report of the midterm review of the project “improving...
TRANSCRIPT
i
Report of the Midterm Review of the Project “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction”
February 2011
Funded by UKaid from the Department of International Development
GTF Number CN 255
Short Title of Programme IUCN Programme Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction
Name of Lead Institution IUCN
Start date 1 October 2008
End date: 31 March 2013
Amount of DFID Funding: GBP 3,965,007
List all countries where activities have taken or will take place
Bangladesh, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Kenya, Lebanon, Mali, Mozambique, Nepal, Peru, Tunisia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Syria
List all implementing partners in each country
See Annex No. 6
Target groups- wider beneficiaries
Lead Author James Johnson, Casilla 2422, Santa Cruz, Bolivia. +591 3323 1168. [email protected]
Other people contracted to undertake the MTR / Evaluation
Chris van Dam, +54.387.4390456, [email protected]
ii
1 Table of contents 1 Title Page ........................................................................................................................... i
2 Table of contents .............................................................................................................. ii
3 Acronyms ......................................................................................................................... iii
4 Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 1
5 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 7
6 Evaluation Methodology ................................................................................................. 9
6.1 Analytical Framework ............................................................................................................. 9
6.2 Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 11
7 Findings in Relation to Standard Review Criteria .......................................................... 14
7.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................. 14
7.2 Impact ................................................................................................................................... 17
7.3 Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 20
7.4 Value for Money ................................................................................................................... 22
7.5 Effectiveness ......................................................................................................................... 23
7.6 Sustainability ........................................................................................................................ 28
7.7 Equity .................................................................................................................................... 28
7.8 Replicability .......................................................................................................................... 29
8 Innovation ..................................................................................................................... 31
9 Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32
Annex A 36
Annex A.1 Achievement Rating Scale ............................................................................................. 37
Annex A.2 Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................... 52
Annex A.3 Evaluation Schedule – Timetable .................................................................................. 61
Annex A.4 List of People Met ......................................................................................................... 62
Annex A.5 Documents consulted .................................................................................................... 69
Annex A.6 Implementing Partners in each Country ....................................................................... 73
Annex A.7 Aide Memoire ................................................................................................................ 75
Annex A8 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 77
iii
2 Acronyms
ABS Access and Benefit Sharing
ALT Autoridad del Lago Titicaca
APA Apolobamba Protected Area
APEC Association for Protection of Environment and Culture
APECO Peruvian Association for the Conservation of Nature
APOC Asociación de Pueblos Originarios conservacionistas del Lago Titicaca
BELA Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association
BMZ German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
BNP Bangladesh National Party
CA Constituent Assembly
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CBFM Community Based Fisheries Management
CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management
CBOs Community‐based Organizations
CC Conservation Committees – Comités de Conservación (Perú)
CCP Community Fishing Councils – Mozambique
CDR Council for Development & Reconstruction
CEDT Centre for Environment Tourism Development
CEJ Centre for Environmental Justice
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFUG Community Forestry Users Group
CIFOR Centre for International forestry Research
CIHR Conservation Initiative on Human Rights
CNRS Centre for Natural Resource Studies
COP Conference of the Parties
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
iv
CTV Centro Terra Viva
DANIDA Danish International Development Agency
DCC District Coordinating Committee
DDC District Development Committee
DFID Department for International Development of the UK Government
ESARO IUCN regional office for East and Southern Africa
EU European Union
EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust
FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations
FECOFUN Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal
FLACSO Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences
FMA Fisheries Management Area
FMP Fisheries Management Plan,
FRELIMO Liberation Front of Mozambique
FFJ Forum for Justice
FRMC Floodplain Resource management Committees
GBP Pound sterling
GDP Gross domestic product
GT Garba Tula
GTF Governance and Transparency Fund
ICB Indicadores Culturales de Bienestar (or Indicadores del Buen Vivir)
ICHRP International Council for Human Rights Policy
IDPPE Instituto de Desenvolvimento da Pesca de Pequena Escala
IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development
IIP Instituto Nacional de Investigação Pesqueira (Fisheries Research Institute)
INRGRPR Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction
IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature
IUCNB IUCN Bangladesh
v
IUCNSL IUCN Sri Lanka
KWS Kenya Wildlife Service
LCC Local Coordinating Committees
LMA Lagoon Management Authority
MAB Man and Biosphere
MACH Management of Aquatic Ecosystems through Community Husbandry Programme
MCRCF Marine & Coastal Resources Conservation Foundation.
M & E Monitoring and Evaluation
MA Marka Antakilla
MP Member of Parliament
MSP Multi‐stakeholder Platform
MSB Mainstreaming Conservation of Migratory Soaring Birds
MTR Mid Term Review
MZ Mozambique
NACOM Nature Conservation Management
NEFEJ Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists
NGO Non‐governmental Organisation
NORM National Rododendron Conservation Management Committee
NR NR Natural Resources
NRG NRG Natural Resources Governance
PA Protected Area
PACO Programme Afrique Centrale et de l’Ouest de l’UICN
PDM Plan de Desarrollo Municipal
PELT Proyecto Especial Lago Titicaca
PES Payment for Environmental Services
PILF Public Interest Law Foundation
PNH Parque Nacional Huascarán
vi
POA Plan Operativo Anual
PRODEMA Programa de Medio Ambiente
RBA Rights Based Approach
REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
RNT Reserva Nacional del Titicaca
RPNY‐C Reserva Paisajistica Nor‐Yauyos Cocha
SADC Southern African Development Community
SEMP Sustainable Environment Management Project
SERNANP Servicio Nacional de Áreas naturales protegidas
SERNAP Servicio Nacional de Áreas Protegidas
SSCW Syrian Society for the Conservation of Wildlife
TCO Tierras Comunitarias de Origen
TOR Terms of references
TESA TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
UFO Upazila Fisheries Officer
UICN Sur IUCN Regional office for South America (Quito)
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNOPS United Nations Office for Programme Services
UNO Upazila Nirbahi Officer, government administrator at Upazilla level
UNWTO United Nations World Tourism Organization
UP Union Parishad, the lowest tire of local government unit
Upazila Lowest tier of delegated government made up of several Union Parishad
VDCs Village Development Committees
WCC World Conservation Congress
WRAP Wildlife Resource Advocacy Programme
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature
ZA South Africa
1
3 Executive Summary
This report presents the main findings of the Mid Term Review mission to assess progress in the implementation of the project entitled “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction” implemented by IUCN and financed under the Governance and Transparency Fund of DFID. The fieldwork of the mission took place between October and December 2010. The mission visited a sample of the components and a selection of sites from those components. At the request of project management the original sample of locations was expanded to give as wide a coverage as possible while taking into account the constraints of time and budget of the mission. In addition background documents provided for the mission were consulted throughout the review process. The mission has used suggested elements of the guidelines for evaluation of GTF financed projects employing the following criteria: relevance, impact, efficiency and value for money, effectiveness, sustainability, equity and replicability to assess Iproject progress. Particular attention is paid to the challenges facing project management due to the complex nature of the implementing arrangements of the project. For those components visited during the mission, specific reports were
prepared, which are presented as annexes to this report. The main report concludes with the key recommendations, a summary of which are presented below.
Relevance
It is considered that the project is highly relevant to the governance challenges presented in the majority of the components. Many of the countries are undergoing political reforms at different levels, Bolivia and Kenya have new constitutions and Nepal is in the process of developing a new constitution. Peru is undergoing a process of decentralization to regional levels of government while in other countries such processes are resisted by central government (Bangladesh) or not taken into consideration (Nepal). The project has also worked in countries in post conflict situations (Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Mozambique), where, in the latter two cases, displaced refugees increase pressure on natural resources. As most of the countries in which the project works will be seriously affected by climate change over the next 20 years, work on environmental governance takes on a greater sense of urgency and relevance (Bangladesh, Nepal, Kenya and Mozambique are among the countries that will suffer high levels of impact). In Bolivia and Peru the indicators developed were relevant only to the immediate communities in which these had been developed1. Even so, the project failed to demonstrate how, in practice, the indicators 2could be used to address the needs of the communities and were therefore considered largely irrelevant and abstract in value by the communities themselves.
Impact
It is considered that the programme has high potential to generate impact on the governance relations and livelihoods in a number of priority countries, however to date direct impact has been achieved only in a limited number of components. Work in Bangladesh through capacity building and social mobilization has led to greater local government accountability and responsiveness to demands. As a result fishery leases have been reverted, opening access for poor sectors of rural society to fisheries resources resulting in increased incomes. In Kenya the formal recognition of customary norms and traditional natural resource management practices has empowered local tribesmen and promoted improved community organization. The strategy to support
1 In both Bolivia and Peru it was considered that by taking the indicators from each country and combining them into global indicators much had been lost from the value of the exercise, thereby converting the indicators into instruments of limited value (interviews with staff of both APECO and WCS).
2 Interview with members of the community of Aguas Blancas, Bolivia.
2
multistakeholder platforms has been successfully applied in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal has obliged different levels of government to be more accountable to civil society. Particular emphasis on training of both government officials and community leaders has narrowed the gap between them, making government more responsive to local demands (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh). In Bolivia and Peru the project has had no direct impact for the reasons mentioned above, although in Bolivia an indirect impact has led to the creation of the autonomous indigenous territory of Antaquilla. In Mozambique no impact has been achieved due to the misdiagnosis of the underlying governance issues. It remains to be seen what long term impact the support provided to the CIHR under the global component will have. Similarly, it is too early to say what impact the Protected Areas component is likely to have as a result of the activities implemented and results generated to date. The workshop organized in Sri Lanka and improvements in the monitoring system will only have an impact during the second half of the project as components should become more integrated with each other with improved opportunities for exchange and learning.
Efficiency
Some components have been implemented efficiently (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya), however certain structural issues have posed constraints to the efficient implementation of other components. The choice of implementing organization has emerged as a critical issue. In some cases the selection of partners has proven to be highly efficient (Bangladesh) but in others has led to inefficiencies when organizations with limited capacity and experience have been contracted (Nepal and Mozambique). The systematic approach, including capacity assessment and design of training to meet identified needs, adopted in Sri Lanka has also meant that resources have been used efficiently. In Kenya impacts have been achieved at relatively low cost. The delay in appointing the project coordinator and the failure to provide the necessary support to the components in the field has led to diverse interpretations of the governance framework and the application of varied and often inappropriate methodological approaches. Poor communication between project implementing agents, IUCN country offices, IUCN regional offices and IUCN HQ has often limited the efficient use of resources. Thus, diverse interpretations have been applied the way in which project resources may be used (for example, the refurbishment of the training centre in Lebanon, construction of multipurpose toilets in Nepal). A combination of poor reporting by country offices and weak monitoring has led to the failure to detect deficiencies in a timely manner resulting in inefficient use of resources (in Mozambique the erroneous diagnosis of the central governance issue and in Bolivia and Peru the failure to connect the work carried out with development processes).
The concentration of management effort in Gland and use of virtual means of communication with the components does not represent an efficient use of resources, especially considering the relatively high cost of staff based in IUCN HQ. The level of execution of the overall budget to September 2010 is low (31%), particularly due to low levels of execution of the three largest components: Global (18%), Protected Areas (17%) and Drylands (23%). Low levels of execution have not been helped by the delay in contracting the project coordinator and financial assistant. It is to be expected that the appointment of the project coordinator should improve both communication and management of the project over the second half of the project, thereby improving the efficiency of the use of resources. The various levels through which project resources have to be channelled before reaching the final destination means that administrative costs represent a relatively high proportion of overall expenditure (18% if costs of M&E are included and 13% if only overheads are taken into account) not including the value of overheads of the local implementing NGOs.
Value for Money
In those countries where the cost of living is low, normally poorer countries, it is possible to achieve significant impacts with few resources. Such is the case in Bangladesh where impact is high and costs low and in addition resources have been used efficiently. Although the work in Nepal has not
3
yet achieved the intended impact, the relatively low cost of influencing policy at the highest level, the national constitution, represents good value for money. Evidently, in Bolivia and Peru as well as in Mozambique the project has not provided value for money. High costs of operations and relatively low impact to date in Lebanon does not represent good value for money although the potential for longer term and wider reaching impact would clearly change this analysis. The strategies applied to date in both the Protected Areas and Global components means that good value for money has not so far been achieved. The high management costs and the low efficiency that management has so far demonstrated represent poor value for money.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of use of resources by the project has again been very variable across the components. The work carried out through experienced partners with operational bases located in the areas in which the components are implemented with close working relations with civil society organizations and local governments have demonstrated considerable effectiveness (Kenya, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh). By contrast, those implementing agencies that operate from the capital cities, making occasional journeys to the project sites have proven to be of limited effectiveness (Bolivia and Peru, Lebanon). The work in Mozambique, Bolivia and Peru has been ineffective for reasons already presented. The Global component has only recently shown greater effectiveness in the creation of appropriate mechanisms to facilitate exchange and lesson learning between partners as a result of the Sri Lanka workshop and due to the introduction of a more appropriate framework for monitoring and evaluation. It is considered that the Protected Areas component would be more effective if it were to work through specific cases addressing local governance issues in and around protected areas by working with local actors to influence government policy on protected area management. The considerable variation in understanding of the conceptual framework among project partners has meant that the needs for support have been varied and difficult to identify. This has meant that project management has been unable to provide support and technical assistance that corresponds to the specific needs of project partners at different levels.
Sustainability
The sustainability of the project actions is variable across the components according to the distinct methodological approaches, institutional framework and strategies employed. Among the Asian group of countries the construction of the conceptual framework for Natural Resource governance has provided a solid basis for the work particularly within IUCN country offices in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. In Kenya the fact that the implementing partner is effectively an institutional instrument of the local stakeholders provides a solid basis for sustainability. The building of ownership among local stakeholders (Kenya, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh) and the stimulation of interest of government through training also provides a good basis for sustainability (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka). Strong emphasis on capacity building and strengthened social organization by supporting multistakeholder platforms will guarantee the continuation of this work beyond the end of the project (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka). There are no indications of any element of sustainability of the work carried out in Mozambique, Peru, Bolivia and the sub components of Drylands in Mali – Burkina Faso and Tunisia. The complicated implementing structure and the remoteness of management with high levels of dependence on virtual means of communication are features of the management system that affect the sustainability of the overall institutional framework and operational approach of the project. Hands on training and support are needed to be able to cater for the specific needs of project partners and of the IUCN regional offices themselves which should provide support on a more operational basis. Support in the form of training provided through the regional office such as the case of the Southern Asia regional office (SARO) in their support to Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka country offices has contributed to the sustainability of the operational approach to natural resources governance. This has been even more effective when the respective country offices have also been able to work with local partners providing training and
4
coordinating exchanges between partners (Bangladesh). The weak relations between the Regional Office for Western Asia (ROWA) and the partners in Syria and Lebanon have serious implications regarding the sustainability of the approach.
Equity
Equity issues constitute a central consideration of the project. It is largely implemented in some of the poorest countries of the world (with the exception of Lebanon) and works with some of the most marginalised and vulnerable sectors of those societies, the rural poor. However the different dimensions of equity have not been taken into consideration to the same degree by the components. This has been due largely to the absence of a guiding conceptual framework. In Bangladesh the project has prioritized the poorest, marginalised members of Bangladeshi society, especially women and excluded indigenous hill tribes. Sri Lanka has applied the well worked conceptual framework employed in the Asian countries, also working with marginalised fishing and forest dwelling communities. Bolivia and Peru have worked with the poor upland indigenous populations paying special attention to the views of women. In Mozambique the project has also prioritized poor coastal fishing communities, many of which are resettled populations as a result of the civil war, however there is no particular gender focus of the work. In Kenya, there is a clear intention to empower the poor nomadic populations of Garba Tula, who have been marginalised by an authoritarian and corrupt political system. The Lebanon component works with Bedouin tribesmen who are among the poorest members of Lebanese society, but again there is no apparent gender focus of the work. Some of the components have a clear gender focus (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh) which, considering the relegated status of women in many societies of the countries in which the project operates seems to be entirely appropriate.
Replicability
The conceptual framework and overall working approach developed in Asian components is highly replicable and should be extended to the African countries. The work in Kenya could also readily be extended within the country and across the border into neighbouring Somalia and Ethiopia (Jonathan Davies and Roba Guyo, personal communication). Work in Mozambique is not replicable. However, there is potential for developing a common approach to governance of coastal fisheries management between Tanzania3 and Mozambique. The work in Bolivia and Peru has very limited value for replication elsewhere as the indicators have not been shown to be of any direct developmental significance to the communities as yet and are in any case considered to be highly site specific. The Lebanon component provides an interesting example of how environmental governance may be able to provide an entry point for discussion of wider governance issues in other Arab countries, particularly in post conflict situations. The CIHR has attempted to replicate the RBA among a wider circle of conservation organizations. It is not clear to what extent similar efforts under the Protected Areas component are replicable. It is recognised that there are considerable potential gains to be made by working with an organization like IUCN with a broad based membership across the world and with good linkages with governments. However, to be able to capitalise on this requires considerable effort to be dedicated to management and particularly to communication. This has not been possible during the first half of the project due to the inability to contract a full time project coordinator and administrative assistant. At this stage, it is then difficult to assess to what extent the management approach will permit work through IUCN to fulfil its potential and if then the overall management approach is replicable. Successful implementation of the project in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh with good coordination through the IUCN country offices is indicative of the potential for replicability of the approach to other areas when appropriate support is provided.
3 DFID also supports coastal fisheries work in Tanzania through their PPA with WWF
5
Summary of Key Recommendations
The Mission considers that the Programme should continue with modifications. The principal
modifications are described in the following section.
The Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal components should all run to the end of the project with
new budgets assigned. The Nepali component should incorporate FECOFUN as an implementing
agency as was originally proposed. All three components should develop a broader
communications and advocacy strategy to outline how achievements to date can be built into a
wider influencing agenda.
The components in Bolivia and Peru, Burkina Faso and Mali, Tunisia should be closed.
The component in Mozambique should be closed immediately and redesigned with the revised
project engaging with government fisheries agencies as partners.
The Drylands component should focus on Kenya and, pending the outcome of a more detailed
appraisal, extended to similar regions of the country and possibly neighbouring areas of Ethiopia
and Somalia.
On the basis only of the information provided to the mission it is not possible to provide a fair
assessment of the work undertaken and impact achieved as it was not possible to visit Benin. As
this is the biggest single‐country component with a relatively low level of execution (28%) it is
recommended that an independent review of progress should be carried out in order to define
the most appropriate action to take.
In view of the issues raised regarding communication between ROWA and the implementing
agents in Lebanon and Syria as well as the limitations for the mission to carry out a more
complete review of progress particularly in Syria but also with certain limitations in Lebanon, it is
recommended that a more profound assessment of the situation should be made including a visit
to Syria and field visit to meet with local stakeholders in Lebanon. It is also essential to establish
whether the ROWA will be able to provide the necessary support to the implementing agents in
each country in order to determine the most appropriate measures to take.
It is recommended that the PA component should place the emphasis of its work on areas where
stakeholders living in or around Protected Areas are empowered to express their voice to
effectively participate in the management decisions that affect their livelihoods as a means of
influencing government policy. Special attention should be given to those areas in Latin America
in particular where protected areas are superimposed on indigenous territories.
Under the Global component, it is recommended that greater emphasis should be given to the
creation of a learning environment and coordination of the work between components so that
this component is effectively acting as a coordination mechanism between the other
components. The new experiences and evidence generated from these should be presented to
higher level decision making processes including the CBD, CIHR and other processes in which
IUCN is actively involved.
6
It is recommended that both the Protected Area and Global Components would be more
effectively managed under a decentralized management arrangement located in one of the
regional offices.
The positions of the Project Coordinator should be relocated to one of the IUCN regional offices
(in either Africa or Asia) to provide direct support to components in line with the above
recommendation for the Global component.
The position of the Financial Administrator should also be decentralised to a regional office to
provide the necessary support to project coordination.
The project components that are to be continued should be reformulated through a series of
workshops involving project partners and local stakeholders. Due to the urgency to reach
agreement on these issues the workshops should be held no later than April 2011. The products
of these workshops should contribute to the formulation of a new, revised project document and
corresponding logical framework.
Those components to be continued should be extended to the end of the programme (March
2013).
7
4 Introduction
The Governance and Transparency Fund of DFID awarded a grant to the Social Policy Unit of IUCN HQ for the value of £3,965,007 to implement its proposal to support Natural Resource Governance initiatives in Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. The purpose of the IUCN programme “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction” (INRGRPR) is:
“to improve livelihood security in selected countries through better environmental governance, including fair and equitable access to natural resources, new benefit sharing arrangements, and more participative and transparent decision making”.
This is to be achieved by working through the network of IUCN partner organizations to implement a total of ten project components located in 14 countries4.
The majority of the components operate under the supervision of the regional offices of IUCN with implementation coordinated by country offices in certain cases (Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka) and in other cases by the regional offices (Drylands coordinated by IUCN ESARO, Peru and Bolivia coordinated by IUCN SUR, Lebanon and Syria by IUCN ROWA and Benin by IUCN PACO). The South Africa – Mozambique component is supervised by Traffic, a UK based NGO. In no case does IUCN implement the project directly but operates through its members, mostly NGOs, which act as subcontracted local implementing agencies. Two components are coordinated directly by IUCN HQ: the Protected Areas component and the Global component which is designed to establish coordination mechanisms to facilitate lesson learning between countries. Together these last two components constitute 42% of the overall budgetary allocation of the programme.
In October 2010, IUCN commissioned a MTR to assess progress made to date in relation to the project purpose and outcomes and to make recommendations regarding the future orientation of the project. The objectives of the MTR presented in the TORs5 are:
1. To assess the extent to which the concept, approach and delivery of INRGPR and its components are still relevant to key stakeholder groups, both within and outside of IUCN (including key members).
2. To assess the extent to which products/milestones are being effectively planned in the context of INRGPR’s overall goal and the specific purposes of each component.
3. To compare actual progress against workplans and targets and assess value for money, including targets related to the types and extent of change related to capacities, responsiveness and accountability generated to date;
4. To assess the extent to which the organizational model provides an effective basis for delivering INRGPR products, milestones and outcomes, engagement of stakeholders, M&E systems and measures to ensure sustainability;
5. To review the INRGPR risk analysis and identify existing and potential key areas of learning, including those directly related to the learning objectives of DFID’s Governance and Transparency Fund.
6. To form recommendations for improving ongoing implementation of INRGPR with an emphasis on ensuring funds are used effectively and efficiently to deliver outputs/outcomes.
5 The full TORs are presented in Annex A.2 of this report.
8
The MTR team, composed of the two authors of this report, undertook the mission between October and December 2010, visiting selected field sites and carrying out interviews with IUCN project management in Gland. Constraints on time and budget limited the scope of these visits. Over the evaluation mission more than 200 background documents were consulted. At the end of the fieldwork the mission was requested to prepare inputs for IUCN project management, presenting the mission’s main findings and principal implications in an aide memoire which was presented to Tripleline and KPMG6.
This report follows the structure recommended under the guidelines for the presentation of MTR reports provided by GTF programme supervisors KPMG and Tripleline. The main findings are presented under the headings of relevance, impact, efficiency, value for money, effectiveness, sustainability, equity and replicability. The report concludes presenting a summary of the principal recommendations of the mission. In addition to the overall findings and recommendations presented for the INRGRPR, short reports are presented as annexes to this main report in which the main findings and recommendations for the individual components that were visited during the MTR are presented.
6 Presented Annex A.7 of this report
9
5 Evaluation Methodology
5.1 Analytical Framework
In consideration that the two principal intended impacts of the programme are oriented to the improvement of livelihoods of the rural populations and to the improvement of the governance frameworks at different levels the mission employed two main analytical frameworks to conduct the review. The Sustainable Livelihoods Approach has been used to assess the impact on rural livelihoods and the Governance Framework Analysis. There is a degree of overlap between these two frameworks in relation to capacity development. Under the SLA approach Human Capital analyses the changes in capacity of human resources from the community point of view. Under the Governance Framework Analysis, capability contemplates the capacity of both civil society to express its voice and demand its rights as well as the capacity of government to respond to these demands. In addition the SLA framework contemplates aspects of governance regarding the degree to which changes in capital assets influence government and other institutional frameworks. The two frameworks are then closely interrelated.
5.1.1 Sustainable Livelihoods Approach
A livelihood compromises the capabilities, assets, (including both material and social resources) and activities requires for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future,
while not undermining the natural resource base. 7
The mission has employed the SLA to assess the degree to which the principle capital assets have been affected by the activities of the project. Figure 1. above is a schematic representation of the SLA framework in which the five capital assets are presented (Natural, Social, Physical, Human and Financial). The mission has used this framework to evaluate changes in each of these concentrating particularly on changes in the following capital assets:
7 Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: What contribution can we make? Papers presented at the DFID Natural Rsources Advisers’ Conference, July 1998. DFID
10
Human capital: changes in the level of education, understanding of human rights and the wider political system, human capacity to express demands and voice these before authorities, changes in overall health and well being, particularly in terms of nutrition in some cases (e.g. how improved access to fisheries resources may improve diet), understanding of the impact of society on natural resources, self esteem .
Social capital: changes in terms of social organization within the communities of the stakeholders, expression of community organization, processes of consensus building on community cohesion, integration of women and minority groups , community relations with institutions and government in particular.
Natural capital: changes in the natural resource bases such as forest cover, fish stocks, water resources, etc. Qualitative changes in terms of diversity as well as quantitative changes.
Financial capital: impact on income especially of the poorer sectors of society, not just net income but how this is distributed between family members and over time.
Physical capital: infrastructure, health posts, homes, schools and roads as well as productive infrastructure that is either of individual or collective benefit.
5.1.2 Governance Framework Analysis
The visits to each country examined the three central elements of the governance framework:
Capability, Responsiveness and Accountability as transversal issues to be addressed by the mission
during field visits.
Capability: In each component capacity development of both government officials (where
applicable) and civil society organizations (with particular attention paid to the creation of
awareness of rights) was analysed in relation to the needs assessment where this has been
systematically carried out. Attention was devoted to assess the extent to which the
empowerment and improvement of social organization has given effective voice to
communities in demanding their rights. The mission has then examined processes that
support the construction of constituency. On the supply side of the equation the mission
has assessed how support has changed the capability of governments and other authorities
to respond to organized demand.
Responsiveness: here responsiveness is understood to be where government has not only
the capacity but also motivation and political authorization to respond to the demands of
civil society. The mission has paid special attention to the responsiveness of different levels
of government to meet the demands of local communities, especially in relation to rights of
access to and use of natural resources in different circumstances. One of the central
elements has been to analysis of how new institutional frameworks have been developed for
the co‐management of natural resources involving both government and civil society
organizations.
Accountability: is interpreted in the context of the project to define the relationship
between government and civil society expressed in the process of dialogue such that
legitimate demands are expressed and responded to by authorities with transparency. The
mission has analysed changes in relationships between civil society organizations and
government and how by improving local capacity government is held more accountable by
making government answerable and obliged to comply with its legal obligations to its
constituents
11
5.2 Methodology
The above mentioned analytical framework formed the basis for the Evaluation Methodology employed by the MTR which is described as follows:
A two day visit to IUCN‐Gland, allowed the Mission to familiarise itself with the programme and
its components, discuss the Terms of Reference, prioritize evaluative questions, and agree on the
timing and duration of visits to the components, logistic and administrative aspects. During this
visit, Programme Management was interviewed to assess their impression regarding progress
and general difficulties of the programme, its vision of the components and its concerns and
priorities of the administration of the Project. Also, the mission was able to carry out a in depth
interviews on the achievements and activities of the Protected Areas (8) and Global (10),
components: the two components managed from Gland. An interview with the consultant
responsible for designing the new M & E system revealed that there were no initial baseline
studies from which to assess the effectiveness and impacts of the components, also that there
were serious weaknesses in the construction of the logical framework (and in the formulation of
outcomes and associated indicators) and that there were no initial PRODOCs for each proposal,
but only logical frameworks. Finally additional useful background documents were provided to
the Mission.
After the meeting in Gland, the Mission prepared both a logistical and methodological proposal
to carry out the field work, based on the TORs, taking into account the constraints of both time
and budget. It was decided to visit the maximum possible number of components, carrying out
brief visits of two to four days. It was also decided that some visits were to be carried out as a
team (especially the first to Bolivia and Peru) to allow the two consultants to align their
assessment strategies, (also to Nepal and Mozambique). It was originally planned to make
separate visits to components in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Benin and Kenya however the
visit to Benin was cancelled because of difficulties in obtaining a visa.
Once the proposal was approved by the Program Coordinator, each component coordinator was
asked to organize the visit, providing a schedule of meetings, a list of people to be interviewed, and
to send key documents that the Mission should read before arrival. The midterm review team
requested the following documents to be sent:
o Project documents explaining how each of the components was identified (and its
relation to national priorities, national policies, communities’ needs and demands,
etc.)
o Workplans (initial, annual, including products, milestones and indicators)
o Costs and other financial data
o Internal agreements between participating organizations, IUCN offices, IUCN HQ
o Reports to IUCN HQ and donors
o Project and component organizational chart
o Landscape plans
o M&E arrangements for each component
o Sustainability matrix in each component
o Risk analysis document, initial and updated
o Quarterly reports of KM&L plan
o Lesson learning strategy
12
Before each visit, the most important documents were read, in accordance to the time available. ,
The visits generally followed a similar pattern depending on the organization of the IUCN office or
the team of the Project, involving:
o A meeting with the team of the project, based on the matrix of questions included in
the TDR and other identified questions based on the revised documents by the
Mission.
o A meeting with the Partners of the Program, to know about their activities and
perspective of the Program.
o Meeting s with the Stakeholders (NGOs, Multistakeholder Platforms, Local
Governments and governmental departments aimed at the project): in all the cases
the interviewees were selected by the team of the project.
o A field visit, to interview the beneficiaries.
o A final visit with the Team Project.
Once the agenda for the country visits had been agreed with the respective component coordinators (a time consuming process subject to various amendments), the mission embarked upon the series of visits which essentially followed the same procedure:
The country visits for two to four days with a one day visit to the general area of work
(except in Kenya, where the local team felt that given the time available was too far), in
Mozambique where the team only organized a visit to a peri‐urban community, and Lebanon
where a field trip was made but no local stakeholders were present at that time.
Although it was not planned and it did not constitute part of the TDRs, one of the members
of the Mission paid a visit to Tripleline in London, during which a telephone interview with
KPMG was held. Also a second visit to Gland to prepare an aide memoire of provisional
findings of the mission and during which additionally the Program Finance Officer was
interviewed.
After each visit a report was prepared for each country or component (these are presented
as annexes to this report).
After concluding the visits to the components, the members of the mission worked together
for one week to prepare the final report.
Some limitations of the Mission were:
Often the criteria for selection of field sites to be visited were dominated by logistical factors
owing to time constraints, also sites were selected by component coordinators so that field
sites visited were unlikely to be representative.
The organization of meetings was left to the free‐will or criteria of those being evaluated,
e.g. in Kenya, no interviews were planned besides the meetings with the project team, or in
Mozambique, where Traffic arranged meetings with communities and government officials
who wereunfamiliar with the project.
Given the time constraints it was not possible to read all the documentation, which far
exceeded the possibilities of reading of the Mission. For this reason component managers
were asked to provide a list of key documents of direct relevance to the component (e.g. e‐
mail from Chris van Dam to Yvanoa Minaya of the 11th of October 2010 and the e‐mail of
James Johnson to Jonathan Davies on the 14th of October 2010).
13
It was difficult to assimilate information quickly from the project documentation presented
to the mission (inappropriate format, length, structure)
Little organized information was available regarding achievements and progress of the
components 8 and 10.
Problems of communications in the communities and some meetings (in Bangladesh, Nepal,
Sri Lanka, and Lebanon) where members of project staff acted as interpreters or were
present during interviews. This may not have allowed confidential information to be
conveyed when those interviewed might feel constrained as to what they could say
regarding the project. Similarly, it is not possible to tell f the translations (kindly provided)
altered the tone or meaning of the messages.
Table 1: Summary of the fieldwork carried out.
Component Basis for review
Bangladesh Interviews with project management, implementing agents and a visit to one of the five field sites visited
Benin No visit undertaken
Bolivia and Peru Interviews with project management, implementing agents and visits to one of the three field sites of each country.
Drylands Interviews with project management, implementing agents and only in Kenya, with no field site visit. No visit to Tunisia, Mali and Burkina Faso
Lebanon and Syria Interviews with project management, implementing agents and visit to field site in Lebanon. No visit was made to Syria
Mozambique and South Africa
Interviews with project management, implementing agents and visit to field sites close to Maputo. Only Mozambique visited
Nepal Interviews with project management, implementing agents and visit to one of the field sites
Protected Areas Interviews with project management and revision of documents
Sri Lanka Interviews with project management, implementing agents and visit to one of the four field sites
Global Interviews with project management and revision of documents
14
6 Findings in Relation to Standard Review Criteria8
6.1 Relevance
The points addressed in this section correspond to the need “to assess the extent to which concept, approach and delivery of INRGPR and its components is still relevant to key stakeholder groups, both within and outside of IUCN (including key members)” as described in first objective of the terms of reference. In addition this section includes an analysis of the aspects in which the project is relevant to the specific Country Assistance Plans prepared by DFID.
In general the IUCN/DFID programme has addressed highly relevant issues to both poverty and governance including the following aspects:
In terms of addressing structural problems related to natural resource governance, such as
control of access by government authorities or local elite, unequal distribution of benefits,
marginalisation of certain sectors of society from access to natural resources, particularly
women and certain castes, particularly in Bangladesh and Nepal, .
In proposing new forms of co‐management and linking up with diverse public and private
actors in Multi Stakeholders Platforms, where civil society is now represented (especially
peasant and indigenous people and women who, not long ago, were excluded from such
processes). In particular in countries that are l recently experiencing democratic processes,
such is the case in Nepal, after the monarchy and the Maoist regime, Mozambique after the
civil war, Lebanon after the war, Sri Lanka, after the civil war; and Bolivia and Kenya, with
new constitutions
In the majority of cases the project has been of considerable relevance to regional and
country offices that are developing important portfolios of environmental governance
projects. The project has clearly been of direct relevance to the Asia Regional Office (ARO)
and the respective country offices as well as the Eastern and Southern Africa Regional Office
in this respect. However, it is considered that the project has been found to be of lesser
degree of relevance to the Regional Office for Western Asia (ROWA) and the South American
Regional Office (SUR) where it appears necessary to strengthen capacity to undertake and
support governance projects.
In Asia, the project has been directly relevant to work of members in Bangladesh and Sri
Lanka and to some of the Nepali NGOs (particularly FFJ). In Kenya the work has been directly
relevant to the implementing NGO, WRAP. In Lebanon the project has been relevant to
SPNL.
Environmental governance provides a useful point of entry to address more complex and
potentially conflictive issues such as intercultural tension, gender, etc generating conditions
for dialogue between parties with which it is frequently difficult to bring together.
In the longer term the approach is also of fundamental relevance and of major importance in
establishing conditions for improved capacity of governments and civil society to respond to
the growing challenges presented by climate change.
There are at least two means of influencing government policies: the first, working with the government, from within; the second, to influence from the outside, through the NGOs or the social
8 For a definition of the evaluation criteria employed in this report refer to Annex A8.
15
movements, by lobbying or through processes of consultation. IUCN could have used both mechanisms, but has in practice only used the second and given priority to a particular sector of civil society, the NGOs. Working with NGOs always raises questions of legitimacy (e.g. in the case of Nepal, where the project did not involve FECOFUN, the most legitimate social movement in that country.)
Perhaps, the only work undertaken that is considered to be of limited relevance is the case of the Bolivia/Peru component where the programme focused on the construction of Indicators of Cultural Wellbeing from a largely abstract perspective. None of the communities visited were able to identify the indicators of cultural wellbeing or say how work carried out had been of direct benefit to them. In practice the indicators proved to be of little relevance either to local organizations or governments. The implementing organizations in both Peru and Bolivia expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment given to the IBCs by the SUR regional office which contracted a consultant to amalgamate the indicators into a common framework rendering them irrelevant to the locations where these had been developed.
Opportunities to work with more decentralised levels of natural resource management with local government have not always been exploited (Bolivia, Peru, Mozambique) where public sector reform in relation to natural resource management has recently assumed greater significance. These processes are important as often governance problems can more readily be resolved at a local level, where transparency and accountability issues can be addressed and government is obliged to be more responsive to local demands. It is believed that the changes proposed present the opportunity to correct this situation, allowing the project to have a major impact.
Five of the countries with which the INRGRPR project works receive direct bilateral development assistance from DFID. These are Nepal, Bangladesh, Mozambique, Kenya and South Africa.
The Nepal Country Plan for 2009‐20129 contemplates several key areas that are also relevant to the project in both the area of natural resource management and governance, including the provision of support in the following areas:
The Constituent Assembly process
The Development of a National Climate Change Plan
Public financial management and accountability
Improved governance and service delivery
Empowerment of civil society and upholding of Human Rights
More accountable governance and inclusive State institutions
Improved Watershed management
Support to Livelihoods and Forestry Programme
The Bangladesh Country Plan for 2009‐201410 also supports work in the following areas which are of relevance to the project’s activities in that country>
Economic empowerment of the poorest sectors of society
Transparency in public financial management
Building of effective and efficient government systems
9 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/countryplan/nepal‐2009‐12.pdf
10 http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications/Bangladesh‐country‐plan09.pdf
16
Access of poor to rights and justice
Development of a national Climate Change Adaptation Programme and protection against natural disasters
Gender equality and improvement of the situation of women
More effective government
The Mozambique Country Plan11 for 2009‐2012 contemplates the promotion of the work in the following areas that are also relevant to the actions of the project in the country:
Greater accountability and transparency of government
Increased capacity of Civil Society to hold government to account
Gender and challenges facing women
More effective government
Public sector reform and service delivery
Until 2007 DFID support to Kenya was also through a country assistance plan, however DFID support to Kenya is now managed within the framework provided by the Kenya Joint Assistance Strategy12 (KJAS) which addresses the following areas of relevance to the project>
Democratic governance strategy
Improved public sector service delivery
Improved rights and responsibilities
Civil society capacity to monitor government
Increased transparency and accountability of parliament
Public sector reform
Support to South Africa is placed within the context of support to the Southern Africa Regional Plan13. This covers the following areas that are relevant to the projects actions in the Mozambique‐South Africa component:
Regional trade between southern Africa countries
The impact of climate change on the region's poor
Management of water resources;
Mitigation of impact of conflict and war
Although DFID also supports work in Sri Lanka this is not within the framework of a country assistance plan and is limited to Humanitarian assistance and Conflict prevention.
11 http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/20100423085705/dfid.gov.uk/documents/publications/countryplan/mozambique‐2009‐12.pdf
12 http://aideffectivenesskenya.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=924
13 http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Where‐we‐work/Africa‐Eastern‐‐Southern/South‐Africa/Regional‐programme/
17
6.2 Impact
Due to the slow start up of several of the components and the relatively short time that has elapsed since the beginning of the project (two years), demonstrable impacts are so far limited and when impacts have been identified these have been predominantly at the local level. However, it is considered that the project has the potential to deliver impacts in terms of change to governance frameworks at different levels (local and national) and to generate positive changes in the livelihoods of significant numbers of poor rural families. On the negative side, there are some components that have had no impact, either as a result of poor strategic planning, weak management or misdiagnosis of the underlying governance issue. At this stage a more systematic assessment of the impact is not facilitated by the limitations of the monitoring system applied by project management however the current process to revise the monitoring system and draw together lessons learned will enable such an analysis to be more thorough in future.
Several of the initiatives have started from zero and it has obviously taken longer for these to demonstrate impacts. However those that have added a governance agenda to on‐going initiatives, being implemented either by IUCN or its partners, have been able to add value and make more rapid progress in terms of achievement of impact (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh). Within IUCN it is considered that the project should be better linked to its own on‐going initiatives implemented by other programmes within the organization. In some of the countries visited it was evident that either the country office or project partners were engaged in on‐going environmental governance initiatives (e.g. LIDEMA which has supported work on the constitutional assembly process in Bolivia and the country offices Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, which would have made sense to support).
In Bangladesh significant impacts have been achieved in terms of improvement in the livelihoods of poor rural families by strengthening of local capacity and social organization by mobilizing the fisheries standing committees. This has obliged local government to be more responsive to the demands of communities and has led to the reversion of the leasing systems that previously favoured local elite. As a result, fish catches have increased and in some cases incomes have doubled. At a different location, through collective action, communities have been able to negotiate higher levels of compensation for foregone income for respecting the closed season when fish are spawning, with a tenfold rise in payments from £5 to £50. Thus both local governments and sub district levels of delegated national government have become more accountable to the demands of local communities. Women have been particularly benefitted by the project in Bangladesh and are now actively involved in local politics as well as commercial activities within the communities.
In Sri Lanka there are signs that different levels of government are drawing closer to communities. Special emphasis has been given to training through the implementation of the “Training for Trainers” programme. Training in governance issues has been provided to government staff generating improved capacity to work with communities and greater responsiveness of district offices to community demands. As a result communities are now more closely engaged with government offices and are now less fearful the once authoritarian government officials. Gaps in the legal framework regarding natural resource management have been identified and government departments are analysing how these can be addressed. At the institutional level the creation of the Lagoon Management Authority has improved community representation and social organization giving voice to demands and obliging government offices to be more responsive to their demands. Due to this closer relationship with government authorities various fishermen have adopted more secure and environmental sound management practices.
In the Drylands component there is very little evidence of progress in Burkina Faso and Mali whereas in Tunisia the only activity has been the preparation of two studies. In Kenya, on the contrary, local community organization has been strengthened through community mobilization. In addition the project has facilitated the acknowledgement of customary norms as by laws and recognition of
18
traditional natural resource management practices of the nomadic tribesmen, taking advantage of opportunities presented under the new constitution. .
In Lebanon there was no evidence that the project has had an impact on the livelihoods of the Bedouin nomads to the north of the country. Discussions with central government agencies and municipal governments are underway to recognise a system of co‐management of protected areas (Hima) with communities in the region and for these to be recognised as a legal category of protected areas by the Ministry of the Environment. It therefore seems likely that the project will achieve a significant impact on public policies at both national and municipal levels that should benefit the local population of Bedouin tribesmen.
In Nepal, a number of clauses related to environmental governance and rights have been included in the draft text of the technical committees preparing the new national constitution. A critical mass of 150 members of the constituent assembly14 has been trained in the application of the RBA in relation to environmental governance. Although the issues arising with regard to the PES schemes for water supply to urban areas from rural communities has been raised as an issue this is apparently at an impasse. The decentralization of natural resource management has not been effectively tackled in any of the commissions and it appears likely that large tracts of forest and other natural resources will remain under the control of central government. In Nepal, the municipal governments are responsible only for urban areas with rural areas lying under the control of Village Development Committees.
In Peru and Bolivia, the main focus of the project has been to develop indicators of cultural wellbeing which are specific to the location where these have been developed. Due to the abstract nature of the component, this has not had an impact either in the governance framework or the livelihoods of the local communities. An indirect impact of the project has been the establishment of the demand for the creation of an indigenous territory in the Antaquilla region in La Paz, Bolivia.
The work in Mozambique has had no impact. This is due to a misdiagnosis of the underlying governance issue and the implementation of work oriented to solving the largely irrelevant issue of illegal trade with South Africa of fish from artisanal fishing. This is based on the following evidence: the majority of fish sales from small scale and artisanal fisheries are to local markets (interviews with IDPPE staff and government customs officials). Government data shows that trade of fish with South Africa from small scale fishing constitutes only between 4‐7% of all fish traded with that country (data supported by the FAO study of the Mozambique Fisheries Sector which also indicates that fish from artisanal fishing is predominantly sold on local markets). All members of the communities interviewed said that fish were sold locally except for one person who said that they occasionally sold fish to a trader who took fish to South Africa. Having said this, there is considerable potential for work on the governance of artisanal fishing to have an impact, with much interest expressed and dedication of effort to this issue on behalf of the government.
The Protected Areas component has basically dedicated efforts to studies and workshops15 on the issue of human rights and governance of local populations living in and around protected areas.
14 There are a total of 601 members.
15 http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/resumen_ejecutivo_superposicion.pdf
15https://portal.iucn.org/spp/DFID/PA/PA%20Governance%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx
15 https://portal.iucn.org/spp/DFID/PA/PA%20Governance%20Documents/Forms/AllItems.aspx
15 https://portal.iucn.org/spp/Lists/Tools/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fspp%2fLists%2fTools%2fTools%2fSocial%20Assessments&View=%7b6B9062BB%2d7A72%2d429B%2dAFAD%2d1C28D1914352%7d
15 https://portal.iucn.org/spp/Lists/Links%20to%20Documents/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fspp%2fLists%2fLinks%20to%20
19
These are primarily directed to decision makers, protected area managers and those involved in policy formulation processes (such as the workshop held with SADC in South Africa). To date it is not clear what direct impact these actions have generated although they form part of a wider advocacy agenda to address the needs of poor communities living within or in the proximity to protected areas. The current approach to the implementation of this component may generate impacts on national level policies, however, these may only become more evident in the longer term, perhaps beyond the end of the project. This raises a question of attribution of impact to the project. However, there is considerable scope for impact if the component is able to apply a similar approach to that developed in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh by empowering local people to actively engage in advocacy activities and demand their rights from different levels of government. This is especially valid in Latin America where the poorest sectors of society, the indigenous people, are often living in marginalised conditions in protected areas which have been superimposed on their indigenous territories (of the 800 protected areas in the region 25% are inhabited by indigenous people or communities)..
The Global component has not had any direct impact in terms of improved governance frameworks or enhanced local livelihoods. This is not to say that valuable work has not been carried out. The Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR) is an important process that has influenced the principal international NGOs involved in conservation to adopt a rights approach to environmental governance. However, any impact of this is likely to be in the long term and not directly attributable to the project. The organization of the Sri Lanka workshop in September of this year has contributed significantly to the establishment of a common understanding of the project approach and appreciation of how different elements of the project should link up with each other and will undoubtedly contribute to the achievement of greater coherence and impact of those components that will continue over the next two years.
Documents%2fConservation%20and%20Development%2fProtected%20areas%20and%20livelihoods&View=%7bE2172691%2d82E2%2d4A95%2dB93F%2dFA97EE4FE70C%7d
20
6.3 Efficiency
The programme cannot be characterized as having been efficient in the use of resources; rather it has had high administrative and management costs for the following reasons:
Firstly and fundamentally due to an institutional structure ‘in cascade’ that generates
administrative costs at each level. In the majority of the cases there are 5 levels (IUCN‐HQ,
IUCN Regional Office, IUCN Country Office or Project Team and local implementing
Partners), in some cases a sixth is added when the Partner hires a consultant (Nepal, South
Africa) or an additional NGO is hired to carry out the financial administration (Bolivia/Peru).
Each with its own administrative overhead and personnel dedicated to management.
Secondly due to the thematic and, more importantly, the geographical dispersion, with the
project spread over three continents. It is probable that if the program had focused on a
single continent or region, the costs of monitoring and technical assistance would have been
much lower, and the exchange of experiences would have been greatly facilitated.
The principal constraint to the achievement of greater efficiency has been the delay of IUCN HQ in hiring a full‐time project coordinator. During the first 18 months, the programme was run on a part time basis by the project manager, who did his best to coordinate the programme among his many other commitments.. The financial assistant was also hired almost a year into the project in August 2009. Finally, in February 2010, IUCN hired a full‐time coordinator, who took up position in Gland in July 2010. Since then the efforts of project management have been devoted to the redesign of the monitoring system the organization of the Sri Lanka workshop and preparation of reports and correspondence with KPMG. The Mission considers that it would have been more productive to have dedicated efforts to fieldwork to gain familiarity with the situation of the components and provide technical assistance to those components where direct support from the regional offices was weak. While support was provided to the Bolivia and Peru component, this was already there was apparently little that could be done to reorient the component.
The exchange of experiences, the establishment of strategic alliances and the search for synergies between distinct elements have not been a feature of the programme to date:
The mission has noted the existence of many other initiatives supported by DFID in the area
of natural resource management and governance (as noted in the section on relevance),
including other GTF initiatives in the respective countries to which the components are
rarely linked. In this sense, the role of KPMG and/or Tripleline has not been proactive in
establishing linkages at this level.
There has been little exchange of experiences and little learning or synergy between
components. With the exception of the three Asian components which, on their own
initiative, have established mechanisms of exchange and lesson learning supported by the
regional office. Recently the Sri Lanka meeting organized in September 2010 has enabled
the components to exchange experiences and compare different approaches, however this
was considered to have been too late and most component managers interviewed
considered that the event should have been organised at the beginning of the project.
In all the cases in which the components included more than one country, there were very
limited learning opportunities or exchange visits between countries; this is typified by the
case of Peru and Bolivia where the only remaining Bolivian case study was situated on the
Peruvian border yet no exchange had taken place with Peruvian experiences on the other
side of Lake Titicaca.
21
As for the overall budget execution, this has been relatively low (31%), especially in the two components managed from Gland (Protected Areas (17% )and Global (18%)) See Table 1..
Table 1; Execution of the budget by component
Component Original Budget
Revised Budget
Expenditure to September 2010
Expenditure/ Budget (%)
Balance (Budget ‐
Expenditure)
Date of conclusion
Budget as % of total budget
Bangladesh 288.004 283.143 155.412,94 55% 127.730,06 30 June 2011 7%
Benin 427.587 359.995 100.990,55 28% 259.004,45 31 March 2012 9%
Bolivia & Peru 224.158 224.158 178.833,34 80% 45.324,66 31 March 2011 6%
Drylands of Africa 420.325 414.876 94.995,20 23% 319.880,80
31 March 2013 10%
Lebanon & Syria 315.497 315.497 124.290,25 39% 191.206,75
31 March 2012 8%
Mozambique &South Africa 298.561 291.616 71.097,18 24% 220.518,82
31 March 2012 7%
Nepal 226.113 218.468 133.291,87 61% 85.176,13 31 March 2011 6%
Protected Areas 439.300 440.113 73.078,75 17% 367.034,25
31 March 2013 11%
Sri Lanka 246.497 239.582 77.170,41 32% 162.411,59 31 March 2013 6%
Global 1.049.266 1.145.859 210.835,08 18% 935.023,92 31 March 2013 29%
Contingency 29.700 29.700 0,00 0% 29.700,00 1%
Total 3.965.007 3.963.007 1.219.995,57 31% 2745011,32 100%
The Mission has also identified problems in the design of the Components:
The absence of project documents for each component in the design stage of the
programme, only logical frameworks were required, even so these were not critically revised
by IUCN‐HQ.
The complex arrangements for implementation has meant that reporting has been weak and
many of the interesting impacts encountered in the field by the mission had not been
reported back to IUCN HQ. This has not been helped by the monitoring and evaluation
system (of which the reporting forms a part) employed over the first two years of the
22
project. This has meant that IUCN HQ was not adequately informed about what was
happening in the components.
The risk assessment was carried out superficially, to meet the formal requirements of HQ
and not used as an instrument to support management decisions.
Problems in the identification of the partners, in some components: for example in
Mozambique, where an NGO, with no apparent experience in Governance work or
participatory methodologies was selected16, or in Nepal, where the component sought to
benefit NGO members of IUCN, even if they had no relevant expertise.
6.4 Value for Money
This section addresses the third objective of the terms of reference: to compare actual progress against workplans and targets and assess value for money, including targets related to the types and extent of change related to capacities, responsiveness and accountability generated to date. Greater detail of these can be found in the respective component reports.
It is considered that good value for money has been achieved in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Kenya and to a lesser extent in Nepal. The following factors have contributed to the achievement of good value for money in these locations:
Work has been carried out in continuation of previous experiences (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh(
Partners have high levels of commitment and experience with local presence (Kenya and Bangladesh).
A systematic approach to the assessment of the capacity building needs has been carried out and capability development strategy developed around the identified needs (Sri Lanka and Bangladesh).
Some of the following factors would have contributed to improved implementation of the project components and hence value for money:
Better identification of issues (for example in Mozambique, Bolivia and Peru) and
implementation strategies (for example in Nepal and Lebanon) with appropriate support and
closer monitoring from IUCN HQ. Improved communication and mutual learning between
experiences. Greater effort dedicated to training and capacity development in governance and
natural resource management of the field teams (e.g. on issues such as multi‐stakeholders
platforms, which has been a strategy of various components)
More rigorous in the selection of partners that implement the proposals, for example by selecting
institutions by putting implementation out to competitive tender that would have allowed not
only NGOs but also government institutions and social movements to participate. By avoiding
implementing through a collection of institutions, each with its own administration and
bureaucracy, and where a sizeable proportion of the funding is used to cover administrative
overheads.
16 CTV employed traditional formal survey questionnaire techniques to gather information and were not employing participatory planning or diagnostic methodologies in their work with the communities. If CTV are aware of these approaches then the staff assigned to the project had not been adequately trained in their application.
23
In some countries work has been disjointed and fragmented between different implementing
organizations (e.g. Nepal) which could have been brought together more effectively by
establishing better linkages between project implementing agents and by developing clear
communication and advocacy strategies with the local and national governments.
It would be more cost effective to decentralize programme management.. There are no technical
or political reasons for the project to be managed from Gland (e.g. the Drylands component is
managed from IUCN‐ESARO in Nairobi), especially since the most important interactions are with
the regional and country offices. The project management could well be located in a country
with much lower costs of living.
Prioritizing those countries with lower costs of living (which often coincide with the poorer
countries), as is the case of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, where structurally better value for money
can be achieved (a little money goes a long way).
There are clear links between significant expenditure and key programme outputs. The following areas provide examples of these:
Workshops that have contributed to establish the Multistakeholder Platforms (Bangladesh, Sri
Lanka, Nepal) generating capacities for dialogue and consensus building on policies.
The Training of Trainers and Facilitation processes (in Sri Lanka), generating human resources that
motivate other governance processes.
The identification of case studies about governance issues in natural resource management, as
well as of training materials for communities or Training of Trainers done by Sri Lanka with the
support of the Asia Regional Office.
The Coordination by the Country Offices of the NGOs activities, creating synergies between these.
The establishment of Advisory Board with the Government Departments concerned (as in the
case of Sri Lanka) as part of a wider advocacy strategy.
One aspect that requires discussion within the programme is how to resolve the fact that governance processes are usually slow, in the medium term, and perceived as an abstract by the communities. The solution that many of the components have found is to develop small‐scale infrastructure, productive projects, etc that give greater visibility to the project in the short term. But it is not clear what the value for money is for these initiatives (e.g. the multipurpose toilets in Nepal).
6.5 Effectiveness
The second objective of the mission “to assess the extent to which products/milestones are being effectively planned in the context of INRGPR’s overall goal and the specific purposes of each component” is addressed within this section on effectiveness.
Some of the components have demonstrated highly effective use of resources achieving significant progress and achieving short term impacts in terms of improved livelihoods and changes in local governance systems (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka for example). In these cases it is considered that the planning of project outcomes and milestones has been effective. On the other hand, some components have not used resources well, employing inappropriate strategies (Bolivia and Peru) or through misdiagnosis of the fundamental governance problem (Mozambique). In such cases the identification of the overall strategy and the linking up to meet wider project purpose has not been effective. As a result planning of project outcomes and milestones has not been effective largely because the overall strategic framework has been deficient. More detailed explanations of progress achieved in each of the components in relation to the specific outcomes and milestones are
24
presented below. These comments should be read in conjunction with the Achievement Rating Scale presented in Annex 1 of this report..
Bangladesh has made significant progress in the achievement of the purpose and of the first two outcomes. However, as yet little progress has been made in the dissemination of the lessons learned (outcome 3). Bangladesh has been very effective in the use of resources working through experienced partners with operational bases located in the areas in which the project is implemented with close working relations with civil society organizations and local governments. It would be helpful for IUCN Bangladesh to develop an advocacy and communication strategy to the end of the project to consolidate the results achieved to date and to influence national level policy formulation by linking up the MSPs from the different areas. It has been possible to make significant progress in the achievements of outcomes (1) and (2) as the project builds on the experience gained under previous projects executed by project partners in the respective sites(reflected in the high ARS for these outcomes). The Bangladesh component should have planned the component to last for more than two years given the long term nature of social and political change.
The time and effort invested by the Sri Lanka component in the development of a systematic approach based on a solid conceptual framework for natural resources governance is now beginning to pay off. However, this has implied a relatively slow start to the project and at this stage means that progress towards the achievement of the outcomes and purpose is delayed. Although the project locations are selected on the basis of previous work carried out by IUCN it is new to the implementing partners who have taken time to gain the confidence of local people. The approach of “training of trainers” has proven to be highly effective in building capacity, not only in terms of numbers of people trained but also due to the systematic structuring of the course content. Capacity building of both government functionaries and members of local NGOs has paved the way for the establishment of more effective dialogue through the Multistakeholder platforms. The use of case studies to generate understanding of the relationships between communities, the legal framework and natural resource governance has greatly facilitated understanding of what might otherwise be considered as an abstract notion to communities. The different committees formed have yet to become operational as forums for dialogue in practice and as yet the communities have not assumed effective ownership of the project. Exchange visits, a valuable mechanism to promote horizontal learning between communities and build social capital, should be used to greater effect in Sri Lanka.
The purpose of the Bolivia and Peru component aims to establish changes in the policy and institutional framework to secure indigenous peoples’ rights and their governance of land and natural resources in highland communities. No progress has been made towards achieving the purpose and it is indeed difficult to imagine how the activities implemented might possibly contribute to the achievement of the outcomes contemplated in the project (low ARS are assigned for purpose and outcomes). The nature of the work has been largely abstract in orientation in both countries, the development of the indicators has generated little interest either for the communities or local decision makers and in no situation have these been put to any practical purpose. At best the process of discussion of the indicators may have promoted improved social cohesion. In Peru, work with the SERNAP (National Protected Areas Service) has not been able to deliver improvements in livelihoods as this agency does not have resources to invest in activities that respond to local community demands. It would have made more sense to work with local and regional levels of government. Both countries worked with NGOs with no physical base in any of the areas and which had to travel long distances to the field sites. Generally then the work has been largely ineffective in terms of generation of impacts in governance structures or improved livelihoods.
25
The mission was unable to visit Syria and the field visit to Lebanon was of limited value. The purpose of the project in the region is to “put in place enabling conditions for the preservation of existing traditional systems of resource tenure that contribute to conservation and sustainable management of natural resources”. Some progress has been made towards this with the presentation of a proposal to the government of Lebanon to recognise Hima 17 as a formal category of protected area (contributing to outcome 1). However it is not clear to what extent progress has been made in Lebanon with regard to outcomes (2) and (3) since it was not possible to meet with local community decision makers. Some training courses have been given and a training centre refurbished with project resources on at the private home of the tribal leader18. This is not an effective use of HMG’s resources. Added to which it contravenes the conditions of the agreement19 signed between IUCN HQ and the regional office in Amman. It is not possible to comment on progress in Syria although staff from ROWA commented that it was at an early stage of development. An interview with a member of staff from the implement agency, SSCW, shed little additional light on the situation in Syria. Since it was not possible to visit local communities it is not evident whether either SPNL in Lebanon or SSCW in Syria, have the institutional capacity to work on wider governance and livelihood issues employing participatory approaches.
The project in Nepal has not advanced in the achievement of the purpose due principally to ineffective planning with the project lasting originally for one year and subsequently extended for a further year. To date the draft constitution has not been drawn up and although reports of commissions have been prepared with inputs from the project. Significant progress has been made in the first outcome with almost 25% of constituent assembly members having received training. The establishment of feedback loops between CFUGs and CA members has been ineffective largely due to the failure to engage with the umbrella organization with legitimate representation of civil society in forest areas, FECOFUN. Instead the country office has worked through several weak local NGOs with little experience or capacity in the area of NR governance. The third outcome, the development of a watershed conservation plan, has been largely completed; however, the plan was presented by the consultant after the original conclusion of the project. This has limited the extent to which it has been possible to use the plan to lobby within the CA to adapt the existing legal framework for PES and to discuss its implementation in the MSP.
Serious errors in the diagnosis of the underlying governance issue have led the whole design of the South Africa and Mozambique project to invest time and resources in vain with no effect on the wider project purpose. In addition to these problems Traffic has contracted a local NGO with little experience of work with communities of artisanal fishermen20. Besides this the local NGO was extremely slow and ineffective in carrying out the few tasks for which it was responsible. This is reflected in the low level of execution of the project budget (24%), the very limited
17 a system of co‐management of protected areas recognised under Islamic law
19 Should the Project component budget include any equipment purchase, receipts and an inventory and log of items
costing “1,000 or more must be kept and provided to IUCN E&DF with each quarterly financial report. The inventory must include: manufacturer and model of the item; serial, registration and/or chassis number; the purchase cost and purchase date; its location and name of the officer responsible for its security. All items purchase using funds provided under this Internal Agreement will remain the property of DFID, and cannot be disposed of, sold, or lent to another organization or individual. Item 9 of Annex 1 of the Internal Agreement between IUCN Environment and Development Group and the Regional Office for West Asia (ROWA).
20 CTV employed obsolete data collection methodologies. From the field visits made during the mission to Maputo there was little to show that CTV staff assigned to the project have functional working relations with community organizations.
26
progress made in gathering of community survey data and apparently weak institutional connexions that the implementing NGO has with the fisheries sector.
Two contrasting situations are presented under the Drylands component: that of Tunisia and Burkina Faso and that of Kenya. The former two subcomponents have progressed very little and have effectively closed, evidently with no effectiveness. The Kenya subcomponent has however made interesting progress with an innovative institutional arrangement for implementation, contracting an NGO that is in effect an executive branch of the local stakeholders: the nomadic herdsmen of Garba Tula. This has allowed significant progress to be made towards the achievement of the component purpose. Work to systematize and register customary norms governing traditional forms of natural resource management as local by‐laws with formal legal status has represented an important step towards meeting outcome (1). While the work of the NGO in training and meetings with the Dehds has strengthened local capacity and social organization contributing to the achievement of outcome (2).. This has led to improved governance arrangements, bringing government closer to the tribal families and improved use of natural resources in the territory (outcome 3).
Although the Global component is the largest of the ten (with 25% of the overall budget), execution has been low (18%). The achievement of the purpose of this component has only been partially achieved with effort oriented to influence international processes (e.g. the CIHR) rather than providing effective support to the project components. After an initial period of weak support and integration of project components, the Global component has only recently shown greater effectiveness in the creation of appropriate mechanisms to facilitate exchange and lesson learning between partners as a result of the Sri Lanka workshop. In addition the introduction of a more appropriate framework for monitoring and evaluation of project progress will also facilitate project coordination. However, this comes too late for those components that are about to close and for which opportune corrective measures would have permitted implementation to be more effective at an early stage. To date lessons learned have not been systematically analysed and disseminated within IUCN or partner organizations neither have national policies regarding natural resource management been influenced.
To date the Protected Areas component has been of only limited effectiveness due to what the mission considers to be the implementation strategy which has focussed efforts to influence governments through reports and workshops. It has not yet been possible to implement work in the field which is partially responsible for a low level of budgetary execution (17%). This approach has not as yet influenced national policies on protected area management. It would have been more effective to develop parallel advocacy strategies to influence policies based on concrete cases of support to local communities and indigenous people (particularly in Latin America in this latter case) living in or in the vicinity of protected areas. However it is considered that there is considerable potential for this to be achieved under this two pronged strategy. As with the global component it is considered that a greater degree of decentralized management of this component would enhance its effectiveness.
6.5.1 Effectiveness of Risk Analysis
The risk analysis carried out by the project in Bangladesh has been done in a realistic and thorough manner, covering the main risks that might affect project implementation at different levels of operation. It is considered that the external risk of the unfavourable policy framework is one that should be internalised during the future activities of the project in Bangladesh.
The risks identified in Bolivia and Peru are more related to the realities of projects and should have been taken into account in the planning process and appropriate measures contemplated to mitigate the potential impacts in the project design.
27
The risk analysis carried out by the Drylands component is relatively weak in nature. Limited funding is an element of the design or part of the reality. In no project is funding without limits. The change in project partner is also largely within the control of the project as the choice of partner is controlled by the project and the management of the relationship also largely within the control of project management. The third risk: slow implementation is entirely related to project management. On the other hand the potential risks faced by the sub‐components Tunisia and Burkina Faso‐Mali, and which explain why they were unable to progress (e.g. in the fact that the agreement between Burkina Faso and Mali will not be signed) were not identified as risks.
In the Lebanon and Syria component, the risk of “inadequate government support and participation” is precisely the central element of the project purpose that the project is working to change and cannot be considered as an external element beyond the control of the project. For the same reason, the risk “lack of full co‐operation at the community level” is similarly a central part of the project approach and cannot be considered external as indicated in the risk analysis. It is not a risk; it is part of the reality that the project is attempting to change! Neither can the third high level risk, the contradiction between our project’s approach of the other developmental projects approaches/interventions” be considered a risk. It is a reality and is perhaps indicative of the underlying problems with the conventional approach to the way that other projects are implemented.
In Mozambique and South Africa the risk analysis has been largely focused on external factors whereas in reality the main risks have been internal and within the control of project management. . Other likely factors such as regional peace, political and socio economic stability are however overlooked in the analysis when in reality, given the history of the region; these should have been taken into account.
In Nepal, two or the three risks originally identified did not occur (road blocks and general strikes), however the third risk, regarding alterations to the programme of the Constituent Assembly, has had a significant effect provoking changes in the programme of activities. However, the project did not contemplate mitigation measures to be taken as a consequence of this risk.
The Risk Analysis conducted by the Sri Lanka component of the project is quite weak: in fact, the three risks identified are almost identical regarding political commitment. One report mentions that since they have good relations with various government agencies the risks for this project are now very low. However, this does not seem to be the case in Puttalam where the risk regarding the future of the Lagoon Management Authority has been overlooked.
In the Protected Areas and Global components, as in other cases the identification of lack of political will as a risk seems to inappropriate given that it is precisely the change in political will that is the purpose of the components. It would not appear to be appropriate to indicate the same measures to mitigate risk in the components which are essentially distinct in nature. The risk of insufficient time being available to build capacity is an element that is part of the planning and is known from the outset and cannot then be considered as an external risk. Since one of the fundamental elements of the components is the coordination of project partners it cannot be stated as a risk that there might be difficulties in coordination with project partners. Similarly the inability to establish effective learning networks is an element that is central to the function of the global component and cannot be considered a risk.
To summarise, some of the components have developed a framework for risk analysis but generally many of the risks identified lie within the governability of the project and cannot then be considered as risks. It is therefore necessary to revise many of the risk analyses.
28
6.6 Sustainability
The sustainability of the project actions is variable across the components according to the distinct methodological approaches, institutional frameworks and strategies employed.
Among the Asian group of countries the construction of systematic approach employed to the diagnostic of the training needs, planning and implementation of training under a coherent framework has provided a solid basis for the work particularly within IUCN country offices in Sri Lanka and Bangladesh. In Bangladesh an important basis for the sustainability of the project work is provided through the commitment of the local partners and the strong network that the country office has established with these. Similarly in Sri Lanka and Kenya, the national and regional offices have committed important efforts to governance work.
In Kenya, at the local level, the fact that the implementing partner is effectively an institutional instrument of the local stakeholders provides a solid basis for sustainability.
The building of ownership among local stakeholders (Kenya and Bangladesh) and the stimulation of interest of government through training has also established a good basis for sustainability (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka).
Strong emphasis on capacity building and strengthened social organization by supporting multistakeholder platforms will guarantee the continuation of this work beyond the end of the project (Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka).
There is little to suggest that the work carried out in Mozambique, Peru, Bolivia and the sub components of Drylands in Mali – Burkina Faso and Tunisia will be sustained upon the conclusion of financial support. In Bolivia, the indirect impact of the project, resulting in the creation of the indigenous territory of Antaquilla, will continue beyond the end of the project due to the high degree of local ownership of the process.
The complicated implementing structure and the remoteness of management with high levels of dependence on virtual means of communication are features of the management system that affect the sustainability of the overall institutional framework and operational approach of the project.
Therefore, at the moment of writing this report, if the DFID financial support were concluded it is considered that there would be limited continuity of the programme at an organizational level of IUCN due to the high degree of dependency of the work on the external contribution and the relative complexity of the implementing framework which requires a high level of management support. However, activities would be sustained in certain regional (SARO and ESARO) and country offices such as Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya due to the commitment of the offices and of implementing partner members to natural resource governance work.
6.7 Equity
The programme has taken equity into special consideration since it is implemented in poorer countries (except in the case of Lebanon and Sri Lanka which are classified as MICs) and since work is oriented to address more vulnerable and marginalised communities or those excluded from effective participation in the benefits of development or of the prevailing political system. The Global and Protected Areas components address issues regarding Human Rights and particularly indigenous people who are generally among the poorest sectors of society, addressing in this way two central dimensions of equity.
However, the absence of stronger guidance at the time of formulating the components, makes that all the different forms of equity (gender, age, ethnicity etc) have not been sufficiently emphasized as elements of governance the governance framework, and are not therefore always taken into consideration in the design of the proposals. Weak technical support during the first 18 months of
29
the project has also limited the possibility of correcting the limitations in the design during the early stages of implementation of the components.
Bangladesh has assigned special consideration to equity: the beneficiaries are among the poorest, marginalized members of Bangladeshi society. Project actions have sought to reverse the leasing systems, affecting the local elites in favour of the poorest sectors of society. It has also sought to accompany the hill tribes in their demands for legalisation of collective access to indigenous lands and finally the project is particularly relevant with regard to women who are traditionally relegated in their social standing in Bangladesh.
In the case of Bolivia and Peru, in the construction of Cultural Indicators of Wellbeing, the theme of equity has been central and due regard paid to the distinct views of men and women. The target group of the component, indigenous Andean communities, are the poorest members of society and are sectors that are historically excluded.
In Sri Lanka, through the Lagoon Management Authority and of the fishing Agreements, the project has sought to empower and improve the livelihoods of thousands of families that depend on fishing, affected by investments and business groups of rich sectors. There is not, however, a gender focus in the project.
In Kenya, there is a clear intention to empower the poor nomadic populations of Garba Tula, who are marginalised by an authoritarian and corrupt political system. There is a special consideration to recover and revalue their knowledge and traditional forms of land management and to improve their living conditions. However, there is no specific gender focus in project design.
In Nepal, despite the persistence of the caste system in the project areas (in particular the caste of the excluded, Dalits or untouchables), the project has not made a special effort to improve their situation, other than by providing isolated training courses on gender and social exclusion.
Other components have not attached particular importance to equity issues. In Lebanon, the Bedouin nomads, among the poorest members of Lebanese society, are the target group but there are no specific elements of equity in the proposal. The same can be said of Mozambique where the target group are artisanal fishing families.
6.8 Replicability
Probably the experiences that are most replicable are those from Sri Lanka and Bangladesh which have based their interventions on the solid understanding of a governance framework implemented on a systematic basis with special emphasis placed on capacity building on both the supply side (working with government officials) and demand side (Civil Society). A particularly important aspect of the work, especially in Bangladesh and Nepal, has also been the support to Multistakeholder platforms, which serve as forums for dialogue between different stakeholders and government, the “governance marketplace” at which deals are negotiated. It is recommended that these experiences should be extended to the African countries.
An initial, fairly superficial evaluation of the work in Kenya would indicate at prima facie that this could also readily be extended to other similar areas in the country and across the border into neighbouring Somalia and Ethiopia. If the work in Bolivia and Peru were reoriented with a focus on indicators of wellbeing as part of a consensus building process to demand rights from government then this approach might be replicable. It is then necessary to place this within a governance framework.. The Lebanon and Syria component provides an interesting example of how environmental governance may be able to provide an entry point for discussion of wider governance issues in other Arab countries, particularly in post conflict situations. The CIHR protocol has attempted to replicate the RBA among a wider circle of conservation organizations. It is not clear at this stage if this approach has been successful or if it is worthwhile investing efforts in such a management intensive approach. It will be necessary for IUCN HQ to carefully track the
30
repercussions of the work carried out through the CIHR to assess the impact that this has over the next few years.
The approach to environmental governance as an entry point to address wider rights and governance issues could have a potentially significant impact in other situations in the region, especially in those countries in post conflict situations where intercultural dialogue is difficult.
Significant results have been achieved through the use of participatory methodologies and focus groups which induce collective reflexion on common issues and problems by stimulating dialogue while contributing to local capacity development and strengthening of social organization. These exercises have proven to be important instruments of empowerment that build local ownership but which depend on the application of good facilitation skills. In particular participatory mapping exercises have played an important role in the development of the future vision and the construction of consensus (Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Kenya, Bolivia and Peru).
Under certain circumstances working through IUCN members has proved to be a successful strategy (Bangladesh and Kenya) where the respective NGOs have a strong local presence, with staff on the ground with good facilitation and social mobilization skills that are able to empower local communities. At the same time the local facilitators have played an important role in creating the conditions that enable government officials to go to communities and engage in dialogue with their representatives. It is also helpful if the governance initiatives selected build on previous experiences (Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Kenya). Finally, perhaps the most replicable element is the need to have patience, changes is governance frameworks do not happen overnight.
31
7 Innovation
Significant effort of the project coordination in Gland has been dedicated to the development of the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights (CIHR). Including the IUCN the CIHR agglutinates eight leading conservation NGOs (WWF, Wildlife Conservation Society, Birdlife International, Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, The Nature Conservancy and Wetlands International). The purpose of the CIHR is to promote the adoption of rights based approaches to conservation, particularly with regard to more vulnerable populations. In November 2009, the CEOs of these NGOs met to establish the CIHR and to draw up a work plan focussed on shared learning for implementation and capacity building oriented around governance and human rights. The strategic vision of the CIHR is to serve as a mechanism to scale up and replicate tools and guidelines on rights based approaches, good governance, equity and cultural rights to conservation. Also under the Global component technical support has been provided for the revision of the governance training tool kit being developed by CBD secretariat. The component has also provided inputs to promote the transversal adoption of RBA to conservation within IUCN including inputs to the RBA portal21 managed by the IUCN Environmental Law Centre located in Bonn.
Although the overall working approach of the project has proven to be complex to implement and presented challenges to management particularly in the area of communication, it nevertheless represents an interesting and innovative delivery mechanism that is potentially far reaching. This mechanism will be particularly important to invest time and effort to ensure that it can be made fully functional in order to make full use of its potential to resolve some of the wider global environmental governance issues including adaptation to climate change.
Environmental governance has been shown to be a particularly useful entry point to discuss some entrenched and hardened social positions that if addressed directly would probably be difficult to even establish a process of dialogue. Thus environmental governance has been shown under this project to provide a valuable entry point to discuss issues such as gender equality among some traditionally conservative societies. It represents a mechanism of brining different sides together that have often confronted each other in violent conflict.
It has been noted in certain countries, particularly in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, that the work carried out by the projects has enabled IUCN to cultivate a special relationship with the respective national governments which has resulted in the respective IUCN offices establishing relationships of trust with the respective government departments and subnational levels of government.
It has been possible to demonstrate impact relatively quickly and efficiently in situations where the project activities have provided complementary support either to on‐going activities of other projects or followed on from projects that have already been implemented by IUCN or its local partners (Bangladesh and Sri Lanka). The case in Kenya also represents an important innovation demonstrating again that short term impact is possible due to the strong field presence of the NGO, WARP, which is in fact formed from members of the local community and is recognised as being a legitimate organization in which members of the local community can trust.
Undertaking work to influence the Constituent Assembly process in Nepal again represents an interesting innovation that takes advantage of the specific political juncture. However, it is not something that can readily be repeated. The pay‐off is potentially considerable.
The training of trainers approach developed by the Asia regional office and implemented in Sri Lanka in particular, has had an important multiplier effect among members of communities and provides a sound basis for the sustainability of project actions.
21 http://iucn.org/about/union/commissions/cel/cel_news/?5839/Join‐the‐Rights‐Based‐Approach‐to‐Conservation‐Portal
32
8 Recommendations22 A. Recommendations for KPMG and Tripleline
A.1. The main recommendation is for the continuity of the programme with modifications. The recommended modifications are presented in the following section.
A.2. A second recommendation is that the GTF coordination (KPMG and especially Tripleline) should monitor the IUCN/DFID selected project components in the field, and visit the project coordinators in Gland.23
B. Recommendations for the IUCN/DFID Project Management
B.1. The main recommendation is that it is necessary to reformulate the project including amendments to the budget allocations between components.
The reformulation should take into account the following recommendations:
The strengthening, extension and in some cases the geographical expansion of those
components that have demonstrated their effectiveness and could have a major impact,
especially in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya.
The redesign of the Mozambique component which has high potential that has not been
exploited due to the inefficiency of the team that has managed the component.
The consideration of the possibility of extending the Nepali component that is currently
drawing to a close and which addresses the highly relevant process of constitutional reform,
but which requires important changes. It is particularly recommended that FECOFUN should
be included as one of the local partners in legitimate representation of rural communities in
Nepal.
The conclusion of the Bolivia and Peru component, which is about to end, and where limited
potential impact is foreseen.
The closure of the sub‐components in Tunisia and Burkina Faso‐Mali of the Drylands
component, which have no demonstrable impact on the governance framework or the
livelihoods of local people. The funds assigned to these two sub‐components should remain
under the management of the Drylands component in order to replicate the positive
experiences obtained there to similar regions in Kenya as well as to the neighbouring border
zones of Ethiopia and Somalia.
Due to time restrictions, the MTR was unable to undertake field visits to either Garba Tula in
Kenya or to Benin. Information gathered was then from secondary sources and from project
management itself. It is therefore recommended that an independent assessment of
progress be carried out to both locations to verify progress on the ground and meet with
local stakeholders. On the basis of these visits, an appropriate strategy should be prepared
for the work in Kenya whereas in Benin the visit should determine the most appropriate
measures to take regarding the future of this component.
22 Note: Some of the recommendations included in this section have already been suggested and agreed on with the
management of IUCN‐DFID and have been included in the Aide‐Memoire prepared in mid‐December 2010. 23 At the time of writing this report Tripleline (responsible of the Technical Monitoring of the Program) had not met with the project coordination in Gland nor had it visited some of the countries where the Program operates.
33
In Lebanon and Syria it is necessary to carry out a more thorough assessment of the situation
of the project carrying out field visits and in particular the capacity of ROWA to provide the
necessary support to the implementing agencies in each country. On the basis of this
assessment a decision should be made regarding the future of this component. If it is
decided to continue to work on the component, for which important strategic arguments
can be provided, it will be necessary to reformulate the budget and define how this should
be divided between the two countries.
The role and functions of the regional offices of IUCN which are responsible for the
supervision of the project need to be more clearly defined and appropriate orientation and
training provided by project coordination to carry out their tasks.
B.2. It is necessary to reformulate the Protected Areas (8) and Global (10) components which to date are managed from Gland, applying the following criteria:
The Global component has the objective of providing an enabling environment for the
implementation of the components providing technical assistance to promote
communication and exchange of experiences between components, focusing on areas such
as capacity building, communications and collective learning to strengthen the capacity in
areas such as facilitation, advocacy and communication, participatory methodologies,
network building and coordination.
The Protected Areas component should also be redesigned to generate concrete impacts in
the governance of those protected areas overlapping or superimposed on indigenous lands
or territories, in Asia and particularly in Latin America. It is recommended that in addition to
the work carried out to date to influence governments through workshops and publications,
a complementary strategy should be adopted to strengthen local communities’ voice and
empower them to demand their rights from government agencies.
Both components should focus on the accompaniment of concrete processes of natural
resource governance that can be used later as examples of best practice to influence policy
makers
Whereas the Conservation Initiative on Human Rights represents an noteworthy
achievement of the project, it is considered that the work of the global component would be
more effective by supporting the development of the communication and advocacy agenda
of the components based on a common approach in which civil society is the legitimate
entity demanding its rights to be met by government. Under this complementary strategy it
should be possible to catalyse the impact of the work of the CIHR during the lifetime of the
project which otherwise may be harder to achieve or attribute to the initiative. and it is
unclear to what extent this may be attributable to IUCN’s intervention.
The execution of the two components should be partially decentralized to the regional
offices where costs are much lower.
Support should be provided to the Training of Trainers initiative to be extended in particular
to Africa.
To provide sustainability and scale up the project experiences it is recommended that a
university or regional training centre should be identified through which the approach to
Natural Resource Governance may be institutionalised and incorporated into the curricula in
order to mainstream environmental governance into the wider development agenda.
34
In order to promote learning between project components, case studies of other successful
experiences of environmental governance should be identified and shared among project
partners.
B.3 Additionally, the reformulation of the project should take into account, the following:
Assess the possibility of replication of the positive experiences and/or more successful
strategies in neighbouring areas or countries (based on a profound analysis of conditions
that contribute to the successful nature of the experiences).
The development and implementation of political advocacy and communication strategies
aimed at mainstreaming successful governance approaches in the overall policy framework
and the scaling up across wider geographical areas particularly in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and
Kenya..
It is necessary to simplify institutional frameworks in which the components operate. At
present there are too many levels of sub‐contracting and outsourcing of services with high
associated transaction costs.
It is important to establish mechanisms of communication and exchange of experiences
between components in order to promote collective reflection and lesson learning. It is also
necessary to promote the adoption a common understanding of a natural resources
governance framework and corresponding methodological approaches. This implies closer
collaboration and exchanges between components (as demonstrated in practice by the work
of the Asia Regional Office). The cost of carrying out this work should be assigned to the
Global component budget line.
B.4. It is also considered necessary to make some substantial changes to the programme management during the process of project reformulation.
Management should be less centred in Gland and should facilitate greater horizontal
communication between project components;
Management should depend less on virtual means of communication and place greater
emphasis on the provision of support to components through periodic visits to provide
technical support and opportunities for, reflection, learning and training. This should be
implemented in the country offices with local partners and in the regional offices which are
responsible for the provision of support on a more regular basis..
The relatively high cost of staff based in IUCN HQ means that in order to comply with the
DFID requirement to maintain costs assigned to northern based partners to below 15% of
the overall budget, it would be necessary to relocate the position of the Project Coordinator
to one of the IUCN regional offices (in either Africa or Asia). In addition it will be necessary
to relocate the project financial administration position. These staffing changes will have
the additional advantage of facilitating the provision of support to components and the
strengthening of the capacity of regional offices in environmental governance and
livelihoods approaches as indicated above.
Regarding project monitoring and evaluation, project management should abandon the
search for formal systems that to date have been of dubious value and largely subjective in
interpretation, especially since the components themselves assess their own performance.
Greater effort should be made to meet the minimum monitoring requirements of GTF
supervisors (Tripleline and KPMG) based on the logical framework. This should simplify
35
reporting and enable greater effort to be dedicated to opportunities for reflection on
experience gained and collective learning, facilitated by the Project Coordinator.
Alternatively, the M & E could be carried out externally by consultants hired for this
purpose. The main role of Project Coordination should be the facilitation of these processes
of reflection, promotion of horizontal exchanges between project components.
Recommendations for the different Components
The selection and hiring of the partners should be done on the basis of the proven capacities
and experience in the thematic areas for which they are to be hired, and not simply on the
basis of their membership of IUCN.
It will be necessary to work on the redesign of the project components taking into account
the above recommendations of the MTR. The project components that are to be continued
should be reformulated in each country or region through a series of workshops involving
project partners and stakeholders. These workshops should be held no later than April
2011. The products of these workshops should contribute to the formulation of a new,
revised project document and corresponding logical framework. Those components to be
continued should be carried forward to the end of the programme (April 2013)
Finally, for every component evaluated during the mission, specific recommendations were
prepared, which are presented at the end of the respective documents for each of the
project components.
36
Annex A Annex A.1 Achievement Rating Scale ............................................................................................. 37
Annex A.2 Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................... 52
Annex A.3 Evaluation Schedule – Timetable .................................................................................. 61
Annex A.4 List of People Met ......................................................................................................... 62
Annex A.5 Documents consulted .................................................................................................... 69
Annex A.6 Implementing Partners in each Country ....................................................................... 73
Annex A.7 Aide Memoire ................................................................................................................ 75
Annex A8 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................................... 77
37
Annex A.1 Achievement Rating Scale
The ARS was not completed as described in the MTR guidelines due to the following factors:
It was not until after concluding the field work that the suggested guidelines for the structure of the MTR report were provided to members of the mission and no mention was made in the original terms of reference
In order to complete the ARS it is considered that too much detail required to fill in the table in the format presented for all 10 components, each with a minimum of three outcomes, and multiple indicators makes a total of 150 rows to be completed.
The ARS has then been completed for each of the outcomes and purpose level which is considered to be the most critical information.
In any case, deficiencies in the logframes means that the indicators do not correspond to the majority of the outcomes
Reports have been prepared for each component in which the levels of achievement are explained in greater detail.
1 = fully achieved, very few or no shortcomings
2 = largely achieved, despite a few short‐comings
3 = only partially achieved, benefits and shortcomings finely balanced
4 = very limited achievement, extensive shortcomings
5 = not achieved
Bangladesh
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe Indicators
Purpose
Local communities, with a special emphasis on women, are empowered to take part in decision‐making and linkages between community‐based organizations and local authorities are strengthened.
2
CBO (Community based organizations) representatives participate in Union Parishad /Upazila level decision‐making.
At least a 50% increase in women participating in CBOs and local level committees.
Local governments (in 2 districts) are given a clear environmental mandate.
Outcome 1:
Enhanced capacity and skill of both local communities 2
1.1. Number workshops/training workshops/roundtables conducted
Target: 10 workshops, 2 mini round tables and 25 training sessions
38
and local government to manage natural resources
1.1. Enhanced awareness and negotiation skills of the community
1.1. Participation of CBO representatives in UP and Upazila level decision making process
1.2. Number of participants attending workshops
Target: Total of at least 500 participants
Milestone: 85% participation
1.3 Evidence one year after training of practical application of new skills in management of natural resources in 50% of participants Target: At least 80% of the participants
Milestone: Existence of 50% functional CBOs
Outcome 2: Multi‐stakeholder platforms (MSP) for negotiation and dialogue set up to improve linkages between local civil society institutions and local government authorities
2
2.1 Establishment of at least 3 MSPs and their membership includes both men and women
Target: 3 local level MSP to be established with 65 members of which 20% women.
2 district level MSP will be formed in 2 districts and at least 33% women participants will be ensured.
Milestone: Establishment of links and networking with the local and national level actors
2.2. At least 2 meetings of the MSP held each year
Target: 6 by end of 2010
Milestone: Better understanding of natural resource governance, among local people and civil society
2.3. MSPs include local institutions and local government authorities
Target: About 50% by end of 2010
representing the local government and civil society, CBOs, public representatives and NGOs
Milestone: enhancement of participation and coordination among local institutions and local government authorities
Outcome 3: Lessons learned from project widely disseminated
3 3.1 One case study report in each year distributed to key stakeholders
Target: 3 case studies by 2010
39
Milestone: Replication of best practices for future sustainability of the initiatives
3.2. Two policy briefs by end of the project
Target: 2 by 2010
Milestone: Sensitized policy makers and changes in NRM decision making
Benin
Not verified (no evaluation visit)
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose
Improved livelihood security of poor communities neighbouring National Park W and sustainable and decentralized governance of natural resources.
NA
‐Communities neighbouring National Park W are better able to manage natural resources and have increased income from these activities.
‐ W National park has improved planning instruments that are being implemented.
‐ Decentralized governance mechanisms have produced a 40% decline in conflicts among stakeholders.
Outcome 1
Modes of decentralized governance of natural resources are put in place by local riparian community groups of the National Park including the establishment of representative institution
NA
1.1. Conflicts between stakeholders reduced by 40% by end of project.
Target: 40% decrease by 2012
1.2. Representative local institutions dedicated to managing natural resources operating by year 2.
Target: 100% by end of 2009
Outcome 2:
Improved capacity of local officials, and communities to manage natural resources NA
2.1. At least two training workshops held each year on managing natural resources with the participation of representative numbers of local officials, farmers and communities
Target: 6 by end of 2010
2.2. Innovative practical guidelines implemented by at least 25% of farmers by the end of 2010
40
Target: 25% implemented by 2010
2.3. Increase by at least 10% of the incomes of local producer groups through sustainable farming practices by the end of the project.
Target: 10% increase by 2012
Output 3:
Eco‐tourism implemented as a sustainable livelihood option in the trans‐boundary biosphere reserves of the Park W, the area of Seri and the cultural sites therein
NA
3.1. At least three tourist sites improved and operational by the end of 2011
Target: 3 sites by 2011
3.2. Increase of the incomes drawn from eco‐tourism by at least 20% by the end of the project
Target: 20% increase by 2012
3.3. 60% of the ecotourism facilities planned are operational by the end of the project
Target: 60% operational by 2012
Outcome 4:
Knowledge developed and awareness raised on the value of natural resources and importance of participatory governance
NA
4.1. Case study and policy briefs developed and distributed to key stakeholders by the end of 2010.
Target: 100% by 2010
4.2. Articles in print and electronic media distributed to key stakeholders
Bolivia/Peru
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose: Put in place policy and institutional framework changes to secure indigenous peoples’ rights and their governance of land and natural resources in highland communities.
4
‐By the end of the project, technical and political conditions have been established to enable decision making that incorporates cultural indicators of wellbeing and improved the access of highland indigenous peoples to land tenure and natural resources. ‐By the end of 2011, highland indigenous communities and government representatives in both countries have greater knowledge and capacity of how to incorporate customary law and culturally rooted decision making structures in the governance of natural resources.
41
Outcome 1:
Political conditions and circumstances are established for influencing national indicators systems related with environment and land tenure.
4
1.1. Cultural indicators of well being developed in consultation with highland indigenous peoples.
Target: 100% by 2012
1.2. By March, 2011, actions will have been taken to integrate culturally appropriate indicators of well being in at least two public policies in Peru and Bolivia.
Outcome 2: A broader understanding by local stakeholders of the constraints of legal and institutional frameworks and customary law, related to the natural resources governance of highlands indigenous peoples in selected sites.
4
2.1. By the end of the project the factors that influence governance are documented and identified by 20 relevant stakeholders in Peru and Bolivia.
Target: 100% by 2011
2.2. By the end of the project, at least one proposal per site to improve governance of natural resource management.
Target: 2 by March, 2011
Outcome 3: Local decision makers influenced for strengthening natural resources governance of highlands indigenous peoples of Peru and Bolivia
4
3.1. At least two training workshops organized with representative sample of decision makers who can influence governance conditions and factors.
Target: 2 by 2011
Drylands of Africa
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe Indicators
Purpose
To strengthen natural resource governance and improve policies and practices, to ensure more sustainable use and conservation of ecosystems, more resilient livelihoods and reduced marginalization of ethnic groups in drylands areas of Africa.
2 (Kenya)
5 (Tunisia, Burkina Faso and Mali)
‐By 2012, at least one new, more participatory, collaborative arrangements and institutions for manage of dryland ecosystem resources have been established in all three countries. ‐‐By 2012, policy guidance for dryland management based on best practices has been developed and disseminated.
‐By 2012, local communities, institutions and government bodies have greater capacity for more participatory natural resource management and decision‐making
42
Outcome 1:
policies and regulations that support good governance are implemented, policy bottlenecks identified and influenced
3 (Kenya)
5 (Tunisia, Burkina Faso and Mali)
1.1. Policy constraints and solutions are identified in project sites during the first year, focusing on the legal, institutional and governance systems for drylands management
Target: 100% by 2010
1.2. Opportunities and partnerships to influence policy and planning, where required, are identified during the first year
Target: 100% by 2009
1.3. Greater participation of project partners in policy/planning fora and increased mention in government and/or media documents
Target: 80% increase by 2010
1.4. At least 2 new publications per year are published and disseminated (best practices, lessons learned)
Target: 10 by 2012
Outcome 2:
Capacity building of stakeholders for more effective participatory decision‐making in natural resources use and management
2 (Kenya)
5 (Tunisia, Burkina Faso and Mali)
2.1. Capacity needs are identified and prioritised in each project location at the start of the project and updated midway through the project
Target: 100 % by 2012
2.2. At least 1 capacity building workshop to address specific priorities for appropriate target groups held each year (with at least 25% women)
Target: 1 by 2010
2.3. By project end, relevant resources will have been made available to all key stakeholders either via training or information sessions
Target: 100% by 2012
Outcome 3:
New, more effective governance arrangements and institutions to manage drylands
(List and number all outputs and provide a rating for each)
2 (Kenya)
5 (Tunisia, Burkina Faso and Mali)
3.1. In each of the 2 countries, at least one new collaborative arrangement and/or institution introduced by project end
Target: 4 by 2012
3.2. .Multi‐stakeholder policy dialogue carried out (or supported) at the regional and national levels, and institutionalised where relevant by the end of the project
43
Target: 100% by 2012
Lebanon/Syria
Not verified in Syria, no field visit took place to Syria
Objective Statement Achievement Rating for year being assessed
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose
To put in place enabling conditions for the preservation of existing traditional systems of resource tenure that contribute to conservation and sustainable management of natural resources
Lebanon 4
Syria N/A
- By end of 2010, new policy frameworks, institutional mechanisms and legislation in place to preserve the existing traditional systems of resource tenure. ‐By end of 2010, new community conserved areas rooted in traditonal tenure systems established. ‐By end of 2010, an integrated, participatory planning framework is in place and offers opportunities for sustainable livelihoods linked to nature conservation.
‐By end of 2010, increased area under sustainable management and capacity of local decision‐makers and community members to manage natural resources sustainably.
Outcome 1: New policy frameworks, institutional mechanisms and legislation to preserve the existing traditional systems of resource tenure (eg: hima) that are viable
Lebanon 3
Syria N/A
1.1. Study of governance structures completed
Target: 100% by end of 2010
1.2. New institutional frameworks for local governance established
Target: 100% by end of 2010
1.3 New Hima established linked to a conservation area
Target: 100% by end of 2010
1.5 A set of policy guidelines and recommendations for integrating stakeholders participation in natural resources management policies and investments developed through national and regional policy dialogue workshops. 1.6. Pilot Project implemented in at least 2 sites
Outcome 2: Integrated planning framework that offers opportunities for sustainable livelihoods through nature conservation
Lebanon 4
Syria N/A
2.1. Participatory planning and management approaches, stakeholder consultation and dialogue, economic/environmental and ecosystem used by local authorities, end‐users and other stakeholders at various levels.
44
2.2. Increased knowledge of natural resource governance conditions and needs in selected sites
2.3. Communities have greater voice and capacity to manage natural resources
Outcome 3: Improved capacity of local decision‐makers and community members to manage natural resources sustainably improved
Lebanon 4
Syria N/A
3.1. At least 20 participants from local decision makers and community members participate in 3 training workshops.
3.2. By the end of the project, a net decrease in degradation of natural resources in the project area.
3.3. Policy briefs and project reports reflect lesson learning and improved understanding of the issues
3.4.Number of people with improved understanding of natural resource management issues.
Mozambique/South Africa
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe Indicators
Purpose
Put in place the necessary arrangements and expertise for Mozambique’s fisheries to be sustainably managed and for trade in products derived from these fisheries to be effectively regulated in Mozambique and South Africa.
5
‐ At least 75% of members of selected coastal communities involved in fishing and/or fish trade have improved skills knowledge and tools to effectively manage these fisheries and related trade by project end.
‐ By project end, government officials in Mozambique and South Africa, responsible for regulating the trade in fish and fish products derived from selected fisheries in Mozambique, have improved tools and skills to fulfill their mandate.
Outcome 1:
Selected coastal communities in Mozambique have trade and market information relevant to products derived from their fisheries, and are aware of co‐management options for these fisheries.
5
At least three workshops and information sharing sessions have been held with each of the targeted coastal communities by project end. (6 total)
By project end, at least 75% of community members involved in fishing and/or fish trade in selected coastal communities are aware of and/or are in possession of information materials on trade and markets relevant to marine resources which they harvest and
45
trade.
By project end, at least 75% of community members involved in fishing and/or fish trade in selected coastal communities are aware of and/or are in possession of information on co‐management options for fisheries in which they are engaged.
Outcome 2:
Capacity to address the trade in fisheries is increased.
5
At least three workshops and information sharing sessions have been held with each of the targeted coastal communities by project end. (6 total)
By project end, at least 75% of community members involved in fishing and/or fish trade in selected coastal communities are aware of and/or are in possession of information materials on trade and markets relevant to marine resources which they harvest and trade.
By project end, at least 75% of community members involved in fishing and/or fish trade in selected coastal communities are aware of and/or are in possession of information on co‐management options for fisheries in which they are engaged.
By project end, at least 50% of officials in Mozambique and at least 50% of officials in South Africa, responsible for regulation of the trade in products derived from selected fisheries, have increased capacity to ensure compliance with relevant policy and legislation.
At least three capacity building workshops have been held in each country with the participation of at least 40 government officials in each country, from identified agencies, by project end. (6 total)
Government officials in Mozambique and South Africa responsible for regulation of the
46
trade in products derived from selected fisheries are in possession of information materials on the trade in fish and fish products.
Key stakeholders have published report/s on fisheries management and trade regulation by project end
Policy and legal developments within state institutions reflect information provided in published reports.
Nepal
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose
The draft constitution provides for enabling provisions in order to promote fair and equitable access to natural resources of vulnerable groups, in particular in the case of community forestry and watershed management systems
3
‐ Tools, guidelines and mechanisms in place to promote multistakeholder dialogue on community forestry issues.
‐ Constituent Assembly Members are more aware of good governance, environmental rights and constitutional issues.
‐ Local government annual plan includes collaborative watershed conservation plan.
Outcome 1: Constituent Assembly Members informed in good governance, environmental rights and constitutional issues.
1
1.1.100 Constituent Assembly (CA) members informed in good environmental governance, environmental rights and constitutional issues.
1.2. One meeting facilitated each year among political parties at national and local level.
Target: 2 by end of 2009
Milestone: TBD
Output 2: Feedback loops and community forestry networks between local people and the Constituent
4 Multi‐stakeholder consultative meetings and dialogues (including Radio programme) among Constituent Assembly Members and Community Forest Users’ Group (CFUGs)
47
Assembly strengthened representatives, district forest officials and community based organizations.
Target: 2 by 2009
Milestone: TBD
2.2. Recommendations from the meetings and interaction programmes
Target: 3 by 2009
Milestone: TBD
2.3.Two policy briefs on environmental rights and equitable access and benefit sharing (ABS) fed to CA members
Target: 2 by end of 2009
Milestone: TBD
Output 3: Watershed conservation plan developed through a multi‐stakeholder forum demonstrating principles of good governance
3
3.1. Draft Payment for Environmental Services (PES) scheme in place in Sardu watershed
Target: 100% by end of 2009
Milestone: TBD
3.2. One participatory watershed management plan developed
Target: 100% by end of 2009
Milestone: TBD
Protected Areas
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress
to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose 4 '‐By end of 2012, at least 100 community members and PA officials in selected countries
48
Enhanced equity and participative protected area decision‐making in selected countries, including fair sharing of benefits and greater livelihood security.
have the capacity to use and apply the necessary tools to participate in and implement good governance of PAs and PA systems ‐By end of 2012, one new or existing legislation or policy per country/region has enhanced equity and participatory management of protected areas as well as fair sharing of benefits and greater livelihood security as a result of the lessons from this project.
Outcome 1
Existing tools and structures are adapted and new ones developed to support the integration of livelihood security, participative decision‐making and transparency into protected area planning and management
4
1.1. Use of indicators and other tools prepared both in project countries and beyond.
Target: Monitoring system in place by May, 2010 and adapted and new tools available and disseminated by end of 2012.
Outcome 2
The selected countries have the capacity to use and apply the necessary tools to help integrate good governance goals into the creation and management of protected area systems.
3
2.1. Six training workshops conducted with broad participation from a range of stakeholders by project end.
Target: 6 by end of 2012
2.2. Each year, at least one story including positive experiences and/or lessons related to PAs and governance is disseminated through publications and other media
Target: 5 stories by end of 2012
Outcome 3
The selected countries have in place enabling policies that promote and support the role that PAs can play in livelihood security, including the creation of new and/or adaptation of existing policy instruments.
5
3.1. New government policies created or existing ones influenced by encouraging results emerging because of adoption of good governance practices by project end.
Target: 3 policies by end of 2012
Sri Lanka
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose: To develop an integrated framework for 3 By the end of 2010, stakeholders have increased knowledge of and capacity for natural
49
sustainable natural resource management with improved capacities and approaches for participation, transparency and accountability
resource governance.
‐ By the end of 2010, successful replicable pilot model on environmental justice in the rural contexts has been developed and disseminated to stakeholders.
‐ By the end of 2010, conditions, instruments and legal reforms are in place for safeguardingthe natural resource rights of the poor are in place.
‐ By end of 2010, community members, especially women, have increase capacity and knowledge related to environmental justice and natural resource management rights.
Outcome 1
Activities in the project area (Ex: new projects, new proposals, new policies etc). Reflect a better understanding of the relationship between local communities and natural resource management.
3
1.1. 50 stakeholders trained each year in issues of governance of natural resources.
Target:150 stakeholders trained by end of 2010
1.2. Two roundtable meetings /fora /open discussions held each year in target villages in the pilot area to improve local understanding of both natural resource management issues and community issues
Target: 6 meetings/fora/open discussions by end of 2010
1.3. New activities in the project area (eg: new projects, new proposals, new policies etc). reflect a better understanding of the relationship between local communities and natural resource management.
Target: 100% by end of 2010new projects, new proposals, new policies etc). reflect a better understanding of the relationship between local communities and natural resource management.
Target: 100% by end of 2010statutory and customary law applicable in the study sites
50
Output 2. New quasi‐legal instrument for accessing natural resources in place
3
2.1. Methodology for a model on environmental justice in the rural context written by project’s mid‐term.
Target: 100% completed by end 2009
2.2. Methodology for a model on environmental justice in the rural context distributed to four districts.
Target: 100% by end of 2011
2.3. At least one new quasi‐legal instrument for accessing natural resources in place
Target: 100% completed by end of 2011
Output 3: Improved capacities and knowledge of Natural resource governance issues, including legal matters
2
3.1. At least three training workshop on legal matters and environmental justice concepts per year.
Target: 3 by end of 2010
3.2. A 50% increase in the number of rural poor especially women trained in environmental justice and natural resource management rights by project’s end.
Target: 50% increase by end of 2010
3.3. Awareness materials in the local languages made available in 10 communities/villages
Target: 100% completed by end of 2010
Output 4 : New legal instruments for safeguarding the natural resource rights of the poor drafted have been developed
4
4.1. Recommended legal instruments
4.2. Participation by relevant government officials in workshops to discuss draft legal instruments
4.3. New legal instruments for safeguarding the natural resource rights of the poor drafted by the end of the second year
Target: 100% by end of 2010
Global
51
Objective Statement Achievement Rating of Progress
to date
Logframe
Indicators
Purpose
To promote and facilitate technical, policy and learning support on cross‐cutting issues (rights, governance, gender, cultural rights) related to governance of natural resources
4
‐ By end of 2012, technical tools and policy/technical guidelines on key issues such as application of rights‐based approaches, good governance principles, gender equity, cultural rights developed, adapted and disseminated.
‐ By end of 2012, conservation organizations have integrated rights and governance tools into their planning, policies and actions.
‐ By end of 2012, lessons on rights‐based approaches, good governance principles, gender equity, cultural rights have been shared and disseminated.
Outcome 1
Adaptation and delivery of indicators and other technical and policy tools for country projects on issues of governance, rights, equity, gender, cultural rights.
3
1.1. Use of indicators and other tools prepared both in project countries and beyond.
Target: Monitoring system in place by May, 2010 and adapted and new tools available and disseminated by en of 2012.
Outcome 2
Natural resource management and conservation policies at the national and international levels that more effectively incorporate rights‐based approaches, good governance principles, gender equity, cultural rights
3
2.1. Effective policy and planning discussions with the conservation community at the 4th World Conservation Congress and in other fora, including preparation of inputs and products
Target: 100% by March, 2013
Outcome 3
Lessons identified and shared
4
3.1. Publications and websites promote lessons learnt
Target: web site up and running by August, 2010 and 5 publications by 2012.
3.2. Outreach to various audiences
Target: x by 2012
52
Annex A.2 Terms of Reference
Mid-Term Review of Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction
Draft 2.0
17 August, 2010
Background and Context
IUCN’s DFID funded project on “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction” addresses the three-pronged needs of good governance by focusing on:
a) Capability: Building capacity of local officials and state agencies as well as local communities to better manage natural resources;
b) Responsiveness: Advocating legal, policy and institutional changes for recognizing and respecting the environmental rights of poor and marginalized natural resource dependent people, and building better linkages between local institutions / communities and local government authorities; and
c) Accountability: Empowering communities to hold officials, state agencies and local institutions to account through knowledge of their natural resource rights, benefit sharing provisions, and legal, media and political support.
This is a five year project with ten strategic components and being implemented in 12 countries in Asia, Africa and South America. The project is implemented through IUCN regional and country offices as well as local partners, with technical support and management from project staff in IUCN headquarters. The central purpose of this project is to create “enabling conditions for better environmental governance, including fair and equitable access to natural resources, new benefit sharing arrangements, and more participative and transparent decision-making, are established in selected countries.”
53
Component 1 (Bangladesh)
To increase the participation of CBOs and women in community based management of natural resources and strengthen capacities to promote equal and legitimized participation of local authorities and communities in NRM.
Component 2 (Benin)
Improved livelihood security of poor communities neighboring National Park W through sustainable and decentralized governance of natural resources.
Component 3 (Bolivia and Peru)
Put in place policy and institutional framework changes to secure indigenous peoples’ rights and their governance of land and natural resources in highland communities.
Component 4 (Drylands of Africa in Kenya and Mali)
To strengthen natural resource governance and improve policies and practices, to ensure more sustainable use and conservation of ecosystems, more resilient livelihoods and reduced marginalization of ethnic groups in drylands areas of Africa.
Component 5 (Lebanon and Syria)
To put in place enabling conditions for the preservation of existing traditional systems of resource tenure that contribute to conservation and sustainable management of natural resources.
Component 6 (Mozambique and Southern Africa)
Put in place the necessary arrangements and expertise for Mozambique’s fisheries to be sustainably managed and for trade in products derived from these fisheries to be effectively regulated in Mozambique and Southern Africa
Component 7 (Nepal)
To improve governance and equitable benefit sharing at the watershed level through multistakeholder dialogue, watershed level conservation planning and policy advocacy at the national level.
Component 8 (Protected areas governance in Nepal, Bolivia and Peru; Africa sub-regions)
Enhanced equity and participative protected area decision-making in selected countries, including fair sharing of benefits and greater livelihood security.
Component 9 (Sri Lanka)
To develop an integrated framework for sustainable natural resource management with improved capacities and approaches for participation, transparency and accountability.
Component 10 (Global)
To promote and facilitate technical, policy and learning support on cross-cutting issues (rights, governance, gender, cultural rights) related to governance of natural resources
A more detailed background on INNGPR can be found in the project documentation.
54
Commissioning Authority and Intended Users
This review is commissioned by the Stewart Maginnis, Director, Environment and Development Group, IUCN, as obliged by the grant contract for Improving Natural Resource Governance for Poverty Reduction (INRGPR) with the Department for International Development..
The expected users of the review results are the INRGPR team, broadly speaking, with specific responsibility for ensuring use resting with the INRGPR Programme Officer. The INRGPR Programme Officer will be responsible for preparing a management response to this review and ensuring that an action plan is implemented responding to the agreed recommendations of the review. The review will be used more widely by IUCN through the Programme and Operational Support Unit and the Programme Cycle Management Unit. This review will also be used to share learning with other Thematic Groups in IUCN attempting this type of programmatic intervention as well as with and project implementing partners.
The review will be managed by the Head, Programme Cycle Management Unit independently from the INNGPR and Social Policy Unit. However, there will be close collaboration with project staff to ensure the utility of this review.
Purpose and Objectives of the Review
The purpose is to conduct an “outputs to outcomes” review. The annex to the contract on monitoring and reporting requires IUCN to focus on the progress and performance to date, measure and report on achievements and early signs of change and impact, and to indicate adjustments that may need to be made to ensure the success of your programme.
To meet the broad purpose of the review, the following are the specific objectives:
7. To assess the extent to which concept, approach and delivery of INRGPR and its components is still relevant to key stakeholder groups, both within and outside of IUCN (including key members).
8. To assess the extent to which products/milestones are being effectively planned in the context of INRGPR’s overall goal and the specific purposes of each component.
9. To compare actual progress against workplans and targets and assess value for money, including targets related to the types and extent of change related to capacities, responsiveness and accountability generated to date;
10. To assess the extent to which the organizational model provides an effective basis for delivering INRGPR products, milestones and outcomes, engagement of stakeholders, M&E systems and measures to ensure sustainability;
55
11. To review the INRGPR risk analysis and identify existing and potential key areas of learning, including those directly related to the learning objectives of DFID’s Governance and Transparency Fund.
12. To form recommendations for improving ongoing implementation of INRGPR with an emphasis on ensuring funds are used effectively and efficiently to deliver outputs/outcomes.
Recognizing the scale of INRGPR and effort required to commence implementation, this review will emphasize finding solutions to hasten implementation and deepen the sustainability and impacts of INRPR outcomes.
Methodology
The review will use a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods to meet the objectives of the review and answer the questions contained in the review matrix, including:
Visits to small number of key INRGPR project sites to collect data from local stakeholders and implementing partners;
Interviews with key stakeholders, including both INRGPR participants and implementers;
Document review. Participation in and documentation of key INRGPR events and workshops.
Given the sheer scale of INRGPR, the review team will be required to sample the population of sites and stakeholders. The review team will start with a purposeful sample, focusing on sites where the most progress has been made, and then use a stratified, purposeful sample to identify stakeholders within those sites. Purposeful sampling using case examples that compare and contrast is also a possible approach.
A final stakeholder list will be prepared as part of the inception note by the review team, in collaboration with INRGPR, the Social Policy Unit and the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit.
Qualifications of the Review Team
The review team will be comprised of two senior evaluation specialists external to IUCN. Ideally, both evaluators should have experience in evaluating programmatic interventions that combine conservation and development outcomes.
The senior evaluation specialists will lead the review process and are expected to possess sufficient independence from the INRGPR team and the following areas of experience:
56
At least ten years experience leading and conducting evaluations, including financial analysis;
The demonstrated ability to review programme focus, relevance, effectiveness and efficiency, delivery of outcomes, organizational structures and management, and networks;
Experience in reviewing conservation programmes, and in this case, preferably some experience in addressing the links between conservation, sustainable natural resource management and poverty reduction.
Experience with conservation and natural recourse governance as well as global conservation policy
Ability to communicate orally and in writing in English. French and Spanish language skills would be a desirable asset.
All candidates are requested to file a CV and example of written work to the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit and the Environment and Development Group. The example of written work of the senior evaluation specialists should be an example of a recently conducted evaluation which they led.
Schedule
The review process must be completed by January 2011 and includes the following milestones and deliverables:
1. Inception note and workplan – Sept 2010 2. Data collection and analysis – Sept – Nov 2010 3. Draft review report – December 2010 4. Final review report – January 2011
Depending on the final design in the inception note, it will be necessary to schedule visits to landscapes. The program will be holding a global workshop in late September, 2010, which would be a valuable time and space for some data collection and analysis. Once data has been collected and analyzed and before the first draft developed it would be advisable to schedule a workshop with the INRGPR team in IUCN Headquarters, to review emerging findings and recommendations.
Budget
To be discussed with the review team, but in the range of 50,000-75,000
57
INRGPR Review Matrix
Area Question Sub-question Indicator Data source/ method
1. Relevance To what extent is the content, approach and delivery of INRGPR and its components relevant to key stakeholder groups, both within and outside of IUCN (including key members)?
To what extent has INRGPR been responsive and relevant to the needs of local stakeholders and national priorities?24
1. Perception of relevance 2. Comparison of INRGPR
plans to identified priorities (e.g. national priorities or other sources)
1. Interviews with stakeholders
2. Document review
To what extent is the INRGPR approach relevant to the Environment and Development Group (as an example) and the IUCN Programme (also, as an example)?
1. Perception of relevance 1. Interviews with stakeholders, including IUCN staff, INRGPR participants
To what extent is INRGPR perceived as being relevant to the work of local implementing partners in places where it is working?
1. Perception of relevance 1. Review of documentation 2. Interviews with partners 3. Site visits
2. Effectiveness of planning To what extent products/milestones are being effectively planned in the context of delivering project outcomes?
To what extent has INRGPR and countries produced quality workplans, supported by clear identification of means to the outcomes (including products/milestones?
1. Workplan quality (expert assessment)
2. Perception of satisfaction
1. Document review 2. Interviews
24 A proposed stakeholder list will be developed prior to hiring the review team, and revised based on interaction with the review team. The review team, of course, will be
able to add stakeholders as necessary and will have complete authority to speak with any stakeholder in completion of this review.
58
Area Question Sub-question Indicator Data source/ method
1. Progress and value for money To what extent have the project
sites delivered against their workplans?
To what extent have the project sites delivered against the workplan in terms of emerging impacts, outcomes, products and milestones?
1. Evidence of delivery and change (various)
2. Measures against project indicators
3. Perceptions of change
1. Document review, site visits, interviews, group discussions
To what extent have project sites delivered in terms of changes related to capacities, responsiveness and accountability?
1. Evidence of delivery and change (various)
1. Document review, site visits, interviews, group discussions
To what extent are impacts being obtained in a cost effective manner?
What are the project’s costs and benefits?
1. Cost benefits analysis 2. Perception of benefit
1. Document review 2. Finance review 3. Interviews
How could funds be more effectively invested to produce more value for money?
1. Cost benefits analysis 2. Perception of value for
money
1. Document review 2. Finance review 3. Interviews
4. Effectiveness of organizational model To what extent is the
organizational model of INRGPR an effective basis for delivering products/milestones and outcomes?
How effective are the central and regional coordinating mechanisms at IUCN?
1. Internal agreements 2. Financial management
arrangements 3. Timeliness and quality of
reporting to IUCN HQ and donors
1. Document review 2. Finance review 3. Donor reports 4. Interviews
How effective is the organizational and implementing structure of INRGPR?
1. Project organizational chart 2. Perception of effectiveness
1. Document review 2. Site visits 3. Interviews
59
Area Question Sub-question Indicator Data source/ method
Effectiveness of organizational model, continued
To what extent has the technical support from INRGPR team in IUCN HQ been effective at the global and site level?
1. Quality of landscape plans, reporting, outputs
2. Perception of effectiveness
1. Document review 2. Interviews
To what extent has site level implementation been effective?
1. Quality of landscape plans, reporting and outputs
2. Perception of effectiveness of partner organizations
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Site visits
What is the level of quality and effectiveness of M&E mechanisms?
1. Quality of M&E 2. Perception of quality of M&E
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. M&E mechanisms
Based on the above, what systemic features enable or hinder the planning, implementation, reporting or monitoring aspects of INRGPR?
1. Analysis based on the above
1. Analysis and additional interviews
Sustainability To what extent are the outputs and emerging outcomes of INRGPR likely to be sustainable?
What evidence is there to demonstrate that INRGPR impacts and outcomes will persist beyond its implementation period?
1. Perception of sustainability 2. Analysis based on project
documentation.
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Sustainability matrix
60
Area Question Sub-question Indicator Data source/ method
5.Risk analysis and learning How well is risk being managed across the project?
How appropriate and realistic is the project risk analysis?
1. Risk analysis 2. Perceptions of risk analysis
2. Risk analysis 3. Interviews
What risk mitigation measures are being effectively deployed?
1. 1.
What are the key areas of learning to date?
What has been learned about natural resource governance?
2. Analysis based on project documentation
2. Document review 3. Interviews 4. Quarterly reports
What has been learned about the links between sustainable natural resource management and poverty reduction?
1. Analysis based on project documentation
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Quarterly reports
What are the key lessons for conservation and natural resource policy at all levels?
1. Analysis based on project documentation
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Quarterly reports
What has learned about capacity building for natural resource governance?
1. Analysis based on project documentation
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Quarterly reports
What are the key lesson with respect to increasing responsiveness and accountability in the context of conservation and natural resource use?
1. Analysis based on project documentation
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Quarterly reports
How are the project’s learning activities working and how could they be improved?
1. Lessons learning strategy 2. Quality of KM&L plan 3. KM&L products – quality, extent
of use and products from across landscapes
4. Perception of quality of and KM&L support
1. Document review 2. Interviews 3. Quarterly reports
61
Annex A.3 Evaluation Schedule – Timetable
Dates Activity
October 6‐8 Briefing in Gland
October 25‐27 Revision of Documents
October 28‐ 31 Visit to Bolivia and Peru
November 1 ‐3 Revision of Documents
November 4‐5 Travel to Bangladesh (J. Johnson)
Travel to Sri Lanka (C. van Dam)
November 7 ‐ 10 Visit to Bangladesh Component (J. Johnson)
Visit to Sri Lanka Component (C. van Dam)
November 12 ‐ 16 Visit to Nepal (J. Johnson – C. van Dam)
November 18 ‐20 Visit to Lebanon Component (J. Johnson)
November 23 Meeting with Tripleline and Telephone Conference with KPMG (J. Johnson)
November 22‐30
December 21 ‐ 23
Country reports (C. Van Dam)
December 4 Travel to Mozambique
December 5 ‐ 8 Visit to Mozambique (J. Johnson – C. van Dam)
December 9 ‐ 10 Visit to IUCN Headquarters (J. Johnson)
Visit to Kenya (Drylands) Component (C. van Dam)
December 14 – 18
January 3 – 7
Country reports (J. Johnson)
January 17 ‐ 21 Discussion and Analysis of Mission Findings (J. Johnson – C. van Dam)
January 24 ‐ 31 Final Report ‐ Draft (J. Johnson – C. van Dam)
February 1 ‐ 7 Comments from IUCN‐DFID Project
February 10 ‐ 12 Final Report ‐ (J. Johnson – C. van Dam)
62
Annex A.4 List of People Met
Name Affiliation
Switzerland
Gonzalo Oviedo IUCN – Head of Social Policy Group
Jordi Surkin IUCN – Project Coordinator – IUCN‐DFID
Alex Moiseev IUCN – Head of Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Paola Ciocia IUCN – Project Finance Officer
Claire Neri IUCN – Assistant to the Social Policy Group
UK
Lydia Richardson Tripleline
Mike MacDonald (via skype) KPMG
Bolivia
Oscar Loayza WCS
Marcelo Mamani Comision Tierra y Territorio‐ Marka Antakilla a nivel Marka
Cristina Bravo
Eusebio Casillas Secretario de Actas Aguas Blancas y Secretario de Educacion Marka Antakilla
Policarpo Bazurco Secretario de Justicia
Freddy Delgado Consejal ‐ Municipio Pelechuco
Dionisio Mamani Representante de la Comunidad de Santa Maria
Pedro Quispe Pino Comité del Distrito de Paucarcolla
Antonio Vargas Alcalde de Yapura
Marcelino Godoy Lopez Teniente Gobernador distrito Paucuarcolla
Peru
Josúe Gonzalez Equipo Técnico APECO
Alejandro Smith Equipo Técnico APECO
David Aranibal Huaquisto Director de la Reserva Nacional Titicaca
Vidal Churata Huanca Presidente de APOC
63
Henry Flores Autoridad del Lago Titicaca
Brigida Rojas Ticona Gobernadora del distrito de Paucarcolla
Jose Mamani Especialista de la Reserva Nacional del Titicaca
Bangladesh
Md. Ismail Sarkar Chairman, Chandpur UP
Most. Khodeja Khatun Member, Chandpur UP
Most. Bilkis Begum Member, Chandpur UP
Abdul Latif Morol Member, Chandpur UP
Md. Ali Akbor Member, Chandpur UP
Md. Ishak Sarkar Member, Chandpur UP
Md. Rohul Amin Member, Chandpur UP
Md. Motiur Rahaman President, Noni bill FRMC
Md. Alomgir Hossain Secretary, Fulbaria Soromojbee
Mahindra Chandra Pal President , Kamra Palpara Kuthir silpo Sommitte
Nittyo Ranjan Pal Secretary,
Rekaha Rani Pal Treasurer
Giris Pal Member
Bijoy Pal Member
Nikunjo Pal Member
Shefali Rani Pal Member
Dipali Rani Pal Member
Buli Rani Pal Member
Jayonti Rani Pal Member
Moha Rani Pal Member
Bishoka Rani Pal Member
Aroti Rani Pal Member
Shoku rani Pal Member
Md. Emdadul Haque President , Fulbaria Sromojibee Sommitte
Md. Alomgir Hossain Secretary,
M A Salam Member
64
Md. Solaiman Hossain Member
Md. Hasan Bapari Member
Doctor Nur Mohammad Treasurer, Nolibeel FRMC
Md. Golam Hossain Member
Md. Aminul Islam Member
Joj Mia Member
Md. Sobuj Member
Md. Nuzrul Islam Member
Md. Abul Kashem Member
Doctor Manik Fulbaria
Mr. Haque Khan Member, Nolibeel FRMC
Mr. Arman Fulbaria
Md. Dalowar Hossain Fulbaria
Ahsanul Wahed IUCN‐Research Associate
Mahbubul Hasan CNRS
Bushra Nishat IUCN‐Project Manager
Istiak Sobhan IUCN‐Programme Coordinator
Niaz Ahmed Khan IUCN‐Country Representative
Ananda Kumar Shrestha CETD
Abdur Rob Mollah NACOM
Iqbal Kabir BELA
Yolande Wright DFID
Rana Traboulsi MSB‐project assistant
S.M. Baktiar Uddin
Polashpur Sromojibe Somitte
Karma Mashük Potter
Mr. Mannan NACOM
Mr. Bokfian NACOM
Mr Subrafa Biswas IUCN‐IT Officer
Hassan Mushfika CNRS
65
Mushfika Mosharuf CNRS
Sri Lanka
Ms. A H S Ediriweera Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
Ms. Easha Nanayakkara Department of Wildlife Conservation
Mr. Kingsley Senadeera Forest Department, Rajamalwatta Road,
Mr. Anura Jayasekera Fisheries (Puttlam District), Fisheries Department
Mr. Prasanna Herath Fisheries Department, Puttlam District Office
Mr. Sarath Kalpitiya Division, Fisheries Department,
Mr. Hasantha Amarasekera Marine and Coastal Resources Conservation Foundation
Ms. Sonali de Silva Director, Public Interest Law Foundation
Ms. Gunawardena, Mihiri Director, Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF)
Mr. Hemantha Vithanage Center for Environment Justice (CEJ)
Mr. Dilena Pathragoda Center for Environment Justice (CEJ)
Mr. K W P Thilakaratne Consultant, Public Interest Law Foundation (PILF)
Mr. Anandalal Nanayakkara IUCN Consultant
Mr. A. Sarveswaran Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Colombo,
Dr Ranjith Mahindapala Country Representative, IUCN Sri Lanka
Mr. Shamen Vidanage Programme Coordinator, IUCN Sri Lanka
Ms. Diana de Alwis Senior Program Officer, IUCN Sri Lanka
Kapila Gunaratne Head, Coastal Resources and Livelihoods Group, IUCNSL
Nepal
Narayan Belbase General Secretary, Forum of Justice
Deepak Paudel Consultant
Rajendra Khanal Project Coordinator‐IUCN
Bibek Kumar Paudel Lecturer‐ Forum of Justice
Laxman Upreti NEFEJ
Janak Kumari Chalise Member‐CPN
Peter Neil IUCN‐Bangkok
Sita Baudel UPN
Om Khadka NEFEJ‐Executive Director
66
Dhurba Basnet NEFEJ‐Past president
Nimesh Regmi NEFEJ‐General Secretary
Sahajman Shrestna NEFEJ‐Coordinator Media Training
Tikaram Rai NEFEJ‐Former General Secretary
Bishnu Paduka Village Development Committee
Raj Kumari Rai VDC
Pyrnima Rai VDC
Man Kumari Rai VDC
Dyrga Kala Rai VDC
Amber Kumari Rai CFUG
Jivan Rai CFUG
Sresh Sherpa CFUG
Kiran Kumar Rai VDC
Rajendra Kumar Paudel Municipality of Dahram‐Mayor
Laxman Joshi Tiwari ICIMOD
Apsara Chapagain FECOFUN
Bharati Sharma Manager, Human Resources, Admin, IUCN Nepal
Rabindra Joshi IUCN Nepal
Anu Adhikari IUCN Nepal
Laxmi Amatya IUCN Nepal
Narayan Belbase Forum For Justice (FFJ) General Secretary FFJ
Janak Kumari Chalise CA member for Marxist Leninist Party and Secretary General of the All Nepal Progressive Womens Association
Ganesh Pradhan Secretary Bishnupaduka VDC
Netra Kala Rai Treasurer, CETD
Deepak Thapa Magar
Dr V N Jha Ex IUCN staff
Ms Hema Rai Secretary, CETD and Field Supervisor IUCN
Banshi Moktan Director, CETD
Gopal Dahal Journalist
67
Netra Kala Rai Ex Municipality Member, and Treasurer, CETD
Prabhu Shrestha Chairperson, Dharan
Chotlung Party In‐charge, Maoist, Dharan Municipality
Singa Bahadur Limbu Ex Gorkha Army Union
Ram Pratap Shrestha Engineer, Drinking Water Supply Office, Dharan
Kali Prasad Sharma Staff, Drinking Water Supply Office, Dharan
Sampark Tamang Member, CFUG
Rajkumar Tamang Chair, CFUG
Roji Rai Member, CFUG
Netra Kumar Rai Member, Women Environment Committee, Dharan
K I Sing Thapung Member, Water Users Committee
Parbat Rai Member, Water Users Committee
Man Bahadur Bishwakarma Member, Water Users Group
Deepak Regmi District Superintendent of Police, Dharan
Aryun Niroula Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC), General Secretary
Dedar Nyoupure Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC), Treasurer
Kesheiv Rizal Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC)
Anu Bhuyel Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC)
Ameir Niroula Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC)
Meinhoar Koirala Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC)
Nirmeila Subedi Association for the Protection of Environment and Culture (APEC)
Deepak Paudel Independent consultant
Apsara Chapagain FECOFUN Chairperson
Lebanon
Assad Serhal Director General SPNL
Bassima Khatib Assistant Director General
Tala Al‐Khatib Education and Outreach Officer
Dalia Jawhary Conservation Officer
Nada Farah Science and Research Officer
68
Mohammed Mustafa Al‐Joheni Euro‐Arab Environment Organization‐Vice President
William Safi MultiLab‐Director
Jaoudat E. Abou‐Jaoude Council for Development & Reconstruction
Fadi Sharideh IUCN‐Deputy Coordinator
Omar Massoud Ministry of Interior and Municipalities‐Mayor
Tony Fazaa Mayor
Fawat Abu Faudieh CDR
Mr. Juwdal CDR
Akram Dorwish SSCW
Wafa Osta Ecoturism
Kenya
Jonathan Davies Drylands Coordinator, ESARO, IUCN
Guyo Roba Programme Officer ESARO, IUCN
Daoud Tarik Abkula (by telephone) WRAP, Wildlife Resource Advocacy Program
Mozambique
Horácio jeremias Silmão General Deputy‐Director, Mozambique Revenue Authority
Jorge Raul Faife IDPPE‐ Social Technician
Julio A. Zitha IDPPE
Elizete Anlório Cunguara IDPPE
Rosário Fernandes J. Laissane IDPPE
Joad Gomes IDPPE
Jorge Faisa IDPPE
Mortus Bürgemer TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa
Raquel Dos Santos Fernandes CTV‐Project Assistant
Cristina Louro CTV
Bernice McLean TRAFFIC/EWT
Jorge Tembe IDPPE/DDS
Xavier Mapanga IDPPE
69
Annex A.5 Documents consulted
IUCN HQ
1. Latest revised version of project logframe
2. All internal agreements with IUCN offices for project implementation
3. New project project log frame, theory of change and ME guidelines produced by
consultant oct 2010.
4. DFID GTF workshop (sept 2010) all presentations and documents
5. Latest version of one page summary per component
6. Global learning workshop (sept 2010) presentations from each component on objectives, results and impacts.
7. GTF MTR guidelines
8. Annual report Y1 and Y2 plus all feedback from KPMG/Triple Line
9. Annual planning template (including planned activities for each component to Y5) and
quarterly reporting template (completed for Y3 Q1 and Q2)
10. Inception report
11. Latest approved version of budget
12. Partner and contact list
13. GTF Learning from DFID’s Governance and Transparency Fund (GTF)
14. David Smith GTF log frame powerpoint
15. Tim Robertson Evaluation and GTF presentation.
16. Susan Loughhead DFID’s Approach to Governance presentation.
17. Mike MacDonald, Communicating Results presentation.
18. Draft concept: Workshop on Natural World Heritage properties and indigenous
peoples in Latin America
19. Project governance framework.
20. Case Studies on Community Governance of Natural Resources and Livelihoods
21. Integración y contribución de las áreas protegidas de Mesoamérica a la reducción de la
pobreza
22. Pueblos indígenas y tradicionales y áreas protegidas: evolución y tendencias
23. Gobernanza de los recursos naturales, gobernanza de la conservación en áreas
protegidas y gobernanza indígena: enlaces e intersecciones
24. Perception study as a tool for assessing protected areas’ contributions to poverty
reduction
25. Draft Human Rights Impact Assessment ‐Guidelines for Conservation Organizations
70
26. Draft Human Rights Impact Assessment‐Guidelines for Conservation Organizations
27. Draft Human Rights Norms and Principles Compliance Assessment
28. Right‐based approach framework
29. Conservation Initiative on Human Rights Draft Concept
30. Conservation and Human Rights Framework Conservation Initiative on Human Rights
31. Conserving Biodiversity, Respecting Rights: BirdLife’s Position
32. IUCN Contribution to “Environmental Justice and Global Citizenship” Governance of Natural Resources: Reconciling Local and National Levels
33. Indigenous People’s and climate change Briefing paper.
34. Information on Social Policy’s “IUCN Governance of Natural Resources Portal
35. Recommendation and key messages to delegates and observer of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
36. Improving Protected Areas Governance for Livelihood Security and Rights in the Southern Africa Region: Workshop Report including Recommendations to the SBSTTA meeting
37. IUCN Induction presentations.
Sri Lanka
1. Internal Agreement between IUCN Environment and Development Group and the
IUCN Sri Lanka Country Office for Implementation of the Sri Lanka Component (76987‐
010) of the Project 76987‐000 “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural
Poverty Reduction”
2. Trimester Report (July – September)
3. Original Work Plan (2010)
4. Work Plan Revises(01/11/2010)
5. Sri Lanka Budget Original and Revised (1/11/2010)
6. Sri Lanka Office Inception Report Format for Project: Improving Natural Resource
Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction
7. Sri Lanka Progress Report, Annual Report Format: Y 1, Period 1 October 2008 – 31
March 2009
8. Sri Lanka Annual Report, April 2009 – March 2010
9. Sri Lanka Donor Report DFID, October 2008 – March 2010
10. “Coming to Terms with Governance”: Report on Proceedings of the Workshop on
Training of Trainers (TOT) on Natural Resource Governance, 25 – 26 March, 2009,
Polonnaruwa
71
11. Contract between IUCN, Sri Lanka Country Office and Centre for Environmental Justice
(CEJ)
12. Contract between IUCN, Sri Lanka Country Office and Public Interest Law Foundation
(PILF)
Nepal
1. Agreement between IUCN and Star FM Pvt. Limited
2. Agreement between IUCN and Association for Protection of Environment and Culture
(APEC)
3. Amendment to Contract between IUCN and National Rhododendron Conservation
Management Committee (NORM)
4. Amendment to Contract between IUCN and Centre for Environment and Tourism
Development (CETD)
5. Amendment to Contract between IUCN and Forum for Justice (FFJ)
6. Contract between IUCN and Environment Improvement Coordination Women
Committee (EICWC)
7. Contract between IUCN and Nepal Forum for Environmental Journalists (NEFEJ)
8. Financial Status Implementation Budget Details
9. Financial Status Summary until September 2010
10. Nepal Annual Report (April 2010)
11. Report on Strategic Framework for Sustainable Watershed Management in the Context
of Climate Change Adaption: A Case Study of Sardu Watershed, Sunsari
12. Project Report from Forum for Justice (FFJ), October – December 2009
13. Nepal Activities and Budget
14. Nepal Final Plan for No Cost Extension
Benin
1. Internal Agreement between IUCN Environment and Development Group and the
IUCN Programme for West and Central Africa for Implementation of the Project 76987‐
000 “Improving Natural Resource Governance for Rural Poverty Reduction”
2. Fiche du Cadre Logique
3. Inception Report, February – March 2009
4. Benin 2010 DFID Annual Report
72
5. Annual Report For Governance and Transparency Fund Grant Holders, Period 2009‐
2010
6. Rapport définitif PFNL CENAGREF
7. Projet d’Accord Relatif a la Gestion Concertee des Resources Naturelles Partagées
entre le Burkina Faso et la République du Mali
Mozambique
1. TRAFFIC Fisheries Governance Inception Report, March 2009
2. Annual Template Mozambique Fisheries Governance Y3 and Y4, May 2010
3. TRAFFIC Criteria for Sites
4. WWF BMZ Funds in Trust 2008 Concept Form: TRAFFIC Mozambique Coastal Fisheries
Governance Proposal
Bolivia/Peru
1. Report of the Seminario de Autonomias Indigenas, la Gobernanza del Territorio y los Recursos Naturales.
2. Year one progress report Bolivia
3. Year one progress report Peru
4. Year 2 annual report for Bolivia/Peru component
5. Avances para una propuesta de indicadores con pertinencia cultural del vivir bien.
6. Matrix of governance indicators in Corque, Bolivia
7. Analisis de la gobernanza indígena, la gestión del territorio y los recursos naturales.
8. Case study: Indicadores culturales de bienestar de APOC.
9. Latest version of work plan
10. Sistematization of interviews on governance in Corque, Bolivia.
11. Sistematization of interviews on governance in Apolobamba PA, Municipality of Pelechuco and Marka Antaquilla.
12. Quarterly report Y3 Q2 Peru and Bolivia.
13. Case Study: Condiciones de Gobernanza de los recursos naturales en la comunidad campesina de Tupac Yupanqui.
14. Case Study: Condiciones de Gobernanza de los recursos naturales en la comunidad campesina de Laraos.
15. Collaboration agreement between Marka Antaquilla, WCS and PRODEMA.
73
Annex A.6 Implementing Partners in each Country
Bangladesh
BELA Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association
NACOM Nature Conservation Management
CNRS Centre for Natural Resource Studies
Bénin
CENAGREF National Centre for Wildlife Management
AVIGREF Associations for Wildlife Management
ACRAP Association des Communes Riveraines aux Aires Protégées
Bolivia
WCS Wildlife Conservation Society
PRODEMA Programa de Medio Ambiente
Simbiosis Fundación Simbiosis para el Desarrollo
Burkina Faso
PACO IUCN office for Central and Western Africa
Kenya
WRAP Wildlife Resource Advocacy Programme
Lebanon
SPNL Society for the Protection of Nature in Lebanon
Syria
SSCW Syrian Society for the Conservation of Wildlife
Mali
Mozambique
CTV Centro Terra Viva
Nepal
APEC Association for Protection of Environment and Culture
74
CEDT Centre for Environment Tourism Development
FFJ Forum for Justice
NEFEJ Nepal Forum of Environmental Journalists
NORM National Rododendron Conservation Management Committee
Peru
APECO Peruvian Association for the Conservation of Nature
APOC Asociación de Pueblos Originarios conservacionistas del Lago Titicaca (APOC)
Tunisia
IUCN Centre of Mediterranean Cooperation
South Africa
EWT Endangered Wildlife Trust
Traffic
Sri Lanka
CEJ Centre for Environmental Justice
PILF Public Interest Law Foundation
75
Annex A.7 Aide Memoire
Meeting with James Johnson and Chris van Dam (via teleconference) on Recommendations from the Mid‐Term Review Team
IUCN‐HQ, December 9‐10, 2010.
The points included in this aide memoire emerge from analysis by IUCN project staff at IUCN HQ and initial input from the MTR consultants with whom the project staff met on December 9 and 10, 2010. They reflect consensus between the MTR team and IUCN HQ staff on the likely approaches and steps to improve project implementation. These points also respond directly to concerns expressed by KPMG and Tripleline in several letters and are intended to ensure that project implementation becomes more effective and produces greater impact and value for money. It is important to note that a number of the points in this aide memoire require further analysis and will need to be revised once the final results of the MTR are available.
We have separated the points in this aide memoire into three thematic areas.
New Budget Proposal and Staffing
The proportion of the overall remaining budget managed by IUCN HQ will be reduced according to a separate proposal being submitted by IUCN. This will be achieved mainly by implementing all remaining protected area and global component activity funds through partner organizations in the South, as well as by relocating the project financial administration position to one of the project countries.
Strengthening of Project Design and Implementation
As a result of our analysis of the situation and feedback from the MTR team, it is evident that there is a need to strengthen project implementation and design. These are a few key points that will guide this process.
We will build on and strengthen implementation of those cases and strategies that are achieving impacts, with an emphasis on lessons learned from Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Kenya.
In those areas where clear governance impacts have not yet been achieved but there is a high potential to do so, such as Mozambique/South Africa and Syria/Lebanon, activities will immediately be put on hold pending redesign. This redesign will take into account those strategies that have been successful as well as inputs and recommendations from the MTR.
We will close those components that have not effectively implemented significant activities to date, and these funds will be strategically reassigned to ensure greater project impacts.
We will combine the protected areas and global components into one global project. MTR conclusions and recommendations will be critical for guiding this process, but at
76
this point we see this re‐design focusing on areas such as capacity building, communications and learning to strengthen and provide evidence for policy formulation and influencing.
Technical support, M&E and reporting
After the MTR, the strengthening and adaptation of project implementation will require that IUCN HQ staff have a strong on the ground presence during this process, to ensure it is successful. Another fundamental part of this process is the consolidation of the project logframe and M&E structures.
A new log frame has been drawn up using the format developed by Oxfam. This will again be revised as a result of above mentioned points, inputs from MTR and consultation with partners.
To improve M&E and technical and administrative management, we will identify, with inputs from MTR, those strategies which have achieved greatest impact.
The Project coordinator will spend a greater proportion of his time visiting project sites and supporting project redesign and implementation and reporting arrangement.
The Project coordinator will facilitate greater horizontal communication and engage in regular monthly communication with each component coordinator.
77
Annex A8 Glossary of Evaluation Criteria
Relevance25
The extent to which a project responds to a given set of social, economic, political or environmental conditions. Within the context of INRGRPR relevance should take into account these conditions at local, national and international levels in considering the overall universe of situations to which the project approach, activities and results may be applied.
Impact
The impact of a project may be defined as the positive and negative changes generated either directly or indirectly and intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The evaluation of impact examination is concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors in terms of social, economic, political and environmental conditions. With regard to the INRGRPR project impact is concerned with governance and livelihoods. The impact on the overall governance context is assessed in terms of changes generated in the capacity of civil society or government and the responsiveness and accountability of government to its constituents.
Efficiency
Efficiency measures the qualitative and quantitative relationship between inputs and outputs. The assessment of the efficiency of a project intervention implies evaluating if the results achieved have been attained using available resources in the best possible way, this implies putting financial, human and logistical resources to best possible effect when compared to alternative options. In economic terms this implies the application of criteria of least cost for the achievement of a given set of results. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted. Efficiency also has a dimension of timeliness, and in assessing the efficiency of project interventions it is necessary to assess if these were carried out at the appropriate time.
Value for Money
Value for money introduces the additional element of quality to the dimension of efficiency. Whereas efficiency is primarily concerned with cost effectiveness of a given project intervention in achieving a result to a defined level of quality, value for money allows the assessment of investments of resources between different quality of interventions and takes into account assessment of success of a project combining a set of criteria including efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, sustainability and equity criteria in particular in relation to cost effectiveness.
However, DFID has a more specific definition of Value for Money (VFM)26 which takes into account the proportion of resources allocated to low income countries and the relationship to the success (measured by the achievement of intended impact of a specific project).
25 Glossary of key terms in Evaluation and Results based management.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/60/56/35245771.pdf
78
The DFID document referred to below defines a numerical indicator for value for money. The VFM indicator is measured as the percentage of projects rated 1 or 2 on a scale of 5. It is calculated in three separate classes for projects classified by high, medium or low risk status. Thus Value for Money, applying strictly the DFID definition may be calculated by dividing the value of the total commitment of high risk projects approved at Director level and above, scoring 1 or 2 by the total commitment value of all high risk projects approved at Director level15 and above (excluding those scoring x)
The rating scores and risk categories are standard DFID evaluation standards and are the same as used in the ARS of this report. The simplicity of the measure may conceal some potential technical difficulties. Firstly, as a greater proportion of the bilateral aid programme is transferred to low income countries, it may be reasonable to expect an increase in the commitment value of all high risk projects. In that context, it may become more difficult to achieve scores of 1 or 2 (owing to the greater risk of a project failing)—in other words, a decreasing numerator with an increasing denominator. While this makes the achievement of a sustained increase in success rates more challenging, it also means that the risk separation within the VFM indicator may become a more prominent part of the measurement.
It is evident from this that from DFID perspective the equity criteria play a fundamental (indeed exclusive) role in assessing VFM. However, this evaluation has taken into account a wider set of evaluation criteria which are pooled to provide a subjective assessment of value for money in the achievement of project impact over a range of different conditions.
Effectiveness
A measure of the extent to which an activity is successful in attaining its goals and objectives. The assessment of effectiveness therefore takes into account the factors that have influenced or might influence the achievement of the objectives. Effectiveness is then an evaluation of the capacity of the project to manage available resources to achieve the intended outcomes of a project. This includes an assessment of the effectiveness of the overall project management cycle in terms of the planning, implementation and monitoring of project activities in the achievement of the intended effects and impacts.
Sustainability
The evaluation of the sustainability of a defined intervention is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue beyond the conclusion of the project support. Sustainability has both environmental, political, social, economic and institutional dimensions. In the context of the INRGRPR project the evaluation has been concerned principally with the institutional and environmental dimensions of sustainability.
Equity
Equity is concerned with the way that benefits of particular development interventions benefit different sectors of society and especially the poor and marginalised sectors or those who in one way or another are socially excluded from participating and exercising their full rights as citizens and members of a democracy. The evaluation of the impact on equity of a project intervention is therefore a key consideration in assessing the degree to which this has
26 Measuring Value for Money. DFID Evaluation Report EV 645.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf
79
contributed to the reduction of poverty or social inequality within a defined group of stakeholders.
Replicability
Refers to the universe to which a particular project intervention may be applied where by carrying out the same activities the same or similar results and impacts may be expected to be achieved. As in the other evaluation criteria there are various dimensions to replicability including social, economic, political and environmental criteria. Replicability is also relevant in assessment of the degree to which the pilot level actions may be mainstreamed or scaled up into wider level policies and programmes within or beyond a country or region.