Sustainable Land Managment Pilot Project Terminal Evaluation

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2016, Eritrea
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
09/2016
Completion Date:
03/2017
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
42,000

Share

Title Sustainable Land Managment Pilot Project Terminal Evaluation
Atlas Project Number: 63220,63220
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2016, Eritrea
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 03/2017
Planned End Date: 09/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.3. Solutions developed at national and sub-national levels for sustainable management of natural resources, ecosystem services, chemicals and waste
Evaluation Budget(US $): 42,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 23,661
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Vincent Lefebvre International consultant lefebvrevinc@gmail.com
Dr.Bisrat Ghebru Local consultant bissgk@gmail.com ERITREA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Sustainable Land Management
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Land Degradation
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 00063220
PIMS Number: 2979
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: ERITREA
Lessons
1. The project is building up upon lessons learned from numerous (>10) relevant previous initiatives, all of which are/were focussing on land use planning and mapping, sustainable land management and conservation agriculture, community awareness on land degradation, forest protection and enclosures. The most relevant include: - SLM project funded by the Sygenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture (0.3M$) - Strengthening the GoE Capacity for Effective Land Use Mapping to Ensure SLM funded by UNDP (0.4M$) - Country Water Partnership on water resources management funded by UNDP (0.5M$) - SLM Curriculum Development – University of Asmara funded by GoE (10M$) - Several smaller projects (<0.2M$) mainly funded by the GoE on (v) Land Use Mapping, (vi) Land Information System, (vii) community support on SLM awareness and (viii) conservation agriculture, (ix) forest research and enclosures Most of these initiatives / lessons learned constituted the backbone for this project in the following areas: - support to farmers in SLM and conservation agriculture (i, iii, viii) (? outcome 1) - forestry development / conservation considered as non-agricultural income-generating activities (ix) ? outcome 1 - land use mapping and planning (v & vi) (? outcome 1) - GoE’s capacity enhancement on SLM (ii) (? outcome 2) - community awareness raising on SLM (vii) (? outcome 3) - SLM curriculum development (iv) (? outcome 3) This is evidence that the project was built on strong bases with regards to its main activities, in particular land use planning / mapping and sustainable land management. In addition, the project is innovative as it is the first time that the new land tenure system (Land Proclamation 58/1994) is directly implemented in combination with regular SLM activities. In terms of gender, the project is also building up upon previous SLM interventions where women were involved at all levels of discussion within the villages through representativeness and support from NUEW, and emphasizing the solidarity links that exist within villages regarding vulnerable groups (elders and female household heads); this is most important in this particular intervention as several types of agricultural activities are gender-oriented (e.g. men-centred ploughing, women-based weeding and harvesting…). Indeed, in this project, the new land tenure system focussing on life-long usufruct of land has the potential to isolate more vulnerable households and specific measures were to be taken to enhance village solidarity at least through awareness raising. Stakeholders participation: The actual core stakeholders of the project in addition to the final beneficiaries (farmers’ communities) are MoLWE (in particular DoL), MoA, the zoba Maekel and sub-zoba Serejeka Administrations and Departments of Land and Agriculture. Overall, the final beneficiaries were very receptive to the project with active participation in awareness raising sessions and feedback and discussions on the potential benefits of the project. There has been a strong involvement/commitment of zoba Maekel and sub-zoba Serejeka staff in the implementation of the project activities. At the national level, the project has been supported mainly by the MoLWE and MoA. Although the designated implementing partner as per PRODOC was the Ministry of Land, Water and Environment, this function was held by the Ministry of Agriculture – Central Region (zoba Maekel) until the cooperation shutdown in 2011/2012. When the project resumed in early 2013, discussions were held between the MoA and the MoLWE, and the IP officially changed to MoLWE with the MoA – Central Region still implementing the project. Interviews showed that there was some initial involvement of peripheral stakeholders until the project was suspended; e.g. HAC, MoA – NARI, possibly to consider monitoring land degradation trends (e.g. reduction in soil erosion, carbon sequestration, ground water storage improvement, fertility increase) at least during the inception workshop. Their active involvement during implementation eventually did not materialise by project’s end. After the project was resumed in late 2013, there was no longer any involvement of these and other planned stakeholders (e.g. NGOs, MoJ, MoE, MoEM). TE-held discussions showed that as the resumed project lagged way behind schedule, attention was put on achieving the main project results on the ground (new land tenure & SLM activities), giving less emphasis to more time-consuming cooperation and coordination with other line ministries, evidencing a lack of capacity within zoba Maekel and MoLWE to coordinate the implementation of simultaneous activities. Replication approach: The PRODOC laid the ground through several activities for a comprehensive replication strategy of the project concept with “outcome 2 – knowledge management system”, emphasis was put on enhancing the capacity of relevant institutions (e.g. MoA, MoLWE), in addition to local communities, to increase their knowledge in the combination of the new land tenure system and SLM. This was a clear strategy to create inter-sectoral institutional dialogue on how to integrate the 58/1994 Land Proclamation within the national SLM strategy and take lessons learned for potential replication / fine-tuning of the project’s concept into other CHZ areas. In addition, “outcome 3 – capacity building programmes” paved the way for capacity building programmes focussing not only at grassroots level but also on zoba Maekel technical staff through the updating and dissemination of SLM adapted extension packages.

Tag: Biodiversity Knowledge management Livelihoods Natural Resouce management Sustainability

Findings
1. Project design/Formulation: The project design is focussing on addressing several critical root causes of land degradation, in particular unsustainable agriculture, overgrazing and unsustainable use of woodlots and natural forest through the combination of: • Implementing the new land tenure system that basically introduces life-long land usufruct of agricultural land and woodlots as a strategy to increase land improvements ownership and land stewardship by the rural population as the previous cyclic tenure system did not favour maintenance and ownership of long-term land improvements. • Accelerating the adoption of sustainable land management practices Overall, the project is very logically focussing on both preparing the communities in the transition to the new land tenure system and building their capacities to adopt and implement SLM techniques. In addition, activities focussing on awareness and capacity building to share this new concept are also considered both at community and institutional level The project is therefore focussing on 3 main outcomes: • The operationalisation of pilot SLM models that combine the new land tenure system with support in land improvements using the SLM approach – which can be considered an innovative concept to land degradation reduction in Eritrea (outcome 1) • The establishment of systems of knowledge management to increase awareness of stakeholders at all levels on this updated SLM that will combine regular soil and water conservation techniques with the new land tenure system based on life-long usufruct (outcome 2) • Enhanced capacities for replicating and adopting SLM models through the de elopement of capacity building programs and management system to improve SLM governance including at grass-root levels The logical framework analysis (LFA) shows that the project indicators are mostly SMART but some are definitely not mainly because several results will bear fruit long after the project is closed ; therefore, some indicators are not achievable within the project time-frame and should be more considered as impact indicators. This is the case with indicators related to the reduction of degraded land and poverty or even the non-agricultural income increase: the effects will take several years at minimum, not even taking into account any non-anticipated issue that the new land tenure system might bring. Several results propose to mainstream the new SLM models in policies / legislation and to replicate several activities to other CHZ areas; these take the unusual risk of assuming that the integration of the new land tenure system into an updated SLM model will only bring forward positive effects; hence it should be replicated without analysis its long-term impact. This approach is not precautious. The indicators on GoE annual budget increases also show some country-specific issues: because donor-funded projects are fully integrated into implementing institutions, it is not possible to distinguish the different sources of funding; a contrario, it can be assumed that non-project resources allocated in the same sector are GoE’s own resources whatever the source. Finally, measuring the project performance by the percentage of completed activities gives a negative viewpoint of the implementation process as most interventions accelerate decisively by project’s end. Assumptions and risks: The log frame contains several assumptions and risks (1. reduced political support of SLM, 2. conflict with Ethiopia, 3. climate change, 4. farmers’ short term decisions instead of SLM, 5. insecure land tenure, 6. SLM low capacities, 7. unsustainable markets, 8. extreme events [e.g. drought]). With regard to those given, the following observations can be made: • “Climate change” (3.) is associated with “Extreme events” (8.) – in particular – el niño/la niña cycle; some broad predictions can be made – in particular high precipitation / drought events – that have actually influenced the project implementation (e.g. 2015 Eastern Africa drought associated with el niño peak that affected the project area) • All development activities were shut down between 2012 and 2103 (18 months) before a new cooperation document was drafted and agreed upon between the UN and the GoE (“SPCF”) resulting in negative consequences on the project implementation process as all project activities were suspended. To counterbalance this situation, the MoA pursued several critical activities linked to reforestation and SWC not waiting for the project to resume. This somewhat dampened the negative effects of the interruption together with a GEF granted one-year extension though it was not sufficient to absorb all the project budget. This 5-year project had an actual implementation period of less than 4 years; in that context, it not surprising that some (even critical) activities (e.g. land distribution) were not completed by project’s end in late 2015 or even at TE stage. • As mentioned in 3.1.1, the project formulation process considered that the intervention would be successful and that replication to other CHZ areas could be part of the project. However, the PRODOC did not consider the risk that SLM combined with the new land tenure might also have some unwanted effects. Indeed, the review team identified several negative effects that will need to be addressed in the near future • Unsustainable markets” (7): while there is indeed a risk that value chains might not be established / fully functional, it was assumed again in the PRODOC that the new IGAs would be adopted by the farmers; this was not the case for some (e.g. orchard) and a much more robust approach (beneficiary needs and value chain analysis, extension support, NARI research) should have been definitely included in the PRODOC as these activities were very innovative and not anchored in CHZ farming communities. • An additional risk that was not clearly identified at formulation stage was the difficulty to have GoE institutions to cooperate and coordinate in a single intervention; this was most obvious in this project as it was fully (financially) decentralised at zoba level but several activities required support / intervention from line/different sectoral ministries at national level (e.g. MoA, MoLWE, MoEM, MoND, UNCCD focal point) but could not tap in directly financial resources as there was no clear indication in the PRODOC of which institutions are responsible for what activities with corresponding allocated budgets. In that context, most resources were spent at community level (outcome 1 & 3) and most activities requiring support from national level (exception DoL) or benefitting stakeholders at national level were somewhat overlooked (e.g. outcome 2 on knowledge management, carbon financed project of outcome 3).
Recommendations
1

 On-time baseline study and results assessment: Because the project was interrupted for a long time, the baseline study was eventually completed by mid-2015; still, it is surprising that it was not initiated right at project start-up in 2009/2010; baselines studies are key to understanding the project’s impact and need to be completed as soon as possible; in this particular case nonetheless, the study did not become outdated and is still highly relevant. The baseline study should be matched with a results / impact assessment; this is most critical as RBM is not systematic / formalised under NIM; hence project resources should be planned for that purpose at formulation stage.

2

National level activities not to be piloted from zoba level: National, regional and sub-zoba level activities to be planned, funded, monitored and reported by relevant implementers: the decentralisation process is only relevant if the decentralised entity does have the authority and capability to effectively implement the planned activities; therefore activities that require national stakeholders’ support should be implemented at national level; activities decentralised at zoba and sub-zoba levels can be successfully implemented only if there is enough managing capacity ; this means that measures (material, transport, monitoring capacity…) should be taken under NIM to ensure that the IP and the actual executing entity does have the capacity to fully implement the interventions’ activities.

3

Seconded national staff to be assigned as project manager or PMU set-up: Donor funded interventions should be managed by fully-dedicated staff national; it is best to avoid assigning senior staff (in particular Department, Division’s Heads) that have to share many responsibilities as it is difficult for them to be exclusively dedicated to one only intervention as they are needed for other senior tasks. It is more appropriate to assign less senior staff 100% available as project manager; alternatively, should there be no available 100% dedicated staff, externalisation should be sought and a PMU set up.

4

Project managing team to be fully conversant with up-to-date planning, monitoring and reporting techniques: Under NIM, project-assigned staff/team should be trained prior to implementation on a systematic basis; this would require that the project formulation process defines a specific budget to be engaged right after the staff has been designated just before implementation and some provision made should there be  he staff should be donor funded interventions should be managed by fully-dedicated staff national; it is best to avoid provided they receive an extensive training at project’s start up.

5

Implementation and M&E: Any donor-funded management structure should fit as closely as possible NIM but propose incremental improvements:

  1. Narrative and financial reporting to relevant committee/hierarchical superiors: there is currently no expenditure reporting as per project work plan; this significantly degrades the ability of the IP to effectively monitor the project’s efficiency and assess how effectively the project is being implemented.
  2. Projects should have a formal reporting format for both activity and results monitoring: results assessment is essentially reported directly at APIR level by the NPC; the information is based on both activity-based reporting by relevant stakeholders and the Site Manager and his findings through monitoring visits; the monitoring system should be more strongly based on results monitoring at all project implementation levels (IP, zoba, sub-zoba).
  3. A procurement plan should be drafted right at project’s start up in order to avoid delayed deliveries of transport, material, tools… (E.g. motorbikes, hand tools for this particular project still not yet handed over although the project has been closed 9 months ago).
  4. As it is difficult to reward commitment and heavy workload of directly involved staff under NIM, extra activities benefitting project staff should be made directly available in order to enhance their managing capability; these include training courses or participation to study tours.
6

Review the land distribution process for some ‘phase I’ villages: The project still needs to address several shortcomings re. the land distribution process for at least 2 ‘phase I’ villages and inform villagers accordingly; in particular, a certain number of farmers have received low fertility plots with unusually high non-agricultural area, hence reducing the effective area for cultivation and creating tensions within the villages; indeed the cultivable area in some plots is so low that some farmers abandoned altogether the area and preferred to invest their labour in other IGAs or lend it to other farmers; some dialogue should be engaged with the village committees to review the land distribution process for some farmers.

7

Support the introduction of the new land tenure system in the remaining 23 ‘phase II’ villages: At TE stage, the distribution process has not yet been initiated for the remaining 23 villages and should be finalised as soon as possible – possibly after the harvesting season -.

Finalise hand tools distribution: extra hand tools for low-fertility farmers were initially distributed to the 5 ‘phase I’ villages; this process should be finalised for the remaining 23 villages following the land distribution. 

8

Finalise the procurement of transport means benefitting sub-zoba technical staff:  Despite a procurement process initiated 2 years ago, the equipment for the sub-zoba (motorbikes) has still not yet been handed-over (issue of plate registration); hence the need for a comprehensive procurement plan at project start up (as mentioned above under action #1.5).

9

Finalise the procurement of transport means benefitting sub-zoba technical staff:  Despite a procurement process initiated 2 years ago, the equipment for the sub-zoba (motorbikes) has still not yet been handed-over (issue of plate registration); hence the need for a comprehensive procurement plan at project start up (as mentioned above under action #1.5).

10

Measure project’s results and impact: In order to assess the project success (with reference to the above mentioned weaknesses of the monitoring system), it is necessary to formally review the project results and refer to the baseline to assess the actual project’s impact through a separate study and a national workshop to explain benefits, limitations, ways forward to replicate.

Finalise land use planning / mapping support: as soon as the land distribution process is finalised, the DoL and sub-zoba should finalise the land use maps and hand over the sub-zoba / village / individual life-long usufruct land certificates (land plot number, beneficiary name…).

11

Finalise land use planning / mapping support: as soon as the land distribution process is finalised, the DoL and sub-zoba should finalise the land use maps and hand over the sub-zoba / village / individual life-long usufruct land certificates (land plot number, beneficiary name…).

12

Create an updated SLM committee once the impact assessment has been carried out: The objective is to review the impact assessment study through the establishment of a multidisciplinary working group (at least MoA, MoLWE, MoND) - ‘knowledge management system / KMS’ - and to review the requirements for mainstreaming the new SLM model into the legal framework.

13

Engage into a replication process of the new SLM model: The above mentioned committee should hold high-level discussions at national level to draft a plan to roll-out the new SLM project at national level through (i) amending the key documents to make specific references to the land proclamation in relevant line ministries policies, strategies and programs and (ii) including in all future donor / GoE-funded interventions focussing on SLM sufficient additional financial resources to change the land tenure system prior to/in combination with future SLM projects and programmes.

1. Recommendation:

 On-time baseline study and results assessment: Because the project was interrupted for a long time, the baseline study was eventually completed by mid-2015; still, it is surprising that it was not initiated right at project start-up in 2009/2010; baselines studies are key to understanding the project’s impact and need to be completed as soon as possible; in this particular case nonetheless, the study did not become outdated and is still highly relevant. The baseline study should be matched with a results / impact assessment; this is most critical as RBM is not systematic / formalised under NIM; hence project resources should be planned for that purpose at formulation stage.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/11/30] [Last Updated: 2018/01/02]

Fully agree. The baseline study should have been conducted before the beginning of project implementation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This will be taken as a lesson and will be shared with other units and key stakeholders.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager 2018/02 Completed History
2. Recommendation:

National level activities not to be piloted from zoba level: National, regional and sub-zoba level activities to be planned, funded, monitored and reported by relevant implementers: the decentralisation process is only relevant if the decentralised entity does have the authority and capability to effectively implement the planned activities; therefore activities that require national stakeholders’ support should be implemented at national level; activities decentralised at zoba and sub-zoba levels can be successfully implemented only if there is enough managing capacity ; this means that measures (material, transport, monitoring capacity…) should be taken under NIM to ensure that the IP and the actual executing entity does have the capacity to fully implement the interventions’ activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2017/12/13] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]

 Partially agree: Zoba and sub zoba who are the lead stakeholders had enough managing capacity and capability to effectively implement the planned activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This will be taken as lesson learned for improvement of future interventions.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and key stakeholders 2018/02 Completed History
3. Recommendation:

Seconded national staff to be assigned as project manager or PMU set-up: Donor funded interventions should be managed by fully-dedicated staff national; it is best to avoid assigning senior staff (in particular Department, Division’s Heads) that have to share many responsibilities as it is difficult for them to be exclusively dedicated to one only intervention as they are needed for other senior tasks. It is more appropriate to assign less senior staff 100% available as project manager; alternatively, should there be no available 100% dedicated staff, externalisation should be sought and a PMU set up.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Yes, so far there is no PMU for all projects and programmes. Discussions with concerned ministries for the establishment of project management unit (PMU) still in progress and waiting for government decision. As a best practice, for all projects Government always assign most senior staffs as project coordinators.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Efforts will be made to hire project coordinators.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and key stakeholders. 2018/02 Completed History
4. Recommendation:

Project managing team to be fully conversant with up-to-date planning, monitoring and reporting techniques: Under NIM, project-assigned staff/team should be trained prior to implementation on a systematic basis; this would require that the project formulation process defines a specific budget to be engaged right after the staff has been designated just before implementation and some provision made should there be  he staff should be donor funded interventions should be managed by fully-dedicated staff national; it is best to avoid provided they receive an extensive training at project’s start up.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

We do not agree: IP staffs are well conversant with all project implementation reporting procedures, rules and project management. Besides UNDP always provide HACT and Project Management training to newly recruited government staffs. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
We will continue training stakeholders staff on UN supported project implementation, reporting procedures, project management and other corporate requirements.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and key stakeholders. 2018/02 Completed History
5. Recommendation:

Implementation and M&E: Any donor-funded management structure should fit as closely as possible NIM but propose incremental improvements:

  1. Narrative and financial reporting to relevant committee/hierarchical superiors: there is currently no expenditure reporting as per project work plan; this significantly degrades the ability of the IP to effectively monitor the project’s efficiency and assess how effectively the project is being implemented.
  2. Projects should have a formal reporting format for both activity and results monitoring: results assessment is essentially reported directly at APIR level by the NPC; the information is based on both activity-based reporting by relevant stakeholders and the Site Manager and his findings through monitoring visits; the monitoring system should be more strongly based on results monitoring at all project implementation levels (IP, zoba, sub-zoba).
  3. A procurement plan should be drafted right at project’s start up in order to avoid delayed deliveries of transport, material, tools… (E.g. motorbikes, hand tools for this particular project still not yet handed over although the project has been closed 9 months ago).
  4. As it is difficult to reward commitment and heavy workload of directly involved staff under NIM, extra activities benefitting project staff should be made directly available in order to enhance their managing capability; these include training courses or participation to study tours.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

We fully agree.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This will be discussed with key stakeholders to facilitate the field staff with required materials for smooth implementation of future interventions.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and key stakeholders. 2018/02 Completed History
6. Recommendation:

Review the land distribution process for some ‘phase I’ villages: The project still needs to address several shortcomings re. the land distribution process for at least 2 ‘phase I’ villages and inform villagers accordingly; in particular, a certain number of farmers have received low fertility plots with unusually high non-agricultural area, hence reducing the effective area for cultivation and creating tensions within the villages; indeed the cultivable area in some plots is so low that some farmers abandoned altogether the area and preferred to invest their labour in other IGAs or lend it to other farmers; some dialogue should be engaged with the village committees to review the land distribution process for some farmers.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02] [Last Updated: 2018/01/02]

We fully agree: Yes, out of 28 villages the five villages (Phase I) were selected as a pilot and the land distribution was conducted on draw basis. As the project was first of its kind during implementation many issues and short coming were encountered. To address this issue a land committee consisted of technical experts has been established not to repeat them during the land distribution for the remaining 23 villages (Phase II). Discussions among communities, sub zoba administration and ministries is still going to review the land distribution process for some farmers within the two villages.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussion among key stakeholders to review the land distribution process and take corrective actions.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and key stakeholders 2018/02 Completed History
7. Recommendation:

Support the introduction of the new land tenure system in the remaining 23 ‘phase II’ villages: At TE stage, the distribution process has not yet been initiated for the remaining 23 villages and should be finalised as soon as possible – possibly after the harvesting season -.

Finalise hand tools distribution: extra hand tools for low-fertility farmers were initially distributed to the 5 ‘phase I’ villages; this process should be finalised for the remaining 23 villages following the land distribution. 

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Done as per the recommendation: Land distribution for all the remining 23 villages successfully completed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Land distribution to the remaining 23 villages was finalized as recommended.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and stakeholders. 2017/10 Completed History
8. Recommendation:

Finalise the procurement of transport means benefitting sub-zoba technical staff:  Despite a procurement process initiated 2 years ago, the equipment for the sub-zoba (motorbikes) has still not yet been handed-over (issue of plate registration); hence the need for a comprehensive procurement plan at project start up (as mentioned above under action #1.5).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Hand tools distribution completed. Distribution of wheel barrows is in progress.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Hand tools were distributed to all beneficiaries and distribution of Wheelbarrow is in progress.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manager and stakeholders. 2017/10 Completed History
9. Recommendation:

Finalise the procurement of transport means benefitting sub-zoba technical staff:  Despite a procurement process initiated 2 years ago, the equipment for the sub-zoba (motorbikes) has still not yet been handed-over (issue of plate registration); hence the need for a comprehensive procurement plan at project start up (as mentioned above under action #1.5).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

We agree with the recommendation: Yes, due to the new government policy on issuance of registration for vehicles the motor bikes are still not yet been handed-over to sub zoba project office (MoA). Waiting for decision.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussion with the key stakeholders will continue to solve the problem.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management, project manager and key stakeholders. 2018/02 Completed History
10. Recommendation:

Measure project’s results and impact: In order to assess the project success (with reference to the above mentioned weaknesses of the monitoring system), it is necessary to formally review the project results and refer to the baseline to assess the actual project’s impact through a separate study and a national workshop to explain benefits, limitations, ways forward to replicate.

Finalise land use planning / mapping support: as soon as the land distribution process is finalised, the DoL and sub-zoba should finalise the land use maps and hand over the sub-zoba / village / individual life-long usufruct land certificates (land plot number, beneficiary name…).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

The recommendation is acceptable

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
This recommendation will be discussed with the key stakeholders
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management, project manager and key stakeholders. 2018/03 Completed History
11. Recommendation:

Finalise land use planning / mapping support: as soon as the land distribution process is finalised, the DoL and sub-zoba should finalise the land use maps and hand over the sub-zoba / village / individual life-long usufruct land certificates (land plot number, beneficiary name…).

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Land distribution for all 28 villages finalised. Land use map was completed and handed over earlier to sub zoba administration. Issuance of Life-long usufruct land certificates for individuals is in progress.

 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Land distribution and land use map were completed. Issuance of life long usufruct land certificate for beneficiaries is in progress.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Project manger and stakeholders. 2017/10 Completed History
12. Recommendation:

Create an updated SLM committee once the impact assessment has been carried out: The objective is to review the impact assessment study through the establishment of a multidisciplinary working group (at least MoA, MoLWE, MoND) - ‘knowledge management system / KMS’ - and to review the requirements for mainstreaming the new SLM model into the legal framework.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Fully agree: IP agreed to establish a task force consisted of the main stake holders and decided to conduct the impact assessment in 2018.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussion with stakeholders will continue to conduct impact assessment.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management, project manager and key stakeholders. 2017/10 Completed History
13. Recommendation:

Engage into a replication process of the new SLM model: The above mentioned committee should hold high-level discussions at national level to draft a plan to roll-out the new SLM project at national level through (i) amending the key documents to make specific references to the land proclamation in relevant line ministries policies, strategies and programs and (ii) including in all future donor / GoE-funded interventions focussing on SLM sufficient additional financial resources to change the land tenure system prior to/in combination with future SLM projects and programmes.

Management Response: [Added: 2018/01/02]

Fully agree: Yes, after the successful completion of the project government is ready to adopt replication. It was suggested/agreed to wait another three years to see the impact of the new land tenure system and SLM practices in the 28 villages to decide for replication.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Discussion with key stakeholders will continue to replicate the project in other sites.
[Added: 2018/01/09] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
Senior management, project manager and key stakeholders. 2017/09 Completed 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