Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in the Miombo Woodlands of Western Tanzania (PIMS 3091) Mid-term Review Final Report

Report Cover Image
Evaluation Plan:
2016-2021, Tanzania
Evaluation Type:
Mid Term Project
Planned End Date:
09/2016
Completion Date:
08/2016
Status:
Completed
Management Response:
Yes
Evaluation Budget(US $):
35,000

Share

Title Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in the Miombo Woodlands of Western Tanzania (PIMS 3091) Mid-term Review Final Report
Atlas Project Number: 00078484
Evaluation Plan: 2016-2021, Tanzania
Evaluation Type: Mid Term Project
Status: Completed
Completion Date: 08/2016
Planned End Date: 09/2016
Management Response: Yes
Focus Area:
  • 1. Environment & Sustainable Development
  • 2. 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 $): 35,000
Source of Funding: GEF
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 35,000
Joint Programme: No
Mandatory Evaluation: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nelson Gapare International Consultant
Professor John F. Kessy National Consultant
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Mainstreaming Sustainable Forest Management in the Miombo Woodlands of Western Tanzania (PIMS 3091)
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Biodiversity
Project Type: EA
GEF Phase: GEF-1
GEF Project ID: 3000
PIMS Number: 3091
Key Stakeholders: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism; Vice President's Office
Countries: TANZANIA (UNITED REPUBLIC OF )
Lessons
Findings
Recommendations
1

Recommendation 1, Issue 1: Strategic Reprioritization-75% of the cash budget has been used up with 2.5 years still remaining. Reprioritize outcome activities in a manner that strengthens the sustainability of activities that have already been implemented.

2

Recommendation 1 Issue 2: Strategic Reprioritization-It is highly recommended that instead of continuing to implement new activities that will otherwise be diluted, a strategic option will be to ensure implemented activities and interventions demonstrate success, otherwise there is a risk that the entire project will achieve only a weak and limited impact. This may require re-allocating the remaining funds under Outcomes 3 and 4 to balance the over- expenditure in outcomes 1 and 2 and strengthen interventions that offer the best opportunity for success.

3

Recommendation or Issue 2: Focus on co-finance resource mobilization - The project has not yet fully harnessed the potential co-financing resources from the tobacco companies. As a matter of priority, efforts should be made to establish formal arrangements for tobacco companies to support of fund certain activities or offer cash finance to the project to undertake implementation. This discussion needs to happen urgently with the tobacco companies and any other potential donors

4

Recommendation3 Issue 1: Reduce non-core expenditure – There is disproportionate level of expenditure (DSA and travel). This expenditure (DSA& travel) should be rationalized and reduced through re-strategizing modalities for project monitoring and reporting.

5

Recommendation 3 Issue 2: Reduce non-core expenditure- One option is aligning the DSA rate to the government rate as implemented in the Kilimanjaro Project.

6

Recommendation 4 Issue 1:  Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and inefficiencies - The implementation strategy is not responsive to the geographic dispersion of project activities leading to significant inefficiencies. Acknowledging the limited resources and long travel distances, the suggested strengthening of coordination with RTT and increasing the capacity of DFTs and village authorities is the most logical approach to increase the frequency of monitoring of activities that are at greater risk, such as small livestock.

7

Recommendation 4 Issue 2: Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and Inefficiencies-As noted, there are 30 combined RTT and DFT staff members and 19 members who now have skills in climate-resilient SFM and hence can provide local level support to increase the intensity of monitoring at this project stage in preparation for up-scaling of activities.

8

Recommendation 4 Issue 3: Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and inefficiencies-Where consultants are contracted, ensure compliance with procurement regulations by imposing quality assurance. For instance, payments for goods and services should only made upon satisfactory completion of assigned work or agreed milestones in accordance with the agreed technical requirements.

9

Recommendation 5 Issue 1: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART- In its current form, the logframe makes it difficult to review outcomes for impacts or to construct the theory of change because some indicators are loaded and targets are not very clear. Complete collection of baseline data in order to ensure the results are quantitatively measureable at the end of the project.

10

Recommendation 5 Issue 2: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Loaded indicators (examples given in report) need to be disaggregated and where possible reduce ambiguity in reporting.

11

Recommendation 5 Issue 3: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Number each indicator and sub-indicators for easy referencing and tracking outputs under each outcome.

12

Recommendation 5 Issue 4: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Remove indicators that will not be achieved and manage community expectations (e.g., with the remaining time and funds, the project can only account but will not be able to sell any carbon credits from emissions reduction).

13

Recommendation 6 Issue 1 Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - RTT and DFT will inherit the outcomes of this project. While the coordination in planning is somewhat visible, there are still signs that the project is viewed as extra for the RTT and DFT. The PCU is encourage to decentralize implementation include budget transfer as a way of increasing ownership and subsequent sustainability

14

Recommendation 6 Issue 2 Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs -With the limited funds remaining, it is only prudent that local level staff take a more active role in project activity implementation, support and monitoring.

15

Recommendation 6 Issue 3: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs- This project intends to influence policy. It is essential that at PSC level, the lessons presented in policy briefs are table in national level policy forums and the PSC as the more immediate opportunity to do so because of access to political and policy discussions.

16

Recommendation 6 Issue 4: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - Since the departure of the previous NPC, there has been no confirmed replacement. This is not conducive for the project as the role of the NPC needs to be permanent and accountable during the life of the project. Both UND and the PSC are encouraged to confirm appointment of the officer who currently plays a dual role as Acting NPC and Forest Officer.

17

Recommendation 6 Issue 5: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - The PSC meets twice a year but it is understood that it remains difficult to get all appointed members of the PSC and often, only representatives attend the meetings. The MTR team highly recommends that members of the PSC attend meetings and ensure project success, risks and issues are well-understood, and opportunities and mitigation measures are identified.

1. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1, Issue 1: Strategic Reprioritization-75% of the cash budget has been used up with 2.5 years still remaining. Reprioritize outcome activities in a manner that strengthens the sustainability of activities that have already been implemented.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree. 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Project Coordination Unit (PCU) to undertake reprioritizaition of outcome activities b) PCU to present the revised plan to PSC for approval
[Added: 2016/12/14]
PSC and PCU 2016/12 Completed a) A meeting was held from 29th to 31st of August where reprioritization was done b) Priorities were presented and approved by PSC on the 6th of October 2016 in Mpanda History
2. Recommendation:

Recommendation 1 Issue 2: Strategic Reprioritization-It is highly recommended that instead of continuing to implement new activities that will otherwise be diluted, a strategic option will be to ensure implemented activities and interventions demonstrate success, otherwise there is a risk that the entire project will achieve only a weak and limited impact. This may require re-allocating the remaining funds under Outcomes 3 and 4 to balance the over- expenditure in outcomes 1 and 2 and strengthen interventions that offer the best opportunity for success.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Revise work plan and budget to re-allocate funds accordingly as part of reprioritization
[Added: 2016/12/14]
PCU and PSC 2016/09 Completed A meeting between PCU, RTTs and DFTs was held from 29 to31 Aug where reprioritization was done. The work plan and budget for 2017 contains the reprioritized activities. The plan was presented to PSC and approved on 6th October 2016 History
3. Recommendation:

Recommendation or Issue 2: Focus on co-finance resource mobilization - The project has not yet fully harnessed the potential co-financing resources from the tobacco companies. As a matter of priority, efforts should be made to establish formal arrangements for tobacco companies to support of fund certain activities or offer cash finance to the project to undertake implementation. This discussion needs to happen urgently with the tobacco companies and any other potential donors

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Follow up with the Tanzania Leaf Tobacco Company (TLTC) on the concept submitted for funding of communities on initiatives regarding afforest ration, natural regeneration and use of improved barns for tobacco curing. b) Identify other sources of funding and submit a project concept note
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU 2016/12 Completed The PCU has held a meeting with TLTC office in Tabora where the concept was discussed. In principle, the concept was well recieved. However, TLTC's head office has yet to make a decision. History
4. Recommendation:

Recommendation3 Issue 1: Reduce non-core expenditure – There is disproportionate level of expenditure (DSA and travel). This expenditure (DSA& travel) should be rationalized and reduced through re-strategizing modalities for project monitoring and reporting.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Implement the PM&E Monitoring Plan, which involves data collection and reporting by Ward Facilitation Teams, and Natural Resources Committees. Training will be done to ensure that data collection and reporting conforms to the requirements of Logical Framework once the latter has been revised as part of re-prioritization
[Added: 2016/12/14]
UNDP & PSC 2016/11 Completed It should be noted that the challenge will remain considering the project’s location and long distances involved, the need for travel will only be reduced to some extent History
5. Recommendation:

Recommendation 3 Issue 2: Reduce non-core expenditure- One option is aligning the DSA rate to the government rate as implemented in the Kilimanjaro Project.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Project Coordination Unit staff will adopt government DSA rate
[Added: 2016/12/14]
UNDP & PSC 2016/11 Completed All UNDP-funded projects use government DSA rates History
6. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4 Issue 1:  Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and inefficiencies - The implementation strategy is not responsive to the geographic dispersion of project activities leading to significant inefficiencies. Acknowledging the limited resources and long travel distances, the suggested strengthening of coordination with RTT and increasing the capacity of DFTs and village authorities is the most logical approach to increase the frequency of monitoring of activities that are at greater risk, such as small livestock.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Refer to actions to be done under Recommendation 3, Issue 1
[Added: 2016/12/14]
PCU with support from RTT, DFT, Ward FacilitationTeams (WFTs), and Natural Resources Committees (NRCs) 2016/11 Completed The decentralization is being monitored History
7. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4 Issue 2: Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and Inefficiencies-As noted, there are 30 combined RTT and DFT staff members and 19 members who now have skills in climate-resilient SFM and hence can provide local level support to increase the intensity of monitoring at this project stage in preparation for up-scaling of activities.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Refer to actions to be done under Recommendation 3, Issue 1
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU with support from RTT, DFT, Ward Facilitation Teams (WFTs), and Natural Resources Committees (NRCs) 2016/12 Completed History
8. Recommendation:

Recommendation 4 Issue 3: Decentralize implementation and increase local level monitoring and quality assurance to reduce overheads and inefficiencies-Where consultants are contracted, ensure compliance with procurement regulations by imposing quality assurance. For instance, payments for goods and services should only made upon satisfactory completion of assigned work or agreed milestones in accordance with the agreed technical requirements.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
a) Ensure that the procurement management unit (PMU) conform to procurement procedures. b) Ensure that payment is not made unless works or studies have been approved by component individuals. c) Pay contractors or consultants according to the payment schedule in the contract
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU with support from RTT, DFT, Ward Facilitation Teams (WFTs), and Natural Resources Committees (NRCs) 2016/12 Completed History
9. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5 Issue 1: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART- In its current form, the logframe makes it difficult to review outcomes for impacts or to construct the theory of change because some indicators are loaded and targets are not very clear. Complete collection of baseline data in order to ensure the results are quantitatively measureable at the end of the project.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Finalize collection of baseline data once the indicators have been made SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time- bound), re-prioritization process, revision of work plan and budget,
[Added: 2016/12/14]
PCU with support from RTT 2016/12 Completed Log frame made SMART, baseline data collection underway
10. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5 Issue 2: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Loaded indicators (examples given in report) need to be disaggregated and where possible reduce ambiguity in reporting.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Split loaded indicators when they are being made SMART
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU with support from RTT 2016/12 Completed History
11. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5 Issue 3: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Number each indicator and sub-indicators for easy referencing and tracking outputs under each outcome.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Number the indicators after splitting the loaded ones
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU with support from RTT 2016/12 Completed History
12. Recommendation:

Recommendation 5 Issue 4: Update logframe with baseline data and make indicators SMART-Remove indicators that will not be achieved and manage community expectations (e.g., with the remaining time and funds, the project can only account but will not be able to sell any carbon credits from emissions reduction).

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Remove this particular indicator during the process of making the indicators SMART
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
PCU with support from RTT 2016/12 Completed History
13. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6 Issue 1 Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - RTT and DFT will inherit the outcomes of this project. While the coordination in planning is somewhat visible, there are still signs that the project is viewed as extra for the RTT and DFT. The PCU is encourage to decentralize implementation include budget transfer as a way of increasing ownership and subsequent sustainability

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Transfer funds for activities to districts upon receiving work plans, budgets and financial requests.
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
UNDP, RAS Tabora and RAS Katavi and respective DEDs 2016/12 Completed History
14. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6 Issue 2 Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs -With the limited funds remaining, it is only prudent that local level staff take a more active role in project activity implementation, support and monitoring.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Refer to actions to be done under Recommendation 3, Issue 1
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
UNDP, RAS Tabora and RAS Katavi and respective DEDs 2016/12 Completed History
15. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6 Issue 3: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs- This project intends to influence policy. It is essential that at PSC level, the lessons presented in policy briefs are table in national level policy forums and the PSC as the more immediate opportunity to do so because of access to political and policy discussions.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree 

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
• Submit policy briefs that recommend inclusion of Sustainable Forest Management into the following policies: i) National Forest; ii) Wildlife; iii) Agriculture; and iv) Livestock • Ask members of the PSC from the relevant ministries to follow up on the policy briefs so recommendations are included when revising the policies
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
UNDP, RAS Tabora and RAS Katavi and respective DEDs 2016/12 Completed History
16. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6 Issue 4: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - Since the departure of the previous NPC, there has been no confirmed replacement. This is not conducive for the project as the role of the NPC needs to be permanent and accountable during the life of the project. Both UND and the PSC are encouraged to confirm appointment of the officer who currently plays a dual role as Acting NPC and Forest Officer.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree/Disagree. For institutionalization purposes, we need to request RAS to allocate a Forester from government considering the dwindling financial resource-the current budget cannot accommodate both

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
Hold consultation with the RAS (Tabora) to explore the possibility of using the forester that has recently been transferred to the region. One obvious way would be to appoint him as a member of the Regional Technical Team with a specific mandate to support coordination on forest issues. The project will meet only operational costs, NOT remuneration of the member of staff, as is presently the case with all members of the RTT.
[Added: 2016/12/14]
UNDP, RAS Tabora and RAS Katavi and respective DEDs 2016/10 Completed Other UNDP projects with government, e.g., one on nature reserves, has allocated Tanzania Forest Services staff at no cost to UNDP other than the usual operational costs.
17. Recommendation:

Recommendation 6 Issue 5: Strengthen coordination between PCU, RTT and DFTs - The PSC meets twice a year but it is understood that it remains difficult to get all appointed members of the PSC and often, only representatives attend the meetings. The MTR team highly recommends that members of the PSC attend meetings and ensure project success, risks and issues are well-understood, and opportunities and mitigation measures are identified.

Management Response: [Added: 2016/12/14]

Agree/Disagree. The project team, through the Chair can only advise member, however, it is difficult to enforce

Key Actions:

Key Action Responsible DueDate Status Comments Documents
The project team will continue to encourage appointed members of the PSC to participate, however, when it is difficult, representatives is better than no show
[Added: 2016/12/14] [Last Updated: 2018/08/22]
UNDP, RAS Tabora and RAS Katavi and respective DEDs 2016/12 Completed History

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