facilitate and/or manage arid
lands resources to meet, socio, economic and biodiversity conservation needs.
5. Project effectively managed.
38. This was supposed to have been an improvement though the FE fails to see this. Outcome
five is not an outcome: it is an expected sine qua non. Since the language in the Kenya
retrofitting was even more complex than in the original PD, comments and findings are
restricted to the original outcomes. The Kenya retro-fitting just did some juggling: Outcomes
1 (management systems) & 3 (rehabilitation) were combined, and so were Outcomes 2
(regional database) and 6 (targeted research). Botswana redid the indicators in their logframe
and they were strengthened. Unfortunately, since the MTE there was still little evidence that
the improved strategic logic of the logframe had as yet been demonstrably translated into
improved strategic interventions in the field. The regional outcomes were as follows:
O-1 Establishment and strengthening of appropriate indigenous management systems.
39. This outcome “is nearly identical to the Project Objective so achieving it would have been
the same as achieving the objective, making the other outcomes superfluous. In a good
logframe, each outcome is necessary for achievement of the project objective” (MTE, 2005).
The ambiguity of this outcome is clear. Were these to be new management systems developed
by indigenous groups, or traditional systems to be established and strengthened? If the latter,
then they needed to be re-established, promoted and disseminated. But if they needed to be reestablished,
then the question remains as to why they fell into disuse in the first place. The
answer is probably that they were inappropriate to modern pressures. In any case, the FE saw
no signs of (re) introduced ‘appropriate indigenous management systems’.
O-2 Establishment of a regional arid zone database (RD)
40. In order to achieve the project objective and outcomes, data collection was seen as a prerequisite
to assist with development of CBRM systems, to capture and record indigenous
knowledge (IK), and to meet GEF ecological impact assessment requirements. This work
should have been completed by the University of Oslo but, at the time of this evaluation, has
19