Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (ABI) (Project #14684 and 69904)

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2010-2010, South Africa
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
12/2010
Completion Date:
10/2010
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
26,163

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative.doc tor English 69.00 KB Posted 822
Download document ABIFinalTerminalEvaluationReport- BrianChild30 September 2010.docx report English 2079.63 KB Posted 1709
Title Agulhas Biodiversity Initiative (ABI) (Project #14684 and 69904)
Atlas Project Number:
Evaluation Plan: 2010-2010, South Africa
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 10/2010
Planned End Date: 12/2010
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Development plans and programmes integrate environmentally sustainable solutions in a manner that promotes poverty reduction, MDG achievement and low-emission climate-resilient development
  • 2. National and local governments and communities have the capacities to adapt to climate change and make inclusive and sustainable environment & energy decisions benefitting in particular under-served populations
Evaluation Budget(US $): 26,163
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
  • Joint with South African National Parks, German Government, UNDP
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Brian Child Team Leader
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number:
Key Stakeholders: South African Government, UNDP
Countries: SOUTH AFRICA
Comments: The project will end May/June and will be evaluated by the end of 2010
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Need to further analyse and document project lessons and develop a firm data base of facts that can inform policy formulation and implementation, particularly with regard to SMA and Flower Valley experience. This can contribute to the important requirement to build a convincing economic argument for biodiversity conservation.
2 Unclear organizational future with regard to entrenching the lessons learnt from ABI and rolling these out at all spheres of authority and the need to address the danger of losing skills and knowledge gained through the project.
3 New landscape level management approaches are required in South Africa.
4 Collective, facilitated participatory and non-prescriptive, off-reserve conservation is efficient and rewarding and needs to be promoted. This should include land owners and civil society and developing mechanisms for collective action.
5 Create an enabling environment for replication and sustainability of innovative approaches to landscape level conservation through ensuring the active participation of senior policy makers in learning and through providing capacity to local community partners.
6 Activities to manage emerging project risks should be built into project design through supporting adaptive management with the responsible institutions. ABI has been successful in delivering on functions but the appropriate institutionalization of achievements is required.
7 Need to develop effective and affordable biodiversity monitoring tools as a measure of conservation effectiveness and a way of testing different conservation models.
8 Need to streamline legislation, policies and procedures associated with collective conservation initiatives at a landscape level in South Africa (employing examples from other countries).
9 For local planning to be effective it needs to be internalized by those who will need to enact the plans and it will require the appropriate capacity to understand and implement.
10 Stakeholders should have been involved much more in the design of the Project, and in an adaptive management process through regular peer-review.
11 The operation of a higher level, external technical support institution would have benefitted the project.
12 The project logframe contained inconsistencies with regard to the indicators and was not used effectively in adaptive management.
13 Mobilising stakeholders like local authorities and obtain funding to maintain stakeholder processes to deal strategically with issues of public goods and payment for environmental services.
1. Recommendation: Need to further analyse and document project lessons and develop a firm data base of facts that can inform policy formulation and implementation, particularly with regard to SMA and Flower Valley experience. This can contribute to the important requirement to build a convincing economic argument for biodiversity conservation.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

The management agrees with the recommendation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussions have started with the University of Miami and a number of South African tertiary institutions to develop a partnership to address these issues.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
UNDP EEG RCU. 2011/01 Completed The action was ompleted first quarter 2011
2. Recommendation: Unclear organizational future with regard to entrenching the lessons learnt from ABI and rolling these out at all spheres of authority and the need to address the danger of losing skills and knowledge gained through the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

This is acknowledged as a threat to achieving the maximum benefit from the project.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SAN Parks is engaged in a process of internal high level discussion with regard to off-reserve, buffer zone, management of biodiversity. The Executive Manager: Parks made a presentation to the Conservation Sub-Committee of SAN Parks Board on Lessons Learnt from the ABI approach to integrated conservation and development on the Agulhus Plain. This was very well received. An internal, senior management level workshop on ?ABI Lessons Learnt is scheduled for 1st and 2nd November 2010. Issues relating to organizational mandates and challenges will be explored during this workshop.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
SAN Parks but might require support from UNDP 2011/03 Completed This was been completed early 2011
3. Recommendation: New landscape level management approaches are required in South Africa.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Agreed. Difficulties relate to mandates and funding.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The Western Province Department of Agriculture have engaged SAN Parks with a view to being a part of the process to further explore the link between the SMA model and rural development and to implement/facilitate SMAs in the Province.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/03 Completed It was completed last quarter of 2010 and early 2011
4. Recommendation: Collective, facilitated participatory and non-prescriptive, off-reserve conservation is efficient and rewarding and needs to be promoted. This should include land owners and civil society and developing mechanisms for collective action.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Yes, and organized agriculture have already mobilized around this in the Overberg District.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SAN Parks and other authorities are recognizing this and the model is becoming widely recognized, but will require further testing and support.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed The action was concluded
5. Recommendation: Create an enabling environment for replication and sustainability of innovative approaches to landscape level conservation through ensuring the active participation of senior policy makers in learning and through providing capacity to local community partners.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Yes. See comment on partnership with the Western Cape Department of Agriculture.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SAN Parks is also showing willingness to explore the strategic possibilities associated with the approach (see comment on internal workshop above). ABIOC (PSC) have also indicated their willingness to go further in the implementation of the SME model and wish to explore a broader approach that goes beyond the current project.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed
6. Recommendation: Activities to manage emerging project risks should be built into project design through supporting adaptive management with the responsible institutions. ABI has been successful in delivering on functions but the appropriate institutionalization of achievements is required.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Agreed. This should be included in future project design. ABIOC, the project representative body, requested that they should be an autonomous organization to implement the project with support from SAN Parks and other partners. The autonomy is good but needs to be balanced against responsibility and institutional strength to satisfy funders concerns.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
SAN Parks itself as well as strategic partners have started a process (see above) that will look at institutional arrangements for managing and supporting off-reserve conservation.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
UNDP/GEF SAN Parks 2011/01 Completed
7. Recommendation: Need to develop effective and affordable biodiversity monitoring tools as a measure of conservation effectiveness and a way of testing different conservation models.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21]

Agreed. Hence the discussions with the tertiary institutions.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussions with the tertiary institutions are needed
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed
8. Recommendation: Need to streamline legislation, policies and procedures associated with collective conservation initiatives at a landscape level in South Africa (employing examples from other countries).
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Agree but this will involve a considerable lobbying effort with national, some provincial and local authorities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The legislation needs to become enabling.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed
9. Recommendation: For local planning to be effective it needs to be internalized by those who will need to enact the plans and it will require the appropriate capacity to understand and implement.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

Agreed. The project has established the SMA approach as such a tool.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Local authorities have indicated support, but this needs to be formalized and appropriate capacities built to enable the SMAs to become the basic building blocks of local planning and implementation
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed
10. Recommendation: Stakeholders should have been involved much more in the design of the Project, and in an adaptive management process through regular peer-review.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21]

Agreed. However, key stakeholders also emerged during the process.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: The operation of a higher level, external technical support institution would have benefitted the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21]

While this would be an ideal situation, the experience CAPE experience with the efficacy of the Cape Coordination Committee (CCC) and as reflected in the Terminal evaluation Report of CAPE, indicates that this was unlikely to be successful.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: The project logframe contained inconsistencies with regard to the indicators and was not used effectively in adaptive management.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

This is true. Logframes, and particularly the indicators, need to be developed with key partners and subjected to continuing reality testing. Project management needs to build-in flexibility.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This is something that will need to be negotiated in detail at project inception.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
UNDP/GEF & partners 2011/01 Completed
13. Recommendation: Mobilising stakeholders like local authorities and obtain funding to maintain stakeholder processes to deal strategically with issues of public goods and payment for environmental services.
Management Response: [Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2010/10/21]

The management agreed with the recommendations.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Partnerships are being explored involving SAN Parks, Fauna and Flora International, UNDP, Dept of Environment Affairs, Western Cape Department of Agriculture, ABIOC and local authorities.
[Added: 2010/10/21] [Last Updated: 2011/07/05]
San Parks & other partners including DEA, Western Cape Dept. of Agric. Possibly also tertiary institutions, FFI, WWF, DBSA and UNDP. 2011/01 Completed The action has been completed

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