Protected Area Systems Programme - Terminal Evaluation Report

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
01/2016
Completion Date:
04/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
50,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Kenya Protected Areas TE report final draft updated 28 April 2016 (002).pdf report English 1778.36 KB Posted 291
Download document PAS Terminal Evaluation TOR.pdf tor English 528.51 KB Posted 200
Title Protected Area Systems Programme - Terminal Evaluation Report
Atlas Project Number: 58356
Evaluation Plan: 2014-2018, Kenya
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 04/2016
Planned End Date: 01/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 1.1. National and sub-national systems and institutions enabled to achieve structural transformation of productive capacities that are sustainable and employment - and livelihoods- intensive
Evaluation Budget(US $): 50,000
Source of Funding: Project Funds
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: Yes
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Sean White Consultant Ireland
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Strengthening the Protected Area Network of the Eastern Montane Forest Hotspot of Kenya
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-4
GEF Project ID: 3693
PIMS Number: 4178
Key Stakeholders: Kenya Forestry services, National Environment Management Authority GEF UNDP
Countries: KENYA
Lessons
1.

The participatory project design process helped to build trust and collaboration between the future implementing partners and ensured the project objectives were in line with local priorities. The co-funding requirement also helped to ensure the project was relevant to local needs. The targets for reclassification of PAs to a higher protection status proved to be too ambitious. Most other targets were realistic and achievable but risks and assumptions were weak and the project results framework had some overlaps between components.

This was a complex project requiring collaboration between several government and non-government stakeholders. The strategy of implementing the project through an independent NGO (Nature Kenya) worked very well. The planned implementation arrangements were revised at the beginning of the project but insufficient consideration was given to staffing requirements in the revision especially in relation to M&E. The Site Advisory Committees worked very effectively at the field level and were an effective mechanism for ensuring local ownership of project interventions.

Monitoring and Evaluation on the project was weak and more detailed project progress reports and financial reports would have improved management effectiveness and efficiency and adaptive management. 


Findings
1.

1.0 Project Design / Formulation

Overall the project objective and components are clear and feasible within the project timescale. The three project components are fairly clear although there is some overlap in the targets in the results framework with targets for Community Conservation Areas and Joint Forest Management appearing in both components 1 and 2.

Parts of the results framework shows there has been confusion between outcomes and indicators. Also, at the objective level in the project results framework, the three indicators listed are not key performance indicators but summaries of the targets for the three components, so there is overlap between that column and the “Target by End of Project” column.

1.1 Assumptions and Risks

The risks and assumptions were not well articulated in the project document. A number of risk factors were identified but assumptions were not identified and discussed, yet there were important assumptions underlying the project design.

1.2 Planned stakeholder participation

The multi stakeholder collaborative approach started at the project planning stage and was carried on through implementation. The project document included a stakeholder involvement plan that included roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, stakeholder participation principles and a plan for long term stakeholder participation. During implementation, at the ecosystem levels and field levels the Site Advisory Committees provided a key forum for stakeholder participation and helped to increase ownership of project activities, while the project Technical Advisory Committee/Steering Committee achieved the same at the national level.

The County Governments were established mid-way through the project and have become important project partners in the last two years of implementation. They became members of the Site Advisory Committees and are expected to assume a key role in supporting the CFAs after the withdrawal of Nature Kenya and UNDP.

1.3 Replication approach

The project design was in line with the best biodiversity management practices internationally and incorporated relevant lessons from past experience with similar projects in Kenya. It was expected to demonstrate a biodiversity conservation model involving participation by different stakeholders at different levels that could be replicated in other parts of Kenya. As all the key institutions involved in biodiversity conservation in Kenya were implementing partners, the project provided an ideal environment for learning and capacity building and encouraging replication of the model in other parts of the country.

1.4 UNDP comparative advantage

UNDP has a Country Office in Kenya staffed mainly by Kenyans which ensures the context is well understood and its development plans will be practical and achievable. UNDP has a history of engagement with biodiversity conservation in Kenya and has worked with Nature Kenya in the past implementing an earlier project on community based conservation around IBA’s (African NGO-Government Partnerships for Sustainable Biodiversity Action RAF/97/G31) which was implemented in 10 countries in Africa and ended in 2002. This background and experience means UNDP is well placed to design relevant, practical and achievable biodiversity projects in Kenya.

1.5 Management arrangements

The project implementation modality described in the project document is a complex arrangement involving the Ministry, Nature Kenya, UNDP, the PCU and Steering Committee which the evaluator struggled to understand. This arrangement was revised at the beginning of the project implementation.


Recommendations
1
  1. Reduce the cash component of co-funding requirement and increase the in-kind component as government implementing partners are usually cash poor but have substantial in-kind resources.
2

 

  1. The budget breakdown in the project document should include the co-funding component
3

 

  1. A more robust consideration of assumptions and risks is required at the planning stage
4
  1. A clear and unambiguous results framework with no overlaps is needed. 
5
  1. Revisions to project targets should be documented and formally approved.
6
  1. Revisions of project implementing arrangements should be documented and formally approved.
7
  1. Progress and financial reports should show progress against targets in the format of the results framework and project budget
8
  1. All projects need a comprehensive M&E plan and provision for staff to implement the plan.
9
  1. Financial reports should be produced in the format of the budget in the project
10
  1. Budgets and financial reports should include the cash components of co-financing.
11
  1. A standardized biodiversity monitoring framework is needed for Kenya which all stakeholders involved in Biodiversity monitoring can use.
12
  1. Identify and map the biodiversity hotspots within the areas already zoned for conservation in the forest management plans during the project, with a view to potentially reclassifying them to higher PA categories in future.
13
  1. Implement the plans developed during the project.
14
  1. Landscape and Forest station level plans should be integrated into County Development Plans
15
  1. County Governments should assume responsibility for supporting continued capacity building of CFAs.
16
  1. CFAs require funds. KFS should consider ways of sharing forest revenues as a way of funding CFAs.
17
  1. Completion of resource user agreements is an urgent priority to avoid disillusionment of CFA members.
18
  1. KFS should take up the coordinating role and capacity building role which Nature Kenya had during implementation. This would include coordinating counties at the ecosystem level, providing capacity building support to Counties and coordinating the various institutions involved in forest management.
19
  1. The Site Advisory Committees should be reformed at the County level and provide support to the County Governments and act on their behalf, including acting as a mediator between CFAs and Forest Stations
20
  1. Update State of the Environment Reports annually and integrate any changes into County Development plans.
21
  1. Compile and document biodiversity survey data collected during the project.
22
  1. Document the low-cost methodology for community based monitoring of biodiversity focusing on threatened species.
23
  1. Lessons learned and project successes should be documented.
24
  1. Areas of high biodiversity within the Community Conservation Areas established during the project should be identified and mapped with the aim of gazetting them as National Monuments.
25
  1. Project partners should work with KWS to develop a standardized biodiversity monitoring framework for Kenya which is compatible with international (IUCN) standards which can be used for biodiversity monitoring by all organisations in Kenya.
26
  1. Develop new baselines for the three ecosystems using the agreed biodiversity monitoring framework and the data collected during the project.
1. Recommendation:
  1. Reduce the cash component of co-funding requirement and increase the in-kind component as government implementing partners are usually cash poor but have substantial in-kind resources.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The co-finance was based on staff, resources, infrastructure and operating capacity paid by government and other partners. This contribution is not in-kind as the government is putting in this cash on the ground. For this project, the In-kind contributions were limited to local communities. Nature Kenya availed direct cash through donor funded projects because as an NGO it does not have core funding to support infrastructure and staff on the ground on a routine basis. UNDP availed cash co-finance as projected in the project document.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future Project Documents to cater for increase in in-kind contribution by Government
[Added: 2016/05/06]
UNDP & Government of Kenya No due date No Longer Applicable The Project ended
2. Recommendation:

 

  1. The budget breakdown in the project document should include the co-funding component
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The project document did capture the co-funding

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Done
[Added: 2016/05/06]
UNDP No due date Completed Completed
3. Recommendation:

 

  1. A more robust consideration of assumptions and risks is required at the planning stage
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The project risks were identified at initial stages of the project development. These risks were monitored throughout the project implementation and mitigation measures/adjustments done. However, some risks may not have been envisaged when the project was developed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project risks have been identified and monitored during implementation.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
UNDP & Nature Kenya No due date Completed Completed
4. Recommendation:
  1. A clear and unambiguous results framework with no overlaps is needed. 
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

 The results framework in the project document is robust. However, there were some typos that should have been corrected before the project document was signed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Future Project Documents to be proof read to avoid typos.
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP No due date Completed On-going projects are thoroughly reviewed to avoid typos.
5. Recommendation:
  1. Revisions to project targets should be documented and formally approved.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The project underwent mid-term review where it received comments on some of its target. The project has since worked on the recommendations 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Targets reviewed during the Mid-Term Review.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
UNDP No due date Completed Completed
6. Recommendation:
  1. Revisions of project implementing arrangements should be documented and formally approved.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The project used innovative measures to tackle the challenges posed by the implementation arrangement which outlined in the project document. For instance because it was difficult for the Principal Secretary of the Ministry of Environment to chair the project board meeting for an NGO (Nature), the project adopted an innovative strategy by having a senior officer from the Ministry of Environment co-chair meeting with UNDP. Moreover, the technical committee members representing all the key project partners regularly met to review project progress and approve work plans. This arrangement was done to ensure the bureaucracies does not affect the project delivery.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The implementation arrangement to be reviewed during inception period and at Mid-Term review.
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP & Implementing Partner No due date Completed Implemented for ongoing projects.
7. Recommendation:
  1. Progress and financial reports should show progress against targets in the format of the results framework and project budget
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The annual and quarterly progress and financial reports were done according to the UNDP reporting procedures.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP reporting procedures to be applied.
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP & Implementing Partner No due date Completed All on-going projects apply UNDP policies and procedures.
8. Recommendation:
  1. All projects need a comprehensive M&E plan and provision for staff to implement the plan.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

We agree that all projects required a comprehensive M&E plan. Nature Kenya had a dedicated M&E officer who was responsible for monitoring all projects including PAs.  The officer used Nature Kenya’s internal monitoring and evaluation plan to monitor implementation progress.   

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
M&E plans to be developed and implemented for all projects.
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP & Implementing Partner No due date Completed All projects develop and implement M&E plans
9. Recommendation:
  1. Financial reports should be produced in the format of the budget in the project
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

Nature Kenya used UNDP financial reporting procedures similar to other UNDP/GEF projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP financial procedures adopted
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP No due date No Longer Applicable Project ended
10. Recommendation:
  1. Budgets and financial reports should include the cash components of co-financing.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

Since the co-finance were not received directly by UNDP but as parallel initiative. Thus, the budget and financial reports only reflected the cash received by UNDP i.e. UNDP TRAC funds and GEF.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
UNDP reporting procedures applied
[Added: 2016/05/06] [Last Updated: 2016/10/31]
UNDP No due date No Longer Applicable Project ended
11. Recommendation:
  1. A standardized biodiversity monitoring framework is needed for Kenya which all stakeholders involved in Biodiversity monitoring can use.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

We welcome the recommendation and may adopt it for future biodiversity projects

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Standardized biodiversity monitoring framework to be used for future biodiversity projects
[Added: 2016/05/06]
UNDP No due date Initiated For future projects
12. Recommendation:
  1. Identify and map the biodiversity hotspots within the areas already zoned for conservation in the forest management plans during the project, with a view to potentially reclassifying them to higher PA categories in future.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The Participatory Forest Management Plans and Ecosystems plans that were developed by the project did identified and zoned as conservation areas.  

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Biodiversity hotspots identified and zoned.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Wildlife Service and Kenya Forest Service No due date Initiated On-going
13. Recommendation:
  1. Implement the plans developed during the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The Community Forest Associations were established by the project to implement the forest and ecosystems management plans

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The plans have been developed and currently implemented by the Community Forest Associations.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Forest Service and County Governement No due date Initiated On-going
14. Recommendation:
  1. Landscape and Forest station level plans should be integrated into County Development Plans
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The plans have been adopted by the County Governments and are now part of the Integrated County Development Plans (CIDP).

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The plans to be integrated into CIDP
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Forest Service and County Government No due date Initiated On-going
15. Recommendation:
  1. County Governments should assume responsibility for supporting continued capacity building of CFAs.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

Since the devolution was effected in 2013, Nature Kenya has worked closely with the county governments to ensure some of its activities such as capacity development of CFAs are added to the CIDP.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Capacity Development to be integrated in CIDP.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
County Government and Kenya Forest Service No due date Initiated On-going
16. Recommendation:
  1. CFAs require funds. KFS should consider ways of sharing forest revenues as a way of funding CFAs.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

We take accept this recommendation as co-sharing of revenue will enhance community ownership. KFS will explore ways of doing that.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Kenya Forest Service to explore ways of co-sharing revenue with local communities
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Forest Service No due date Initiated On-going
17. Recommendation:
  1. Completion of resource user agreements is an urgent priority to avoid disillusionment of CFA members.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

Nature Kenya will follow-up with the relevant institutions to ensure the agreements are completed and implemented.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Nature Kenya to follow up with relevant institutions
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Nature Kenya No due date Initiated On-going
18. Recommendation:
  1. KFS should take up the coordinating role and capacity building role which Nature Kenya had during implementation. This would include coordinating counties at the ecosystem level, providing capacity building support to Counties and coordinating the various institutions involved in forest management.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

KFS is one of the Responsible Parties under this project and we therefore envisage continuity of the project activities.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Liaison with Kenya Forest Service to ensure activities undertaken by the project are sustained.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Forest Service and Nature Kenya No due date Initiated On-going
19. Recommendation:
  1. The Site Advisory Committees should be reformed at the County level and provide support to the County Governments and act on their behalf, including acting as a mediator between CFAs and Forest Stations
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

In Kakamega and Nandi the County Executive Ministers have set up county Environment network which bring all stakeholders together.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Site Advisory Committees to be set-up in Kakamega and Nandi
[Added: 2016/05/06]
County Government No due date Initiated On-going
20. Recommendation:
  1. Update State of the Environment Reports annually and integrate any changes into County Development plans.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

NEMA as one of the Responsible Parties will take up the responsibility of updating State of Environment Reports

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Annual revision of State of Environment Report
[Added: 2016/05/06]
National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) No due date Initiated On-going
21. Recommendation:
  1. Compile and document biodiversity survey data collected during the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

In collaboration with National Museum of Kenya (NMK) and Site Support groups, Nature Kenya is doing a write up to be used by the management and other stakeholders

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Write-up to be done.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
National Museum of Kenya and Nature Kenya No due date Initiated On-going
22. Recommendation:
  1. Document the low-cost methodology for community based monitoring of biodiversity focusing on threatened species.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

NMK is refining a draft report already prepared by the project and the final document will serve as guideline for low cost community engagement in biodiversity monitoring

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Draft report of community based monitoring of biodiversity to be prepared by Nature Kenya
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Nature Kenya and National Museum of Kenya No due date Initiated On-going
23. Recommendation:
  1. Lessons learned and project successes should be documented.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The lessons are currently being document by Nature Kenya

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Lessons being documented
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Nature Kenya No due date Initiated On-going
24. Recommendation:
  1. Areas of high biodiversity within the Community Conservation Areas established during the project should be identified and mapped with the aim of gazetting them as National Monuments.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

Nature Kenya is working closely with the County Government for an appropriate gazettement measures

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The identified areas of high biodiversity to be submitted to County Government for gazettement.
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Nature Kenya and Kenya Forest Service No due date Initiated On-going
25. Recommendation:
  1. Project partners should work with KWS to develop a standardized biodiversity monitoring framework for Kenya which is compatible with international (IUCN) standards which can be used for biodiversity monitoring by all organisations in Kenya.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

KWS has begun the process of developing such monitoring framework for Kenya. The project partners are working closely with KWS and making contributions to achieve the standard.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Standardized biodiversity monitoring framework for Kenya to be developed by Kenya Wildlife Service
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Kenya Wildlife Service No due date Initiated On-going
26. Recommendation:
  1. Develop new baselines for the three ecosystems using the agreed biodiversity monitoring framework and the data collected during the project.
Management Response: [Added: 2016/05/05]

The project partners (NMK, KWS and KFS) and Nature Kenya are compiling biodiversity status report from the research done during the project implementation phase. The information will form a baseline for future programme and intervention on biodiversity conservation.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Biodiversity status report compiled by project partners
[Added: 2016/05/06]
Project Partners - National Museum of Kenya,Kenya Wildlife Service and Kenya Forest Service No due date Initiated On-going

Latest Evaluations

Contact us

220 East 42nd Street
20th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel. +1 646 781 4200
Fax. +1 646 781 4213
erc.support@undp.org