Terminal Evaluation of Integrated Land and Ecosystem Management to Combat Land Degradation and Deforestation in Madhya Pradesh

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2013-2017, India
Evaluation Type:
Final Project
Planned End Date:
04/2016
Completion Date:
02/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
30,000

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document Madhya Pradesh SLEM Project Terminal Evaluation Report.pdf report English 2222.73 KB Posted 828
Title Terminal Evaluation of Integrated Land and Ecosystem Management to Combat Land Degradation and Deforestation in Madhya Pradesh
Atlas Project Number: 00057324
Evaluation Plan: 2013-2017, India
Evaluation Type: Final Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 02/2016
Planned End Date: 04/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. Others
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2014-2017)
  • 1. Output 2.5. Legal and regulatory frameworks, policies and institutions enabled to ensure the conservation, sustainable use, and access and benefit sharing of natural resources, biodiversity and ecosystems, in line with international conventions and national
Evaluation Budget(US $): 30,000
Source of Funding: Project Budget
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 3,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Andrew Laurie Consultant
Pradeep Kumar Mathur Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Integrated Land and Ecosystem Management to Combat Land Degradation and Deforestation in Madhya Pradesh
Evaluation Type: Terminal Evaluation
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-3
GEF Project ID: 3472
PIMS Number: 3512
Key Stakeholders:
Countries: INDIA
Comments:

Request to add the project evaluation as it was missed out during the development of the evaluation plan

Lessons
1.
  • Rigorous site planning and environmental and social impact assessment are required to coordinate pilot livelihood interventions to ensure maximum benefits in terms of scale, sustainability, and replicability.
  • Clarity of language is important in project documents. For example, under this project “degraded' and 'degradation' have been used ambiguously with regard to bamboo on the one hand and land in general on the other; and micro-watershed was never defined clearly.
  • Policy level and dissemination work should start early in projects such as this.
  • Technical assistance should be strategically planned and acted upon early in projects and consultants’ terms of reference should be subjected to careful scrutiny and follow-up.

Project decision making procedures should be tailored to achieving objectives and should not get bogged down in committees


Findings
1.

The project was well designed, bringing together ecological and socio-economic benefits in a multipronged and integrated community-based model for improving land and ecosystem quality. There was keen and active participation by the Madhya Pradesh Forest Department, and one of the major achievements of the project has been the strong relationships formed between the Forest Department and the village Joint Forest Management Committees, and mobilisation of poor villagers.

The objective of the project, which is to promote community driven SLEM at the landscape level, was achieved in that there is widespread approval of, and interest in the bamboo model in particular. The project’s logical framework includes many indicators but reflects insufficient thought about feasibility of measurement, and baselines. The Project Steering Committee included representatives from a wide range of state government departments, but there was little policy development to further SLEM in Madhya Pradesh. The main focus of the project has been on demonstration of the individual rights model for bamboo harvest.

This bamboo pilot (RDBF) has been successful right through to harvest and the distribution of income in one district, and has been instrumental in identifying snags in others where the harvest and the distribution of income have been held up pending clarification of state-level directives. The necessary policy level clarification and Government’s Resolution were awaited even after six years of project implementation.

The other six livelihood interventions at the field level were very well received and achieved considerable success in promoting the ideas of sustainable livelihoods. However, they were implemented in a rather piecemeal fashion and were not sufficiently coordinated spatially or conceptually with each other and with the RDBF pilots. The design called for integration of all components in discrete watersheds, and for systematic tracking of impact indicators over the life of the project, but neither of these were delivered. Although adequate provision was made in the project design for technical assistance, the project was late to engage technical advice, and terms of reference were inappropriately formulated to achieve expected project results


Recommendations
1

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 1. State government should issue an appropriate notification to clarify the legality of the bamboo harvest rights model.

2

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 2. A closing workshop should be held to summarize and publicize the achievements of the project and to identify and obtain commitments for future actions.

3

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 3.  The bamboo harvest rights model should be incorporated into other forest department programs on bamboo plantations and degraded land.

 

4

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 4.  Discussions should take place immediately with the State Bamboo Mission and the National Bamboo Mission in order to widen the potential impact of project results.

 

5

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 5.  Feed project results and experience into the current GEF/World Bank Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project under implementation in the Satpura Landscape, and the forthcoming World Bank funded Ecosystem Services Improvement Project

 

1. Recommendation:

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 1. State government should issue an appropriate notification to clarify the legality of the bamboo harvest rights model.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2016/12/26]

Noted and initiated.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
1.1 As per the JFM resolution existing in the state and under the National Forest Policy, the regional Forest Officers have involved the bamboo beneficiaries for harvesting, sale and distribution of profit
[Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
PMU and MP Forest Department. 2019/01 Completed The activity is completed and the project is closed History
1.2 Local poor families have been further involved in a planned manner through various existing schemes for working on new areas for RDBF in some Forest Divisions
[Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
MPFD/ State Bamboo Mission/ MGNREGA 2019/01 Completed The activity is completed and the project is closed. History
2. Recommendation:

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 2. A closing workshop should be held to summarize and publicize the achievements of the project and to identify and obtain commitments for future actions.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2016/12/26]

Noted and addressed.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
2.1 District level workshops were organized by the respective regional officials
[Added: 2016/12/26]
MPFD 2019/01 Completed
2.2 The State bamboo Mission organized a buyer-seller meet which had active participation from the project districts
[Added: 2016/12/26]
MPFD 2019/01 Completed
3. Recommendation:

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 3.  The bamboo harvest rights model should be incorporated into other forest department programs on bamboo plantations and degraded land.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2016/12/26]

Noted and initiated.

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
3.1 In many of the Forest Divisions, the RDBF model has been considered for involving the local communities through various government schemes like MGNREGA, MPSRLM, IWMP etc.
[Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
MPFD, local governance models for state and centre sponsored schemes etc. 2019/01 Completed History
4. Recommendation:

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 4.  Discussions should take place immediately with the State Bamboo Mission and the National Bamboo Mission in order to widen the potential impact of project results.

 

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2016/12/26]

Noted and initiated

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
4.1 The State Bamboo Mission has recognized the project districts for their own mission objectives and coverage for bamboo based agroforestry plantations etc.
[Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
State Bamboo Mission and MPFD 2019/01 Completed History
5. Recommendation:

Terminal Evaluation recommendation 5.  Feed project results and experience into the current GEF/World Bank Biodiversity Conservation and Rural Livelihoods Improvement Project under implementation in the Satpura Landscape, and the forthcoming World Bank funded Ecosystem Services Improvement Project

 

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2016/12/26]

Noted and initiated

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
5.1 Under the World bank aided BCRLIP project, all the villages / areas of UNDP project has been considered for development initiatives. This has extended the involvement of the local communities/ stakeholders for furthering the agenda of addressing land degradation along with livelihood based issues.
[Added: 2016/12/26] [Last Updated: 2019/02/01]
MPFD/ World bank BCRLIP project unit in PCCF, W/L office 2019/01 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