Protected area and wildlife enforcement project mid-term evaluation

Report Cover Image
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

Share

Document Type Language Size Status Downloads
Download document PIMS 5609 _UNDP-GEF-MTR-TOR- Revised Natioanl Consultant.docx tor English 157.76 KB Posted 15
Download document International Consultant TORdocx.docx tor English 77.50 KB Posted 19
Download document MPAS MTR report Correct Title 7th Dec 2020 (002).docx report English 707.39 KB Posted 31
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:
  • 1. Poverty
Corporate Outcome and Output (UNDP Strategic Plan 2018-2021)
  • 1. Output 1.4.1 Solutions scaled up for sustainable management of natural resources, including sustainable commodities and green and inclusive value chains
SDG Goal
  • Goal 13. Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts
SDG Target
  • 13.2 Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning
Evaluation Budget(US $): 60,000
Source of Funding: gef
Evaluation Expenditure(US $): 60,000
Joint Programme: No
Joint Evaluation: No
Evaluation Team members:
Name Title Email Nationality
Nyawira Muthui International Consultant
Tesfaye Yimer Local Consultant ETHIOPIA
GEF Evaluation: Yes
GEF Project Title: Enhanced management and enforcement of Ethiopia protected areas estate
Evaluation Type: Mid-term Review
Focal Area: Climate Change
Project Type: FSP
GEF Phase: GEF-6
GEF Project ID: 9157
PIMS Number: 5609
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

9. Evaluation Recommendation or Iss ue 9: Improve facilities and infrastructure development

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