Terminal Evaluation for Kidepo Project

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2020, Uganda
Evaluation Type:
Project
Planned End Date:
07/2019
Completion Date:
02/2020
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
No
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Title Terminal Evaluation for Kidepo Project
Atlas Project Number: 00072558
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2020, Uganda
Evaluation Type: Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2020
Planned End Date: 07/2019
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. 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
SDG Goal
  • Goal 7. Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all
SDG Target
  • 7.1 By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services
  • 7.2 By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 40,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Richard Sobey international consultant timosobey@gmail.com
Michael Mbogga National consultant michael.mbogga@gmail.com UGANDA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Threatened Savanna Woodland in the Kidepo Critical Landscape in North Eastern Uganda.
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID: 00085611
PIMS Number: PIMS-4592
Key Stakeholders: National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
Countries: UGANDA
Comments:

I will send the board minutes of 28th April 2017 in a separate email.

Lessons
1.

Once a conservation area has been legally established, which KCWA is, then an integrated conservation and development (ICD) model often used to be applied.  The preferred approach these days is collaborative management (co-management) of biodiversity conservation areas, which aims to bring and share management responsibility with the local communities and their local governments.  This has not really happened yet in the KCWA.  Rather piecemeal approaches are underway, such as the CWSs and the establishment of the Karenga Community Wildlife Association.  The exclusion of local government from the (co-) management of KCWA is thus a major oversight by UWA, with at least a section within UWA intent on keeping this status quo.    


2.

The problem is that the main threat is land conversion which is not being addressed under the present UWA approach.  In 10-15 years maybe 30-40% of present habitat will be lost, especially with Karenga being developed into a new district.  Another threat is the increase in cattle which again is not under the remit of UWA, but rather local government as is concerns the management of natural resources.  Thirdly vegetation burning which is degrading the habitats, is uncontrolled and needs to be addressed by local government.

 


3.

KCWA covers several sub-counties across three districts which adds to its management challenge, especially when local government are not coordinated for conservation of this area, and traditionally UWA’s work with them has been limited.  The KCWA Board of Trustee’s (BoT) purpose is to maximize revenue from sport-hunting.  KCWA lacks any management plan or active management team, or even committee that is representative of the local government offices with the responsibility for land tenure and natural resources management. 

 


4.

Tourism is needed as the approach to raise sufficient revenue to make wildlife conservation more attractive than other land uses to local government and local indigenous and local communities (ILCs).  This also means that such revenues are transparent and shared in an equitable way.  For the KVNP / KCWA and its surrounds under UWA management, this is far from the case at present.

Communities need to become integral to the conservation management of KCWA.  At present, they get very limited in-kind benefits.  This does not empower them effectively for collaborative conservation management.  The ‘benefits’ they get can be equated with ‘welfare’ payments, thus it is highly likely that land conversion within the wildlife corridor will continue.  Involving communities in conservation should include wildlife monitoring, not just human-wildlife conflict reporting.  District and sub-county governments need to take responsibility for land conversion, as this aspect of conservation management is ‘conspicuous by its absence’, especially by Kaabong district government.

 


5.

In 2018, Uganda began a review of its National Policy for the Conservation of Wetlands and Management of Wetland Resources, with the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) as the lead.  This is an opportunity (for NEMA and NFA) to re-assess part of the KCL from a landscape ecology and habitat prospective.  In particular, to re-assess the seasonal wetlands in the Kacheri – Orom area, for gazettement as protected wetland estate.  The KCWA was established as a hunting concession, but is not fit for purpose for wildlife (habitat) protection.  UWA wish for full protected area status of KCWA4.  The opportunity is there to supersede the inflexibility of the KCWA trustee board and local government / village leaders, by raising the profile of this all-important wetland through a national level consultation, with a view to it becoming protected wetland, especially in its southern part.


6.

Uganda is a signatory to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which promotes the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings.  It is known that KVNP alone is not a viable area for the large mammal (mainly ungulate) species present, especially in terms of sufficient all-year habitat and for out-breeding populations of certain species.  It needs to be augmented by Karenga Community Wildlife Area (KCWA) and the fuller wildlife migration and dispersal area with the KCL (see dispersal map in Annex 5).  


Findings
1.

1.    Monitoring & Evaluation

Rating

2.    Implementing Agency (UNDP) & Executing Agency / Partner (NEMA) Execution

Rating

Overall quality of M&E

MU

Overall quality of Implementation / Execution

MU

M&E Design at entry

MS

Quality of UNDP Implementation

MS

M&E Implementation

MU

Quality of Execution – NEMA / UWA / NFA

MU

3.    Assessment of Outcomes

Rating

4.    Sustainability

Rating

Overall Project Outcome (Objective)

MS

Overall Likelihood of Sustainability

MU

Effectiveness of Outcome 1

MS

Financial resources

MU

Effectiveness of Outcome 2

MS

Socio-economic

MU

Efficiency

MS

Institutional framework & governance

MU

Relevance

Relevant

Environmental

MU

5.    Impact

Rating

 

 

Impact

Minimal

 

 

 

 

 


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