Final Evaluation of the - UNEP

Executive Summary
1. The Management of Indigenous Vegetation for the Rehabilitation of Degraded
Rangelands in the Arid Zone of Africa Project (known as the Indigenous Vegetation Project
{IVP}) was developed to conserve biodiversity and reverse land degradation, both major
environmental problems in the arid lands that cover about 60% of Africa. Most of these areas
are moderately to severely degraded owing to overgrazing and unsustainable use of range
products (especially wood for timber and charcoal). IVP’s objective was to develop
sustainable systems of range/vegetation management and to integrate indigenous knowledge
into new community-based range management systems. Research was to play a key part in
this.
2. The terminal or final evaluation (FE) (see ToRs, Annex IV) was asked to address specific
questions about project achievements. The final evaluation (FE) has concluded that although
the project was well intentioned, the objective and the components were generally unrealistic,
insufficiently considered, and far more challenging that originally thought. IVP has largely
been unable to achieve its objective for numerous reasons. The main reason is insufficient
time: effective range management by private entrepreneurs with the resources both of capital
and decades of experience is difficult. When it is attempted by communities, hidebound by
traditional practices and with few resources, limited education, different agenda, and poorly
understood concepts such as biodiversity and environmental conservation, effective range
management would take decades to become a way of life. The project is unlikely to be
sustainable or replicable without significant further inputs of time and funding. If these inputs
are not forthcoming, many of the positive steps in community development are likely to falter
and disappear. However, it is easy to be wise after the fact. Many useful lessons are there to
be learned. The FE questions whether a regional project was justified and concludes that it
was not. The successes achieved in each country had limited relevance to the other countries
where traditions, culture and language were different. If there were any justification for a
regional approach, a transboundary project (e.g. in the Sahel: Mali, Burkina Faso, Mauritania
and Niger, or in Southern Africa: Botswana, Namibia and South Africa) would have been
more applicable. Essentially, the project was expected to run before it could walk. A regional
project would have been justified once a more modest-sized project had something of value to
show to other comparable, or even slightly comparable, ecosystems.
3. The Mid-term evaluation (MTE) stated that the design of the project was seriously flawed.
The project attempted to change course after the MTE but the time was insufficient;
nevertheless, clear efforts were made to implement the recommendations of the MTE.
Progress towards achievement of the project objective has improved slightly; but despite some
successful initiatives on the ground at different project sites, IVP is still rated as moderately
unsatisfactory. First, the project had insufficient time both in toto and following the MTE.
7