- Evaluation Plan:
- 2017-2020, Ethiopia
- Evaluation Type:
- Mid Term Project
- Planned End Date:
- 09/2020
- Completion Date:
- 12/2020
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- No
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 60,000
Protected area and wildlife enforcement project mid-term evaluation
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 PIMS 5609 _UNDP-GEF-MTR-TOR- Revised Natioanl Consultant.docx |
tor | English | 157.76 KB | Posted | 214 |
| International Consultant TORdocx.docx |
tor | English | 77.50 KB | Posted | 230 |
| MPAS MTR report Correct Title 7th Dec 2020 (002).docx |
report | English | 707.39 KB | Posted | 408 |
| Title | Protected area and wildlife enforcement project mid-term evaluation | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00100238 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2017-2020, Ethiopia | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Mid Term Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 12/2020 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 09/2020 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| UNDP Signature Solution: |
|
||||||||||||||
| Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021) |
|
||||||||||||||
| SDG Goal |
|
||||||||||||||
| SDG Target |
|
||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Budget(US $): | 60,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Source of Funding: | gef | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Expenditure(US $): | 60,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Institute of Biodiversity and Ethiopian Wildlife conservation authority, GEF | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | ETHIOPIA |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| 1. | Lesson 1: Integrated law enforcement initiatives are cost effective measures of tackling poaching and IWT: As protected areas are not islands, there is a high degree of interaction of these areas with the different land use types and the communities living around. Protected areas may affect or be affected as a result of this interaction. Therefore, the park management should not act alone as it is unlikely to sustain conservation without the active involvement of other partners. The Multi Stakeholders engagement platforms such as project steering committee and units are enhancing the effectiveness of combating poaching and IWT. It is through such effort that the ivory from eight elephants killed in Mago PA has been recovered from the poachers. |
| 2. | Lesson 2: The power of public and policy makers’ education on biodiversity conversation: The assessment highlighted the power of electronic medias’ like TV and radio, and stakeholders’ dialogues towards changing the perception of the general public, the executive bodies and the policy makers -at national and local level -on the astatic values, and socio-economic benefits of wildlife. An example is the federal government commitment in developing the CC PA and vicinities-without making any substantial change on the existing land use - to make it more attractive for visitors and to help the people get employment opportunity and income from it. The engagement of the government officials and the local people on the protection of the PA has also shown improvement overtime due to the serious of workshops and trainings organized on the issues associated with biodiversity loss and benefits of conservation. |
| 3. | Lesson 3: Appropriateness of designing PA development programmes with specific focus areas: According to the perception of the project management agency, programmes that provide more focus to specific PAs has comparative advantage than designing and supporting national level programs like the GEF programme that had been implemented between 2008 to 2016. National level programmes; according to them, might not provide comprehensive and focused assistance that provides impact. |
| Findings | |
| Recommendations | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1. Evaluation Recommendation or Issue I: Additional resource required to effectively implement GMPs, ILM plans, Regional R resource Management Agreements: |
|
| 2 | Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 2: Expand partnerships to include relevant institutions |
|
| 3 | Expand partnership to include relevant institutions |
|
| 4 | Evaluation Recommendation or Issue 4: Linking conservation with sustainable livelihoods |
|
| 5 | Evaluation Reco mmendation or Iss ue 5 : Establish task forces in all project sites |
|
| 6 | E valuatio n Reco mmenda tio n or Iss ue 6: Update risk assessment of the project |
|
| 7 | Eva lua tion Reco mmendation or Iss ue 8: Provide facilities/a menities and IT c onnec tivity in the project sites \ |
|
| 8 |
|
|