Sustainable Management of Namibia's Forested Lands (NAFOLA) Final Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2019-2023, Namibia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
11/2019
Completion Date:
04/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Final PIMS 4626 UNDP-GEF- NAFOLA Terminal-Evaluation ToR.pdf tor English 629.58 KB Posted 49
Download document 20200330 UNDP GEF TE Final Report - Nafola.pdf report English 1319.35 KB Posted 19
Title Sustainable Management of Namibia's Forested Lands (NAFOLA) Final Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 00082143
Evaluation Plan: 2019-2023, Namibia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2020
Planned End Date: 11/2019
Management Response: Yes
UNDP Signature Solution:
  • 1. Sustainable
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
  • Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss
SDG Target
  • 13.1 Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related hazards and natural disasters in all countries
  • 15.2 By 2020, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Vertical Fund (GEF)
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 33,019
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Sobey Timothy Richard Internationa Consultant timosobey@gmail.com
Victory Mufita National Consultant victorm@iway.na NAMIBIA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sustainable Management of Namibia's Forested Lands (NAFOLA)
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Land Degradation
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
GEF Project ID: 4832
PIMS Number: 4626
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Directorate of Forestry, Community Forests Bodies
Countries: NAMIBIA
Comments:

This specific final/terminal evaluation although being carried out in the first year (2019) of the current CPD,  ithe proejct was implemented udner the previous CPD Cycle; thus, the evaluation does not appear in the current CPD Evaluation Plan. 

Lessons
1.

Lessons Learned

Forestry

The DoF lack capacity (skills and funds) to train the CFMCs in implementing their CFMPs. The issue will arise, in four years’ time in 2023, when a new forest inventory is required ahead a new CFMP, which needs to be updated every five years. At present the link between AAC, permits to harvest and the sustainability of CFMPs is tenuous and unproven. For these open woodland - savanna ecosystems, which at present are heavily degraded and continue to be so, having an AAC system may not be the most appropriate. Also, the AACs are effectively given tothe CFMCs to manage, but they lack the skills or experience to do so. Another issue is that Traditional Authority headmen continue to ‘allocate’ land inside CF boundaries. Lastly, there

is no grazing control within the CFs, and the land continues to be degraded – soil erosion with top soil being lost from livestock damage and wind, is resulting in a downward cycle towards unpalatable grass species and unwanted bush thicket takeover. CFMCs have a very weak knowledge of CFMPs, and the CFMPs themselves are extremely weak on zoning, any grazing control or rangeland management for example. The CF maps vary from showing the boundary only, to latest by the MLR, which also show land right certificated (LRC) land inside the boundaries and other mapped plots. Such new maps are a very useful tool to assess status and report against any new land conversion / settlement.

Livestock

The CFs encompass farming, and ‘free-ranging’ livestock, however the laws for communal lands prohibit fencing except for individuals with an LRC. This means block zoning and managing stock rotation, becomes difficult. Whether it can be achieved if presented within a CFMP for a gazetted CF, is uncertain. However, there needs to be a much better awareness (by livestock farmers) regarding the maintenance of grassland, and reduced stocking rates. The Tallismanus Auction Facility in the Otjombinde CF area could have a significant impact to support this, if managed with the CF in mind, and if specifically supported under Livestock Sector Transformation Strategy (2019) and the MAWF Strategic Plan (2018-22). Both of these strategies include (accredited) rangeland management and removing penalties for small-frame cattle. Added to this, there is possible technical support from the nearby Sandveld Research Station which has been researching a ‘fodder-bank grazing system’ since 2004 with indigenous (small-frame) Caprivi-Sanga cattle. Indeed, it was difficult to understand why Nafola did not work with DARD and Sandveld and at least have bought some demonstration Caprivi-Sanga cattle, which are much better suited to dryland conditions, than the larger Brahman breed. In Omaheke, the old private farm blocks could be areas for demonstrating rotational grazing (of smaller better-suited breeds.)

Agriculture

The CA physical methods (of soil and water conservation) were to use ripper tines to reduce compaction and release soil nutrients, as well as create planting lines. Then to disc cultivate. This is much better than traditional ploughing of the soil, but to note, the rippers should not be used every year, otherwise they will eventually damage the soil structure. CA needs to have a stronger package for climate resilience. This could include: crop diversification (sorghum / millet), crop rotation, short-duration varieties; multi-and inter-cropping (e.g. green gram.) At present seed is late, and not always suited – this is where DAPEES need much more national level support - on getting climate-resilient crop varieties to the farmers. In the project area, farming systems are integrated (livestock - crop – forest), thus climate-smart approaches are needed, not just forest management in isolation.

Gender

The project should have been more proactive with respect to gender. The prodoc was vague concerning benefits to women. It didn’t stipulate a gender balance in project institutional structures, such as within the PSC and the CFMCs. Whilst a 50 / 50 gender balance was stipulated in the CF Toolbox, the TE figures indicated that an equal balance had not been achieved. A gender sensitivity training was only held in the project’s last year and with only 12 participants (8 women), which was too little too late.


Findings
1.

Conclusions

Nafola was designed as a technically-minded cross-sector project. It required extensive collaboration outside the sphere and skills of DoF. This was the case for seven out of the 11 outputs and in particular: MLR – land use plans for 3 CFs (Output 1.2); DAPEES – dryland conservation agriculture (Output 2.1); DARD - livestock management, debushing with pasture restoration, and rangeland monitoring (Outputs 2.2, 2.5 and 2.7); Directorate of Planning & Business Development (DPBD) – livestock auction facility operational model (Output 2.3); and an NGO to deliver an energy-saving woodstove programme (Output 2.6). This didn’t happen. More should have been done to delegate responsibilities and activities to DAPEES and DARD in particular.

Forestry

The CF process has been effectively demonstrated, thus future CFs could be developed in a much shorter time period, subject to improvements in DoF capacity, and funds for the field requirements being available. As a result of Nafola, there are now 10-15 more CFs, in need of on-going capacity-building in SLM / SFM, and in need of institutional stability and support. The physical work (consultation, constitution, CFMC, inventory, CFMP) took about two years once the project got going, but it then took another two years of administrative work in Windhoek with DoF, MAWF and MLR involved. It would be useful for Nafola to document how the establishment of a CF entity could be streamlined. Nine CFs were gazetted with constitutions, CFMCs and CFMPs created. Individual CF rules and regulations were harmonised with CFMC – Conservancy Management Committees becoming single entities, but maintaining separate accounting.

The capacity of, and funding to DoF is very low. Training support is needed, especially in how to work across sectors with DAPEES, DARD and the Land Reform office. Regional and District Forest Offices also lack capacity and resources. District forest offices are often without electricity, with lines cut due to non-payment of bills. They also lack access to the internet on computers as they are without mobile wifi dongles. Decision-making is not devolved from central to regional level, with forestry not really involved in regional council decision-making. The offices usually only have one vehicle running.

The CFMCs have the ability to generate income, which over these mostly very large CF estates, should have a high potential, not least because many of them are also wildlife conservancies. The project was expected to support the CFs in implementation of their CFMPs and other CF capacity-building actions, however it only got to the stage of supporting CF designation and planning, but not implementation. DoF ability to absorb the maintenance costs and effectively use the six project vehicles post-Nafola is considered inadequate, thus their handover to six of the CFMCs would go some way to supporting this next crucial development stage.

Livestock

The operational model for Tallimanus Livestock Auction Facility needs to be ’cooperative’. It needs direct support from the DPBD to establish: a legal set-up; a ’Board of Trustees’; a set of Guiding Principles; facilities management, and auctioneering contracts; a facilities manager and an accountant; and a 5-year funding stream from MAWF. What it doesn’t need is to be tendered into the private sector or be given to a party with vested interests, such as the regional famers union.

Agriculture

Regarding CA, the DoF lacked interest, or the will to delegate and share project funds. UNDP were weak in overseeing DoF to implement the project according to its cross-sector needs. CA and dryland agriculture is still a new government programme. The project began CA 2016, but stopped in 2017 due to MTR. For whatever reason, the rationale in the MTR was weak, especially concerning closing down the CA aspects of the project.


Recommendations
1

Evaluation Recommendation 1: Directorate of Planning & Business Development (under MAWF) to establish a ‘cooperative’ management model for Tallimanus Livestock Auction Facility with: a legal set-up, a ’Board of Trustees’, a set of Guiding Principles’, two contracts prepared for ‘facilities management’ and for ‘auctioneering’; a  facilities manager and an accountant; and to access funding from MAWF for five years.

2

Evaluation Recommendation 2: The three tractors were designated for: Otjombinde and Epukiro CFs, and managed by DAPEES Gobabis office, Omaheke; and Okango CF, and managed by DAPEES Eenhana office, Ohangwena.  To ensure implementation of CA, these offices need to prioritize seed for climate-smart farmers (sorghum / millet with cow pea / green gram) together with their CA tractor services.

3

Evaluation Recommendation 3: The six project vehicles should be distributed to six of the nine gazetted CFMCs.  The 13 quad bikes should be auctioned and the proceeds divided between these six CFMCs, for maintenance costs of the vehicles.

4

Evaluation Recommendation 4: Laptops procured for the CFs need to be delivered.

5

Evaluation Recommendation 5: NAFOLA to handover all CF project files to the DoF CF representative.

1. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 1: Directorate of Planning & Business Development (under MAWF) to establish a ‘cooperative’ management model for Tallimanus Livestock Auction Facility with: a legal set-up, a ’Board of Trustees’, a set of Guiding Principles’, two contracts prepared for ‘facilities management’ and for ‘auctioneering’; a  facilities manager and an accountant; and to access funding from MAWF for five years.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/06]

Rejected, however, the livestock marketing strategy has been developed to this effect and will be implemented accordingly. The facility management and operations are under the supervision of DAPEES. Hence, the facility shall be managed like any other existing MAWF Auction Kraals in the country.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 2: The three tractors were designated for: Otjombinde and Epukiro CFs, and managed by DAPEES Gobabis office, Omaheke; and Okango CF, and managed by DAPEES Eenhana office, Ohangwena.  To ensure implementation of CA, these offices need to prioritize seed for climate-smart farmers (sorghum / millet with cow pea / green gram) together with their CA tractor services.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/06] [Last Updated: 2020/04/06]

Rejected. Because the seeds recommended are already being sold by DAPEES on a subsidized price throughout the country, including Otjombinde, Epukiro and Eenhana offices.

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 3: The six project vehicles should be distributed to six of the nine gazetted CFMCs.  The 13 quad bikes should be auctioned and the proceeds divided between these six CFMCs, for maintenance costs of the vehicles.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/06]

Rejected. The Project assets (including the 6 project vehicles and 13 quad bikes) will be transferred to MEFT /Directorate of Forestry (DoF).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transfer project assets to MEFT
[Added: 2020/04/06] [Last Updated: 2020/04/30]
MEFT / DoF 2020/04 Completed The Submission of the assets including vehicles and others have been compiled and submitted to the Ministry of Finance/Treasury Office to accept and register these properties in the GRN Registry. Unfortunately due to the Lock Down process this is still to be done. From the Ministry side this is already accepted and have continuing with using the assets at the DoF Offices. The assets are allocated to the Offices that are taking care of the activities that were supported by the NAFOLA project. History
4. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 4: Laptops procured for the CFs need to be delivered.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/06]

Fully accepted. The laptops will be received by Community Forest members through the respective Regional Forestry offices.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
All CFs management committees to be encouraged to collect their laptops from the Regional Forestry Offices.
[Added: 2020/04/06]
DoF 2020/05 Initiated The process has already commenced, as two community forests (African Wild Dog and Otjituuo CFs) have already received theirs.
5. Recommendation:

Evaluation Recommendation 5: NAFOLA to handover all CF project files to the DoF CF representative.

Management Response: [Added: 2020/04/06]

Fully accepted. As recommended, all CF project files will be handed over to the DoF CF representative.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The NAFOLA Project supporting team should gather all the files and hand them over to DoF.
[Added: 2020/04/06] [Last Updated: 2020/04/30]
NAFOLA / DoF 2020/04 Completed Files are given to the Directorate of Forestry (DoF). History

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

1 UN Plaza
DC1-20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org