Terminal Evaluation of the ?Capacity Building and Knowledge Management for Sustainable Land Management in Lesotho? project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2018, Lesotho
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2015
Completion Date:
04/2015
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
11,132

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Terminal Evaluation Terms of Reference (4)- revised.docx tor English 91.28 KB Posted 549
Download document Final report UNDP SLM_14 April_clean1.pdf report English 3505.60 KB Posted 1117
Title Terminal Evaluation of the ?Capacity Building and Knowledge Management for Sustainable Land Management in Lesotho? project
Atlas Project Number: 00063046
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2018, Lesotho
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2015
Planned End Date: 04/2015
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 5.5. Policy frameworks and institutional mechanisms enabled at the national and sub-national levels for the peaceful management of emerging and recurring conflicts and tensions
Evaluation Budget(US $): 11,132
Source of Funding: GEF
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Ms Jessica Troni Lead Consultant jessica.troni@outlook.com
GEF Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Type:
Focal Area: Land Degradation
Project Type: MSP
GEF Phase: GEF-5
PIMS Number: 3044
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: LESOTHO
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1 Constitute a Strategic Investment Progamme Board. It is clear that better ways must be found to engage other ministries for cross-government learning and strengthened policy making. The CSIF's primary recommendations is to legally establish a Programme investment board as the key inter-sectoral coordination mechanism at central government level. Useful collaborations might be forged with the Ministry of Economic Development & Planning to enable policy and investment linkages of SLM to wider economic planning, for example, in issues around market access.
2 Establish a programmatic approach to dual-focused project steering committee meetings. This would be another way to strengthen cross-government collaboration and learning on SLM-relevant initiatives. In essence, day 1 would be dedicated to a results-based substantive discussion. Separate, management/logistical discussions could be taken on a separate day by the project Implementing Partner.
3 Incentivising ministry staff to work with the project through non-monetary incentives, given the limitations present in civil service salary pay-scales and difference in relation to private sector market rates. These non-market incentives could be especially important to offer as a reward to technical staff willing to move to the field for a period of time.
4 Consider how ministry staff time is used. A greater de-concentration of ministry staff would deliver better support services to communities and help to support continuation of these GAs. Sub-contracting to the private sector on issues of construction is likely to work better based on the principle of payment on delivery. This essentially means a change of role to a more facilitative, supervisory role, which is likely to need skills development, for example on conflict management and contract management skills.
5 Develop training standards for communities. This would comprise standardised training materials, Standard Operating Principles for organising these such as where best to hold the training events, how to develop a blended service mix of formal training and farmer-to-farmer learning and evaluation methodologies.
6 Use the CSIF as a platform to mainstream SLM in the next iteration of the National Strategic Development Plan, which is due to end in 2016/7. The starting point would be putting in place a process for institutional coordination, for which there are two possibilities and one recommendation in the CSIF. In addition, the CSIF contains a schedule of activities, some of which could serve to build awareness and political will to support the new National Range Resources Management Policy
7 Policy needs should frame the efforts on knowledge management and project data monitoring. It is suggested that sub-contracting responsibility for managing this work to a policy specialist would be necessary in order to draw in the necessary expertise and in order for the policy component to receive the necessary attention from the start.
8 Policy needs should frame the efforts on knowledge management and project data monitoring. It is suggested that sub-contracting responsibility for managing this work to a policy specialist would be necessary in order to draw in the necessary expertise and in order for the policy component to receive the necessary attention from the start.
9 Structure the monitoring exercise from the point of view of the policy questions that need answering in order keep the exercise contained, focused and cost effective.
10 Develop evaluative case studies on the different models under operation and success factors, in order to inform policy decisions on the choice of implementation strategies regarding range management. Given the wide gender disparities, the different roles of men and women and impacts on men and women should be explored
11 Support the continuation of the district-level project implementation forums which have had good feedback in bringing all relevant parties together.
12 Develop an engagement strategy with the Chiefs since they are a critical part of the range management system while the new system of democratic governance phases in, which could be a 10 year medium term prospect.
13 Community empowerment is part of the solution. Farmer to farmer learning blended with more conventional training should be continued.
14 Develop cost-output benchmarks that can be used for budget planning and control. Better understanding of costs (and benefits) of different implementation strategies can inform project design and ultimately lead to better value for money implementation as well as better results.
15 Training workstreams should be sub-contracted to professional training organisations, working closely to develop the materials and the training plan, possibly by establishing a partnership with the Lesotho Institute of Public Administration.
1. Recommendation: Constitute a Strategic Investment Progamme Board. It is clear that better ways must be found to engage other ministries for cross-government learning and strengthened policy making. The CSIF's primary recommendations is to legally establish a Programme investment board as the key inter-sectoral coordination mechanism at central government level. Useful collaborations might be forged with the Ministry of Economic Development & Planning to enable policy and investment linkages of SLM to wider economic planning, for example, in issues around market access.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19] [Last Updated: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation and future SLM related projects will take the recommendation into account. The recommendation of creating an institutional body for SLM interests and the inter-connectedness between its economic and environmental challenges, seems particularly relevant to Lesotho.

Key Actions:

2. Recommendation: Establish a programmatic approach to dual-focused project steering committee meetings. This would be another way to strengthen cross-government collaboration and learning on SLM-relevant initiatives. In essence, day 1 would be dedicated to a results-based substantive discussion. Separate, management/logistical discussions could be taken on a separate day by the project Implementing Partner.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

We agree with the recommendation, however instead of having dual-focused project steering committee meetings, we suggest a ?technical working group? and ?project Steering committee? where both groups constitute members from same Ministries but different representatives. One will focus on technical aspects, results-based substantive discussion while the other deals with management/logistical discussions

Key Actions:

3. Recommendation: Incentivising ministry staff to work with the project through non-monetary incentives, given the limitations present in civil service salary pay-scales and difference in relation to private sector market rates. These non-market incentives could be especially important to offer as a reward to technical staff willing to move to the field for a period of time.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

We agree with the recommendation and will incorporate this in up-coming GEF projects.

Key Actions:

4. Recommendation: Consider how ministry staff time is used. A greater de-concentration of ministry staff would deliver better support services to communities and help to support continuation of these GAs. Sub-contracting to the private sector on issues of construction is likely to work better based on the principle of payment on delivery. This essentially means a change of role to a more facilitative, supervisory role, which is likely to need skills development, for example on conflict management and contract management skills.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

We agree with the recommendation. However the implementation of this recommendation would require additional resources and a rather demanding arrangement and buy in by the MFLR.

Key Actions:

5. Recommendation: Develop training standards for communities. This would comprise standardised training materials, Standard Operating Principles for organising these such as where best to hold the training events, how to develop a blended service mix of formal training and farmer-to-farmer learning and evaluation methodologies.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

The recommendation is noted. The UNDP will ensure this is observed during implementation of future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

6. Recommendation: Use the CSIF as a platform to mainstream SLM in the next iteration of the National Strategic Development Plan, which is due to end in 2016/7. The starting point would be putting in place a process for institutional coordination, for which there are two possibilities and one recommendation in the CSIF. In addition, the CSIF contains a schedule of activities, some of which could serve to build awareness and political will to support the new National Range Resources Management Policy
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

We agree with the recommendation. The necessary steps were taken to raise awareness and political will to support some activities in this document, to the extent that the document was endorsed by the Government and submitted to the Ministry of Development Planning to source funds for its implementation.

Key Actions:

7. Recommendation: Policy needs should frame the efforts on knowledge management and project data monitoring. It is suggested that sub-contracting responsibility for managing this work to a policy specialist would be necessary in order to draw in the necessary expertise and in order for the policy component to receive the necessary attention from the start.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/19]

We agree with recommendation and will ensure this is observed in implementation of future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

8. Recommendation: Policy needs should frame the efforts on knowledge management and project data monitoring. It is suggested that sub-contracting responsibility for managing this work to a policy specialist would be necessary in order to draw in the necessary expertise and in order for the policy component to receive the necessary attention from the start.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with recommendation and will ensure this is observed in implementation of future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

9. Recommendation: Structure the monitoring exercise from the point of view of the policy questions that need answering in order keep the exercise contained, focused and cost effective.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with recommendation and will ensure this is observed in implementation of future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

10. Recommendation: Develop evaluative case studies on the different models under operation and success factors, in order to inform policy decisions on the choice of implementation strategies regarding range management. Given the wide gender disparities, the different roles of men and women and impacts on men and women should be explored
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We fully agree with the recommendation and will ensure compliance in similar future GEF projects. The UNDP is working hard to ensure that all its projects consider and report on impacts on gender.

Key Actions:

11. Recommendation: Support the continuation of the district-level project implementation forums which have had good feedback in bringing all relevant parties together.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation. Continuation of the district forum is one of the key activities in the project exit strategy. The forum was operational in 2014, during the period of implementation extension, without the project support. This is a good sign that continuity is already happening and will be sustained.

Key Actions:

12. Recommendation: Develop an engagement strategy with the Chiefs since they are a critical part of the range management system while the new system of democratic governance phases in, which could be a 10 year medium term prospect.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation. The chiefs are already an integral part of the local government structure. They are members of the community council.

Key Actions:

13. Recommendation: Community empowerment is part of the solution. Farmer to farmer learning blended with more conventional training should be continued.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation. This was the practice throughout the project implementation phase and it requires strengthening.

Key Actions:

14. Recommendation: Develop cost-output benchmarks that can be used for budget planning and control. Better understanding of costs (and benefits) of different implementation strategies can inform project design and ultimately lead to better value for money implementation as well as better results.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation and will ensure compliance in future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

15. Recommendation: Training workstreams should be sub-contracted to professional training organisations, working closely to develop the materials and the training plan, possibly by establishing a partnership with the Lesotho Institute of Public Administration.
Management Response: [Added: 2015/05/20]

We agree with the recommendation and will be ensure compliance in future GEF projects.

Key Actions:

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