Namibia Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN) Project - 00048171

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2006-2013, Namibia
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
06/2012
Completion Date:
06/2012
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
40,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document ToRs SPAN FE.doc tor English 243.00 KB Posted 628
Download document SPAN-FINAL-Evaluation+Report_FINAL-APRIL30__2012.doc report English 599.00 KB Posted 1393
Title Namibia Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN) Project - 00048171
Atlas Project Number: 00048171
Evaluation Plan: 2006-2013, Namibia
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 06/2012
Planned End Date: 06/2012
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Local and national authorities have the capacities to access and integrate multiple sources of public and private environmental financing in support of sustainable human development, including gender equality and poverty reduction
  • 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 $): 40,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Oliver Chapeyama Team Leader ochapeyama@yahoo.co.uk
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-1
PIMS Number: 3121
Key Stakeholders: MET, PMG, PAC Members: Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Ministry of Mines & Energy, Project Mgt Group, Project Advisory Commitee, USAID, KfW, IFF, Conservation International
Countries: NAMIBIA
Comments: Final Evaluation completed by June 2012.
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Evaluation Recommendation 1: Improving management effectiveness in protected areas has many facets and there is a need to ensure that all the aspects of management effectiveness are understood by all stakeholders at the beginning of projects aiming to address this issue.
2 Evaluation Recommendation 2: There is need for rationalization of project goals with those of successor projects to ensure that there is smooth transition from one project to another.
3 Evaluation Recommendation 3: There is need to ensure that all projects are mainstreamed into the national government initiatives as projects should not be considered as alternatives to government programmes.
4 Evaluation Recommendation 4: Projects that deal with biodiversity management and access to land and other resources cut across various sectors which all need to be involved in their implementation for effective institutionalization of project outputs and outcomes into the national development planning processes.
5 Evaluation Recommendation 5: Projects that engage nationals and or residents of recipient countries as managers contribute to the building of capacity for project management in country. There is need to ensure that staff involved in these initiatives are retained either through integration into national government entities or through engagement in follow on projects to avoid loss of skilled personnel.
6 Evaluation Recommendation 6: It is recommended that UNDP and GEF assess the utility of the METT given the experience with its use in projects to date. This should be done with a view to developing an assessment tool that adequately addresses more than just process indicators of PA management. METT should also assess progress with issues such as ecosystems health which are important for assessing management effectiveness at park level
7 Evaluation Recommendation 7: It is recommended that UNDP step back and conducts a programme/project audit across the biodiversity, water, capacity building sustainable land management spectrum to distil lessons and experiences from all initiatives for use in the design of new programme interventions.
1. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 1: Improving management effectiveness in protected areas has many facets and there is a need to ensure that all the aspects of management effectiveness are understood by all stakeholders at the beginning of projects aiming to address this issue.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: The Ministry of Environment and Tourism and United Nations Development Programme takes note of this hence there was an inbuilt in mechanism for a PAC _project advisory committee and PMG- project management group comprised of key and critical stakeholders and partners in the project. In line with the project development phases future projects will carry out stakeholder consultations to ensure that it is clear to all key stakeholders what the Project is trying to achieve. SPAN Project had a full preparatory phase that took two years and during this time consultations were held with stakeholders including presentations and workshops at field level. Furthermore detailed assessments were carried out including stakeholder assessment that led to drawing up of a stakeholder matrix. Studies commissioned during preparatory phase also involved stakeholder consultations and dissemination of outputs. As projects are designed and implemented over a number of years, it is important to ensure that project teams are involved early on and that regular meetings are held to re emphasize the overall project objective.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 MET and UNDP to continue with more stakeholder consultations during project preparatory phases and also to ensure that project teams are inducted at the beginning of project, and that where necessary regular briefings of the project objectives are held.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
DRSPM, UNDP Energy and Environment Unit 2012/01 Overdue-Initiated As part of the PPG phase for national initiative co- funded by GEF, this issue will be reinforced and enough resources to be allocated to the stakeholder?s consultation processes. MET is currently developing the PASS Project in which this recommendation will be implemented.
2. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 2: There is need for rationalization of project goals with those of successor projects to ensure that there is smooth transition from one project to another.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: We note this point; however Projects co ?funded by GEF are not designed to succeed one another as they are supposed to be catalytic. Therefore other catalytic projects will only ensure that lessons learnt and best practices from one Project are used in the design and implementation of future projects.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Management Response: We note this point; however Projects co ?funded by GEF are not designed to succeed one another as they are supposed to be catalytic. Therefore other catalytic projects will only ensure that lessons learnt and best practices from one Project are used in the design and implementation of future projects.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
SPAN PMU with MET DRSPM 2012/10 No Longer Applicable All Projects that are at project closure phase are busy preparing lessons learned reports/documents.
3. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 3: There is need to ensure that all projects are mainstreamed into the national government initiatives as projects should not be considered as alternatives to government programmes.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: Most of the Project interventions have been mainstreamed within the national/sector government initiatives and plans hence they are fully designed with the participation and directions of the responsible entities in Government (in this case, the MET). Most of the project outputs, e.g. those related to Policy and legislative frameworks are fully aligned with the MET objectives and strategies as such where relevant and applicable will for e.g. be allocated with budgetary considerations to ensure that they are continued. . Having this approach has led to easier adoption of the Sustainability and Exit Strategy/Plan as government is fully sensitized to the need to consider some of the successful initiatives and benefits piloted or initiated through the Project interventions as well as to how they fit into the overall development priorities of the country. However the project notes limited participation and understanding of the NPC, a key institution that is responsible for medium term planning (via the NDPs), as it could have played a bigger role in participation in Project activities to ensure wider replication in future national development planning and programming frameworks and strategies.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 Ensure involvement of National Planning Commission in Project activities, where relevant and applicable, to ensure that key strategic actions are mainstreamed in future NDPs and future strategic programmes of the country. . MET to include applicable strategies and plans in the future five year strategy in line with the NDP 4 guidelines.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
NPC and MET 2006/01 Overdue-Not Initiated NPC to consider nominating focal people in the steering or management groups of the project initiatives.
4. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 4: Projects that deal with biodiversity management and access to land and other resources cut across various sectors which all need to be involved in their implementation for effective institutionalization of project outputs and outcomes into the national development planning processes.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: The Project engaged multiple stakeholders including line ministries, NGOs and communities in most initiatives including at national and especially at field demonstration site level. Two platforms were built in the project management framework, i.e. PMG and PAC. On certain issues, e.g. Sperrgebiet National Park (SNP), a dedicated Park Advisory Committee with representatives from the southern regions, local and national level (for the SNP) was also constituted to spearhead the operationalisation of the SNP. As cited below, a diverse of actions and structures were carried out in response to specific needs of the interventions. Furthermore information dissemination of the Project involved multiple stakeholders including civil society, government ministries and agencies as well as communities through various fora including Project Advisory Committee, Project Management Group as well as regional committees. The Project further collaborated with various agencies in different sectors in implementation of activities such as Ministry of Agriculture on the Invasive Alien Species programme along the Orange River and wildlife disease management in the northeast. Furthermore other collaboration included the Joint Management Board for /Ai-/Ais-Richtersveld Transfrontier Park, Sperrgebiet Park Advisory Committee, Bwabwata Technical Committee, Ministry of Fisheries-MET Technical Committee and many other committees which were initiatives of the Project. However there is room for improvement in this regard as lessons learnt for future Projects by either expanding the Steering/Advisory Committees of biodiversity projects to include broader stakeholders such as agriculture, lands and resettlement, Heritage Council and fisheries who were not members of the SPAN Project Steering Committee. Overall, there is a need to balance off representation roles and management roles in different fora.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 A lesson learnt report is being prepared by the PMU and will be spearheaded by the Directorate of Regional Services and Park Management within MET for application to future initiatives.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
SPAN PMU and DRSPM 2012/12 Completed Lessons learnt report recommendations to be implemented by the relevant Directorates.
5. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 5: Projects that engage nationals and or residents of recipient countries as managers contribute to the building of capacity for project management in country. There is need to ensure that staff involved in these initiatives are retained either through integration into national government entities or through engagement in follow on projects to avoid loss of skilled personnel.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: Government is required to tender all positions to all nationals and cannot give direct offers to Project staff on positions. However for sustainable capacity building efforts, MET is recommended to come up with a project staff retention plan or explore the options of having project business centre concepts whereby critical roles and functions in the project can be inter-shared or transferred between and among projects. Having a medium-long-term strategy on this will also address the issue of limited capacities, employment creation and long delays experienced in project recruitments, and also enhance commitment of project staff to ensure that their professional career development paths are not abruptly disrupted. Overall well articulated strategy on project staff retention is desirable in the long run as it will address the timeframe to recruit, train and develop new skills; however MET will observe standard practices on staff retention. Appropriate training opportunities for Project staff will also be built in future Projects to ensure career development plans for all Project staff.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 MET to look at developing a project staff retention strategy and also to consider setting up a business centre approach whereby key functions like administration, procurement, finances may be carried out by one person instead of various project staff attached to each single project.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
MET, supported by UNDP. 2006/01 Overdue-Not Initiated Project staff of future projects must have career development plans built in their contracts
6. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 6: It is recommended that UNDP and GEF assess the utility of the METT given the experience with its use in projects to date. This should be done with a view to developing an assessment tool that adequately addresses more than just process indicators of PA management. METT should also assess progress with issues such as ecosystems health which are important for assessing management effectiveness at park level
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: The PMU has published the booklet titled ?Tracking and Monitoring Progress 2004 ? 2009 ? Management Effectiveness Assessment of Namibia?s Protected Areas ? in 2009, documenting our use of the NAMETT tool in 2004 and 2009 and again published a similar booklet in 2012 with the Project?s final 2011 assessment included. The two booklets have sections that analyses the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool, the official indicator tool for tracking progress towards improving management effectiveness, and recommend possible improvements. The NAMETT is a user friendly tool for the rapid assessment of park management effectiveness. It provides good indications on what aspects need to be addressed in order to increase park management effectiveness. Realizing that the Tool is not strong in assessing ecosystem and biodiversity health of individual parks, the Project is working closely with the BCC and NACOMA Projects in developing national and park level biodiversity indicators and a park level performance monitoring system. These are outcome based indicators and monitoring systems, which can be used in conjunction with the more process-oriented NAMETT. Therefore with this process completed NAMETT will be strengthened.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
6.1 Finalize biodiversity indicators consultancy
[Added: 2012/12/06]
MET through the SPAN and NACOMA and BCC/BCLME SAP IMP projects. 2006/01 Overdue-Initiated consultancy is ongoing. Inception meeting and stakeholder consultation workshops have already been held.
6.2 Integrate outcomes of the Biodiversity Indicators consultancy into the NAMETT Tool as part of overall management effectiveness of PAs.
[Added: 2012/12/06]
DRSPM, DRM SPAN, NACOMA, BCC/BCLME SAP IMP 2013/01 Overdue-Not Initiated The Biodiversity Indicator?s consultancy is ongoing and should be finalized by December 2012. Once the indicators have been developed these will be integrated into the NAMETT tool.
7. Recommendation: Evaluation Recommendation 7: It is recommended that UNDP step back and conducts a programme/project audit across the biodiversity, water, capacity building sustainable land management spectrum to distil lessons and experiences from all initiatives for use in the design of new programme interventions.
Management Response: [Added: 2012/12/06]

Management Response: MET and UNDP jointly agreed to undertake this work; however in order to avoid duplication and wastage of GEF resources, the two institutions noted that GEF is strategically planning to conduct country programmatic reviews, following a standard methodology. Following-up on this, it has been agreed to wait for the GEF exercise, when and if they select Namibia as one of the country.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
7.1 No further action required
[Added: 2012/12/06]
2006/01 No Longer Applicable Continue monitoring the GEF website for updates on country programmatic reviews.

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