- Evaluation Plan:
- 2016-2018, South Sudan
- Evaluation Type:
- Final Project
- Planned End Date:
- 01/2018
- Completion Date:
- 12/2018
- Status:
- Completed
- Management Response:
- Yes
- Evaluation Budget(US $):
- 60,000
Protected Area Network Management and Building Capacity in Post-Conflict South Sudan
| Document | Type | Language | Size | Status | Downloads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 TERMS OF REFERENCE Protected Area Network Terminal Evaluation.pdf |
tor | English | 352.22 KB | Posted | 963 |
| UNDP South Sudan Protected Areas Network Final Evaluation Report.pdf |
report | English | 2634.26 KB | Posted | 1471 |
| Title | Protected Area Network Management and Building Capacity in Post-Conflict South Sudan | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atlas Project Number: | 00061441 | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Plan: | 2016-2018, South Sudan | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Type: | Final Project | ||||||||||||||
| Status: | Completed | ||||||||||||||
| Completion Date: | 12/2018 | ||||||||||||||
| Planned End Date: | 01/2018 | ||||||||||||||
| Management Response: | Yes | ||||||||||||||
| Focus Area: |
|
||||||||||||||
| 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 $): | 30,000 | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Programme: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Joint Evaluation: | No | ||||||||||||||
| Evaluation Team members: |
|
||||||||||||||
| GEF Evaluation: | Yes
|
||||||||||||||
| Key Stakeholders: | World Conservation Society, Ministry of Wildlife Conservation & Tourism of the Government of South Sudan | ||||||||||||||
| Countries: | SOUTH SUDAN | ||||||||||||||
| Comments: | Evaluation was succesfully completed in January 2018. |
| Lessons | |
|---|---|
| 1. | Lessons from and synergies with other projects The project design was prepared by WCS with UNDP in-mind, with both having significant in-country experience. Synergies with other projects incorporated into the design included the ‘USAID Boma Jonglei Landscape project’. |
| Findings | |
| 1. | 3. FINDINGS3.1. Project Strategy3.1.1 Project DesignLessons from and synergies with other projects Tag: Programme Synergy Programme/Project Design |
| 2. | Risks Tag: Programme/Project Design Risk Management |
| 3. | 3.1.3 Results Framework Indicators & Targets
In addition, there is little evidence of any approval of changes in the results framework. E.g. the switching Tag: Challenges Results-Based Management |
| 4. | Gender analysis Tag: Gender Equality Gender Parity Women's Empowerment Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building Women and gilrs |
| 5. | 3.2. Project ImplementationProject Implementation: According to the given five categories (IA or EA coordination & operational matters, partnership arrangements & stakeholder engagement, finance & co-finance, M&E systems, and adaptive management (work planning, reporting & communications) Overall Rating: Moderately Unsatisfactory Justification: Implementation of most of the categories was not effective with both the IA and the IP exhibiting significant shortcomings in terms of coordination, operational management and engagement with the national partner. M&E systems were not effective. Planning and spending control was left to the IP without detailed accountability to the IA or the IP’s supporting government partner.Overall, constructive engagement between the key project stakeholders (UNDP, WCS and MWCT) broke down early in the project, due to a lack of management oversight by UNDP. The circumstances included: UNDP restructuring and lack of directed leadership; a poor WCS-MWCT relationship due to the WCS method of attempting to only work at ministerial level; and civil unrest. Efforts to stabilize and finalise the project since mid-2015 have been much better, with the MTR (Dec 2015) and TE (November 2017), and an expected final PSC meeting and closure report in early 2018. Tag: Challenges Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management Country Government UNDP Management UNDP management Coordination |
| 6. | 3.2.1 IA and EA Coordination & Operational Management
Tag: Project and Programme management Coordination |
| 7. | Project Steering Committee (PSC) The Prodoc (p65) stated that ‘the MWCT will nominate a high-level government official who will serve as its representative on the PSC and that the MWCT representative will chair the PSC. The Local Project Appraisal Committee (LPAC, April 2010)15 – called for the IA (UNDP) project manager to delineate the roles of the executive, supplier and beneficiary. This meant that the membership, roles and responsibilities of the PSC should have been finalized, recorded, and distributed to interested parties. Evidence of this was not provided by the IA. [UNDP and WCS attended this meeting, but not MWCT] Thus, there was no formal establishment of the PSC or their roles, which would have helped in directing a mutually beneficial relationship between the three parties – UNDP, WCS and MWCT. In practice, the PSC was never given a mandate and acted as an ad hoc group with fluctuating membership. Tag: Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management |
| 8. | Nov 2012 PSC Meeting In 5 ½ years, there was only one annual PSC meeting (Nov 2012), and that was 1 ½ years after the start of the project. The meeting was to review Year 1 spending (assumed to be June 2011-end 2012) and endorse the ‘Year 2’ workplan & budget (Years 1 ½ to 2 ½ covering the Year 2013) for US$1,004,30016. There was no partner endorsement mentioned in the minutes. [Attendance: UNDP 5, MWCT 11, WCS 7, other 9] Follow-up Coordination meetings
That was it. There was one PSC meeting after 17 months and three lessor coordination meetings in the following three quarters. Thus, there was no oversight for the first 17 months of the project, then oversight for 10 months, then again, no PSC oversight for the following 40 months. It appears clear that the PSC functioned inadequately with weak leadership. Even when the MWCT split, the Ministry of Interior & Wildlife Conservation continued with the wildlife conservation mandate, with the same undersecretary, director generals and departments, thus this should not have been an impediment18. Tag: Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management Country Government UNDP Management UNDP management |
| 9. | UNDP Coordination in context Tag: Project and Programme management UNDP Management UNDP management Coordination |
| 10. | In December 2013 civil conflict broke out20. The political situation after this, meant that UN staff operations were partly restricted to Programme Critical 1 and 2 (Life-saving programs and operations) movement only (UN Grey Alert). However, the IP was not under the same restriction, especially its local CSO partners in the field. From this point onwards, there was also a reluctance by international NGOs to engage with government, however conversely the UNDP mandate was to engage with government21. This should have been identified by the project leaders (IA and IP) as an opportunity to develop a strategy whereby UNDP could engage with the MWCT on behalf of the IP, and the IP to formulate ‘safe’ field operations with their CSOs. However, PSC or other meetings with MWCT and partners were not held in this fashion. Tag: Implementation Modality Strategic Positioning Country Government UNDP Management UNDP management Conflict |
| 11. | There were also a number of other factors which contributed to stifle project PSC annual reviewing, planning, and ‘approval’22 of mutually agreed activities. UNDP could have stepped in to coordinate and manage these PSC meetings from 2014 onwards (i.e. annual PSC meetings for end 2013, end 2014, end 2015, and end 2016), which was needed. (see also Annex 12) UNDP themselves were partly compromised during the early – mid part of this period23 in being a GEF-6 PA project IA candidate (along with UNEP), and MWCT as a possible NIM24 partner (or WCS as the IP again). Due to weak management, UNDP (and the IP) failed to separate out this distraction, especially the in-fighting between MWCT and WCS concerning implementation (funding) control of this proposed GEF-6 project. There are a number of reports (including the GEF UNDP MTR) that relate to WCS’s struggling relationship with MWCT from 2014 onwards. A working environment instilled by UNDP as the overall project controller was not put in place. Indeed, support from GEF itself could perhaps have been better utilized. Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Project and Programme management UNDP Management UNDP management Coordination |
| 12. | Execution Agency / Implementing Partner operational management & support to MWCT / other stakeholders The IP (WCS) agreement with their supporting partner (MWCT) was based on: the GEF project letter of endorsement from the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation & Tourism (June 2008); and WCS’s long-standing MoU with the government (2007), which outlined the relationship of the two parties. However, obviously missing, was an actual WCS cooperation agreement with MWCT for the PAN project to detail the working relationship and the individual roles and responsibilities. The lack of a mandated PSC compounded this problem. For example, MWCT – did not fully understand their role, which was compounded by staff changes and added expectations to manage the budget. Tag: Challenges Partnership Project and Programme management Coordination |
| 13. | Due to conflict in December 2013, and upon the request of USAID, the IP developed a Crisis Action Plan25. It indicated that WCS would be reserved in its engagement with government (‘the extent to which we can workwith government at the central and state levels will depend on the evolving situation and we will adaptively adjust activity planning accordingly’). Most of the communication between USAID and WCS on this aspect of program engagement was verbal. However, from July 2016, the ‘do-not-engage with central government’ instruction became more explicit. This ‘directive’ (from USAID as a major funder of WCS and co-financer of the GEF project and with which WCS agreed) had its impact on WCS program implementation. However, although the directive did not apply to the GEF project, it obviously swayed engagement. During this middle period of the project, there were also many senior ministry staff and advisors with differing views and alliances, which resulted in a lack of beneficial decisions for the project being made. At the time of, and according to, the MTR, the SSWS was a troubled organisation, split into ethnic factions, with jealousies, xenophobia, and corruption linked to the conflict situation. In this situation, the IP opted to work with a smaller selection of SSWS / stakeholders, however this alienated others within SSWS, resulting in a lower impact of activities in the field. Tag: Communication Implementation Modality Project and Programme management Country Government Conflict |
| 14. | From the MCWT point of view
Tag: Challenges Rule of law Human and Financial resources Project and Programme management |
| 15. | Operational Management in Summary Overall, constructive engagement between the key project stakeholders (UNDP, WCS and MWCT) broke down early in the project, partly due to a lack of management oversight by UNDP and their lack of control of their IP. The circumstances could be listed as: UNDP restructuring leading to a lack of active responsibility, especially from 2014 onwards; a poor WCS-MWCT relationship that developed; ministerial changes, which affected the IP’s method of working at this level; and civil unrest. Efforts to finalise the project since mid-2015 have been better, with the MTR (Dec 2015) and TE (November 2017), and an expected final PSC meeting end 2017 and closure report in early 2018. Tag: Challenges Oversight Project and Programme management Country Government UNDP Management UNDP management |
| 16. | 3.2.2 Partnership Arrangements & Stakeholder EngagementThe partnership arrangement between UNDP, WCS and MWCT was difficult. The partnership arrangement of WCS working directly with SSWS was good, however missing the MWCT ‘line of control’ at PA Directorate level alienated MWCT. The partnership of the IP working with the SSWS in Juba with the dog sniffer team has been successful. The IP work with four CSOs, described as partnerships, who are sub-contractors (sub-grantees) to the IP. The partnerships that have worked are the CCSPs at five or six locations in BNP and BaNP. These have been supported by the CSOs:
These local CSOs were tasked with improving local livelihoods around the PAs thus reducing dependence on hunting. The project also contributed to capacity building of these CSOs. The training report indicates CSO training delivery as follows: ART in December 2013; CEPO, ART & PDCO being trained by WCS in March 2015; and OSDI in November 2016. Thus, the role of the CSOs should have been built into the project design and implementation much more at a much earlier stage. The project failed to initiate livelihood work (with or without a CSO) in SNP. The full list of stakeholder parties is described in Annex 9. Tag: Challenges Implementation Modality Partnership Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building |
| 17. | 3.2.3 Finance & Co-financeFinance The IP did not breakdown the GEF Trust Fund budgets beyond the Outcome levels per year. UNDP project budgets are usually divided down to output level. The GEF funds have been accounted for, with audits undertaken. Invoicing was in the same format according to accounting codes (international or local consultants, contractual services, travel, supplies, miscellaneous, training workshop, & conferences). Thus, the tracking of outputs by spending in order to gauge the level of activity / input was not possible. The breakdown of planned and actual expenditures by year is provided in Annex 4. Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Government Cost-sharing Human and Financial resources |
| 18. | Due Diligence - Audit Reports
Tag: Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Procurement |
| 19. | Co-financing Minutes of LPAC Meeting (April 2010) indicated: ‘There is no duplication with the USAID funded areas, with all activities being complimentary. The USAID funding targets Boma, Badingilo and Zeraf. It does not cover capacity development at central level’. USAID co-financing was accounted for under USAID reporting systems, which has meant that there has been no accountability for possible double funding, bearing in mind many of the activities for the two projects (BJL and PAN projects) are the very similar to say the least. Only WCS’s internal monitoring, accounting and reporting would be able to determine the level of separation and donor value for money. Accounting of these co-financed funds managed by the IP have not been provided to the TE team. The MCWT reported that project NP ranger / staff salaries were paid throughout the project period. However, the government contribution US$1m was not properly discussed by the project proposer (WCS) at the design stage, thus apart from standard staff salaries, there was zero government funds available to support the project. The MWCT Co-financing letter (prodoc p76) confirms the $1m in-kind support via staff salaries. The co-financing is presented as Annex 3. Tag: Government Cost-sharing Human and Financial resources |
| 20. | 3.2.4 M&E Systems – Design & ImplementationM&E Systems – Design & Implementation Overall quality of M&E – Moderately Satisfactory The main M&E method was to approve annual workplans and budgets and to scrutinize / endorse spending from the previous year. This was to be the main role of the PSC, even if the final approval of plans lay with UNDP’s own agreement with government (Ministry of Finance). However, the PSC only functioned as an ad hoc group with floating membership. The main M&E methods for the IP and IA, were annual report and PIR report (which ran mid to mid-year) respectively which were primarily written as narratives. Tracking the progress of indicators against targets was not effective. Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Programme/Project Design |
| 21. | Project M&E systems The MTR (2015) reported that UNDP should have been more pro-active in monitoring the project, especially after December 2013 / early 2014. UNDP’s response was that due to restructuring, less time and no funds were available to undertake this task. Despite this and the ‘country-in-conflict’ situation, UNDP had a contractual obligation to GEF to manage and monitor the project. The partner MWCT and their SSWS, have been passive in their engagement with the project since July 2013 (due to conflict, political upheaval and disagreement with the IP) and as a result have not fulfilled their monitoring role. UNDP did not establish a centralised project management filing system for the project. The project M&E systems (available to UNDP) did not include at a minimum - spreadsheets to cumulatively show the project stage of implementation against the target indicators, nor for example:
Tag: Challenges Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation UNDP Management UNDP management |
| 22. | MTR/TE The MTR was late (December 2015), so was undertaken 4 ½ years into a 5 ½ year project. The management response should have been uploaded to UNDP evaluation office corporate system, but was not prepared until the TE in November 2017, 1 year after the MTR and has not been seen by the TE. The TE was conducted 1 year after end of the project, or 6 ½ years from project start. The final PSC meeting should be 3 months after the TE, but has been undertaken before this TE report. Tag: Implementation Modality Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management |
| 23. | Tracking Tools and Scorecards The METT baseline was undertaken in November 2009 with an interim scoring near project end in November 2016 and again soon after project completion in March 2017. The basic results are reported in section 3.3.1 – Overall Result – Achievement of Objective. They are also located within Annex 1. The UNDP capacity and financial scorecards are also reported there. Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management |
| 24. | Complementary aspects of M&E systems under GEF-4 UNDP PAN project and USAID BJLP WCS ran a parallel M&E reporting system, answering to both the USAID Boma Jonglei Landscape Project (BJLP) and to this GEF-4 PAN project which included the BJLP as part of its complementary funding27. For USAID, WCS produced a Performance Monitoring Plan (35pp) – 2009-11 and extended in 2012. Part of the BJLP Annual reports contained a M&E section – so for example the accumulated survey / patrol effort reported for 2017 is consistent with that reported for PAN. The CSOs working for the BJLP were the same as those working for PAN. Tag: Global Environment Facility fund Monitoring and Evaluation |
| 25. | USAID BJL Project - Performance Monitoring Plan indicators:
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management |
| 26. | 3.2.5 Adaptive Management (Work planning, Reporting & Communications)Work planning Workplans and budgets were prepared for: 2012 (which included the latter half of 2011), 2013 (the only plan provided to the TE which shows Ministry of Finance endorsement), 2014, 2015, and 2016. The involvement of MWCT for discussion and management of the previous years’ activities and spending in each case appears to have been minimal. Tag: Implementation Modality Project and Programme management |
| 27. | Reporting Annual Reports WCS produced annual reports (2014-16 were accessed by the TE), which provided sufficient detail from the IP point of view, however the critical oversight on these reports appeared minimal. The main problem with the annual reports and virtually all other project reports is that the political and civil unrest dialogue is intertwined with the project activities narrative. This has made separation and distilling out of the project achievements time consuming and difficult for the TE team. The 2016 annual report was taken by the TE as one of the main project reports that provided detail for the achievement against indicators, as the IP final report is only a summary report. The usual format for UNDP would be to produce standard Atlas-format Annual Progress Review Reports (APRs), however only the 2012 APR in Excel format was identified. Tag: Challenges Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management |
| 28. | Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) NDP reporting was focused on PIRs (prepared by the IP & IA). They covered the periods: to June 2011-12, June 2012-13, June 2013-14, June 2014-15, June 2015-16, and June 2017 (cumulative)28. Two PIRs are highlighted in the context of the changing political and civil situation during the project.
The PIR contents were largely prepared by the IP and so tended to report all their individual activities in detail, but as with most of the project reports, they don’t follow very closely the actual progress against the project indicators in proportional targeted terms. Tag: Implementation Modality Oversight Project and Programme management Conflict Social cohesion |
| 29. | Parallel reporting structures
Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Project and Programme management |
| 30. | Communications Communications between the IA, the IP and the government partner MWCT have been limited. This is not only due to the security situation since December 2013, changes in government and UNDP management change, but also due to the poor relationship of the IP with their government partner. (see also Annex 12) Tag: Challenges Communication Country Government UNDP Management UNDP management |
| 31. | 3.3. Project ResultsThe TE analysis was undertaken at three levels of the project results framework - Objective, Outcome and Output. This was guided by the indicators and targets set at each level. Success is also built upon achievement of the Outputs, according to ‘framework logic.’ The Objective and Outcome levels include a rating according to UNDP GEF guidance as described in section 1.5. The IP provided two tables:
According to TE guidance, these tables are rated and commented on. Further text is now detailed. Tag: Monitoring and Evaluation Results-Based Management |
| 32. | 3.3.1 Overall Result – Achievement of ObjectiveObjective at the Objective Indicator Level (Overall Result) Objective: Secure the foundation for biodiversity conservation in the post conflict development of South Sudan through enhanced management effectiveness of the PA estate TE Rating: Moderately Satisfactory Justification: There were moderate shortcomings. The project is expected or has achieved most of its relevant objectives but with moderate / significant shortcomings. The main shortcoming is considered the lack of capacity development (working in close partnership with all levels of government wildlife offices), despite improved management of the PA estate. Whilst a number of the indicators at Outcome level do lead towards attaining the project objective, many deliverables remain unapproved by the government partners (e.g. wildlife law and two management plans produced by the project). There were four indicators at objective level Tag: Challenges Effectiveness Capacity Building |
| 33. | PA network coverage (ha) and PA area under improved management Total PA coverage remained at 8.5 million hectares (m ha), with an estimated six million ha under improved management (2.5 m ha in BNP, 2 m ha in BaNP, and 1.5 m ha in SNP). However, the project design did not qualify what ‘improved management’ meant. The TE thus assessed ‘improved management’ on a scale of 1- 5: with 1 indicating same as before, or without the project; 2 indicating some improvement in conservation management; 3 indicating a moderate improvement in conservation management having some impact; 4 indicating good improvement in conservation management having noticeable impact; and 5 indicating strong improvement in conservation management having strong impact. Views according to this scale were garnered from interviewees and recorded below in brackets
Six million ha out of a very substantial target of 8.9 m ha were put under improved management, representing 68% achievement. Thus, the objective was partially achieved. These responses indicate a fairly positive picture in the project attaining its overall objective. Tag: Effectiveness Institutional Strengthening |
| 34. | Financial Sustainability for PAs A UNDP scorecard. From a base of 5%, and with a target of >20%, the project reported 8% indicating that financial sustainability has not been attained. Tag: Sustainability Human and Financial resources Sustainability |
| 35. | Capacity development for PAs Based on the UNDP Scorecard: The scores indicate that institutional and individual capacity was not sufficiently developed by the project. One of the opportunities missed in the first two years was developing, the two management plans for BaNP and BNP and the strategy for SNP, as collaborative working plans, and to implement them from the beginning of 2014-2016 (i.e. in the last 3 years). The un-realised or proposed investment aspects of these plans could have been separated out. Systemic capacity was built in terms of the approved wildlife and tourism policies and the draft wildlife and tourism laws, although the scoring doesn’t reflect this. It was also built in terms of wildlife law enforcement techniques and anti-trafficking measures. Tag: Capacity Building Institutional Strengthening |
| 36. | GEF Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) for four key PAs The METT indicates a moderate improvement in management effectiveness, but below target29. These METT results are in accordance with the UNDP Capacity scorecard, in terms of change. Tag: Effectiveness Project and Programme management Technology |
| 37. | 3.3.2 Effectiveness – Achievement of Outcomes 1-3Effectiveness - Outcome 1 at the Outcome Indicator Level Outcome 1: Capacity building for PA management improved The overall TE rating for these four indicators is Moderately Satisfactory Justification: The four indicators are individually graded:
Tag: Effectiveness Capacity Building |
| 38. | PA Network strategic plan adopted & implemented (Baseline - No plan; Target - Plan adopted and in place) In 2015, the government produced a ‘Three Year Strategic Workplan for Wildlife Conservation 2015-18’ (SSWS, 31pp). It has ten objectives30 and contains ten strategic programs each with their own activities, objectives and indicators. The IP produced a 3-page concept note and outline table of contents, but it was not taken further. This document should have been seen as a priority (in place as the 2nd task in the logframe) in building the IP relationship with MWCT in pursuit of achievement of the project objective (enhanced management of the PA estate) and this 1st Outcome – Capacity building for PA management. However, WCS did indeed have a strategic conservation plan (as outlined in a powerpoint presentation, June 2017) called - ‘Strategic Approach of Program to Conflict Mitigation, Conservation, and Natural Resource Management’, but unfortunately this was not translocated into a meaningful collaborative document with MWCT (see Annex 12 for a list of the 13 objectives). Reported achievement by the IP included: inclusion of PA boundary map into the of state mining portal cadastral map section; and PA network (with extensions and proposed new PAs) presented to the UNEP World Database of PAs31. Whilst these actions are indeed building blocks, they were not translated as part of a coherent strategy that MWCT could understand. For example, there is no mention of PA extensions in the ministry strategy, indicating the gulf in understanding. It is a pity that the IP and their government partner could not work together. In deed it raises clear questions with regard to the management control of the GEF- 6 conservation project32. Tag: Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Strategic Positioning Capacity Building |
| 39. | Policy regulations for PA network The two policies that were drafted pre-project have been adopted by government. The two laws have been designed / re-drafted, but not adopted by government, despite being presented to Ministry of Justice over two years ago. The IP should have utilised UNDP support to push these bills through to the Council of Ministers (see also recommendations). Tag: Justice system Advocacy Policy Advisory |
| 40. | Staff competencies / skills matching position / job description Baseline <5%; Target >25%. No figure for achievement was provided, however this was a large task if you consider the staffing of four PAs and a number of key central level staff required training and matching to new job descriptions. The project training plan was not fully integrated with the MWCT training plan. A number of PA staff training courses were undertaken with the details in Annex 5. These include courses for national level and PA site level staff. The reported types of training included: SSWS staff training in management planning; wildlife contraband identification, intelligence gathering & legal processes; aerial surveys; ivory store management and ivory inventory; and sniffer dog handling and operations. Tag: Human and Financial resources Capacity Building |
| 41. | Outcome 2: Site management of four PAs strengthened (seven indicators) Levels of illegal hunting of important wildlife species in target PAs (Baseline - Significant commercial poaching occurring in each of the four PAs; Target - Poaching levels reduced by 50% for key and endangered wildlife species below baseline levels at project start) Illegal hunting in BNP has not stopped. In BaNP, it has been reduced, and in SNP it has been reduced through patrol and awareness. Reported achievement included: strengthened monitoring and law enforcement capacity of the SSWS in four PAs; extension of intelligence networks with collection and analysis of intelligence data, leading to legal processes. Such information should form part of a log or record of actions which should have been included in the M&E system. Tag: Wildlife Conservation Monitoring and Evaluation Technology Capacity Building |
| 42. | Management Plans & Strategies (Baseline - Boma management plan in draft; Target – BNP and BaNP management plans adopted & being implemented; Zeraf and SNP preliminary management strategies adopted & being implemented) The project has produced a comprehensive 10-Year plan for BaNP (2nd draft), however the handover and local ownership of the plan has yet to be completed. The project has produced a 5-Year plan for BNP which is incomplete and lacks finalisation, handover and endorsement by the MCWT. For SNP, there is only a 16- page strategy, which falls short of expectation. Tag: Natural Resouce management Ownership |
| 43. | Boma and Badingilo NPs gazetted, with their boundaries demarcated. Zeraf GR extended (Baseline - Boma boundaries proposed in early 1980s, Badingilo boundaries proposed in 1980s, No PA boundaries demarcated; Target - All PA boundaries demarcated, including Zeraf extension) Gazetted means ‘recognized under statutory civil law’ (IUCN definitions of PAs). Legal gazettement has not been completed; nor delineation nor demarcation of boundaries33. The BaNP boundary extension was discussed by the Council of ministers and the gazetting of this park is part of its management plan. Tag: Natural Resouce management Rule of law |
| 44. | Area patrolled by SSWS (Baseline - Law enforcement monitoring (LEM) piloted in BNP; Target – LEM systems in place generating spatial and quantitative data (updated from Inception)) Patrols have served to document conservation threats based on the project-created LEM system. The patrol efforts were supported by the establishment, refurbishment and maintenance of PA infrastructures including wildlife headquarters, administrative units and ranger posts and the deployment of vehicles, GPS, cameras and communication equipment in the PAs and wildlife corridors. Patrol / survey effort is reported: 40,073 km by foot; 68,552 km by vehicle; & 285,612 km by air. Tag: Natural Resouce management Wildlife Conservation Innovation Technology |
| 45. | PA authority (SSWS) meetings with local stakeholders (Baseline - occasional at Boma, None elsewhere; Target - coordination mechanisms established and meet regularly) The PA authorities in BNP, BaNP and SNP are located close to the local stakeholders (local authorities and communities) and interactions have taken place on a regular basis. However, the number of meetings held between the PA authorities (i.e. the SSWS park administrators and rangers) and stakeholders has not been logged by the IP in an accessible M&E format despite this being one of the areas that the IP has been active in. Tag: Civic Engagement Communication Civil Societies and NGOs National Institutions Private Sector |
| 46. | Community partnership agreements with PAs (Baseline – 0; Target – 2) The project has established six ‘community conservation security partnerships (CCSPs)’. See also map – Annex 13, which shows the location of the CCCPs – existing and proposed. The IP subcontracted four CSOs to undertake community conservation and livelihood activities. Reported achievement incudes: partnership activities in two PAs (BNP and BaNP) with four CBOs:
Each of these four CSOs provided a short report of activities undertaken which included in some cases, activities cancelled due to civil unrest. Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Partnership Social cohesion Jobs and Livelihoods Civil Societies and NGOs |
| 47. | Pilot ecotourism projects established (Baseline – 0; Target – 2) Conservation tourism was largely not possible after the 1st 2 ½ years of the project. However, the project produced a technical report – tourism strategy (see Annex 5) Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Tourism |
| 48. | Outcome 3: Sustainable financing for PAs (four indicators) Sustainable financing options designed (Baseline – 0; Target – 3) The project partially explored sustainable financing, but many standard options such as eco-tourism were not considered viable. In terms of direct funding, there is the sister USAID Boma Jonglei Landscape Project, and the upcoming GEF-6 PA project for the Sudd & Nimule National Park. However, the direct method of preparing project proposals for/with other donors was not taken further. WCS has a long-term agreement with MWCT which could support WCS to leverage NGO development funds at least on the livelihood aspects of PA projects. Reported achievement of options included: Ecotourism (which was viable until civil conflict began), REDD+, ecosystem service payments and Climate Green Fund projects discussions. However, the TE feels the IP was on the wrong track here, and should have been working on:
Tag: Ecosystem services Extractive Industries Site Conservation / Preservation Tourism Green Climate Fund Resource mobilization Business Model Jobs and Livelihoods |
| 49. | Business plans developed for the PAs (Baseline – 0; Target – 4) The IP produced a National Tourism Strategy (88pp, 2015), which was adopted by MCWT, however practicalities and financing of the plan in the short term are uncertain35. Budgeting of the two management plans (MPs) has been undertaken for capital and operational costs. However, these MPs should have had actual-funded working operations, separated out from future proposed-funded operations (i.e. investment planning). Tag: Tourism Business Model Strategic Positioning |
| 50. | Operational budget for PA management (Baseline - US$40m operational / capital; Target – Increased funding to PA management) The government budget to the PA network since 2013 has significantly fallen due to lack of oil revenue and civil conflict. There was little evidence of a coherent project strategy for support to MWCT for PA management at central level. Tag: Extractive Industries Human and Financial resources Conflict |
| 51. | Private sector participating in partnerships (Baseline – 0; Target - 2 groups) Natural Resources Management Group (NRMG) - The NRMG is an ad hoc cross-sectoral / inter-ministry group without mandate. It stems from the USAID programme support and its’ BJL project, but has largely existed intermittently without support since 2013, and with limited authority other than that which the NRMG members carry, as for example undersecretaries of the ministries. The link to the project was tenuous, apart from canvassing for environmental impact considerations to be taken into account where they concerned wildlife or the PA network. The NRMG played a role in stopping the road construction of the Gerikidi – Pibor road through Badingilo NP. The NRMG has become more active again in 2017. A wildlife - extractive industries conference held in 2017. Whilst the event occurred after the project, it brought together representatives of the oil and mining industries – state and private – together with conservationists. Equator Principles, standard International Finance Corporation (IFC) guidelines, and Environmental & Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs) were included on the agenda. The IP did not sufficiently institutionalise their links with the private sector. Tag: Extractive Industries Natural Resouce management Partnership Private Sector |
| 52. | 3.3.3 Achievement of OutputsThe presentation here is based on Annex 2. This section provides further text. Outcome 1 (Capacity building) at the Output Level (6 Outputs) Systematic PAs conservation strategic plan developed for the management of the PA network The reported achievement included: The IP has continued analyzing and collating information from GPS/tracking, aerial surveys, and socio-economic surveys to inform the country-wide PA network assessment. The assessment has been to:
Whilst the TE has noted this, the expectation of the project design was that a ‘strategic plan’ would be developed first with the partners, so that everyone would be working in agreement over the following four years. Thus, the survey effort, collating of data and making of proposals for PA gazettement should have become component parts of the strategy. Tag: Biodiversity Communication Partnership Strategic Positioning |
| 53. | Policy and regulation framework based on selected IUCN categories developed Of note, the IP reported – ‘The production of the draft National Tourism Regulations means that the Directorate of Tourism has accomplished the development of drafts of its key policy and legislation documents (South Sudan Tourism Policy – approved in 2012; South Sudan Tourism Authority Bill – undergoing the 3rd review; National Tourism Regulations – awaiting approval). Once the Tourism legal frameworks become statute, they will create a foundation for the tourism industry through sustainable natural resource management.’ Procedures to safeguard local community rights, address and prevent potential displacement problems, and promote development of benefits for local communities most directly impacted by PAs The project developed CCSP forum groups with the dual purpose of wildlife conservation and peace building. Tag: Tourism Wildlife Conservation Rule of law Peace Building |
| 54. | The project has worked with four CSOs. From 2011-13, the project focused more on conservation awarenesss agreements and training, working with two CSOs to begin with – ART in BNP and CEPO in BaNP. The training completion table provides more detail (Annex 5). Here the IP reports on CCSPs and livelihood activities for four pilot areas:
Tag: Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Awareness raising Capacity Building |
| 55. | PA planning and monitoring unit created in the MWCT, staff trained, PA management planning criteria designed and piloted There is no indication of a PA planning and monitoring unit being established within the MWCT. Training of staff is previously reported under the relevant Outcome 1 indicator. During 2016 in particular, in addition to staff / ministerial changes at national level, the project needed to adapt to a changing and volatile situation at the project sites:
Tag: Natural Resouce management Human and Financial resources Monitoring and Evaluation Institutional Strengthening |
| 56. | Technical and institutional capacity of MWCT increased to manage and monitor the PA network As an example - A 10-day training (April 2016) was organized to strengthen wildlife anti-trafficking initiatives and law enforcement monitoring by the park rangers. It also covered the legal requirements and processes related to wildlife crime. Tag: Wildlife Conservation Capacity Building Institutional Strengthening |
| 57. | MWCT communications strategy designed to promote PAs and wildlife conservation The project developed a local awareness campaign, but on a limited scale. The IP focused more on a campaign at national & international level, with varying levels of collaboration with their partner MWCT. However, due to the security difficulties in the field, publishing extensive number of articles in the international arena could be seen as an example of adaptive management by the IP, especially post 2013. Conservation Awareness Materials / Media presentations
Maps The number of differing types of maps produced by WCS should be acknowledged, however the visibility of the GEF logo in comparison to the USAID logo is poor, which is simply down to the design of the respective logos. Tag: Wildlife Conservation Communication Strategic Positioning Awareness raising |
| 58. | Outcome 2 (PA Site Management) at the Output Level (7 Outputs) PA management plans for BNP and BaNP, with management strategies developed for SNP and Zeraf The output has a direct indicator and is therefore mainly reported in the previous section (Achievement of Outcome 2) Badingilo National Park Management Plan - (BaNP MP) management plan was ‘completed’ in 2015 (i.e. it took 4 ½ years to prepare), but remains without presentation to local government. Also, due to the political fragmentation of administrative boundaries (2015) and civil unrest (2016), local consultations have not been conducted. In September 2016, the IP met with the MWCT technical committee for the BaNP MP who indicated their wish for the proposed extension to be adopted. WCS agreed, with a plan to conduct community consultations. The exact same discussion on delivering a local consultation was heard during the TE final workshop in November 2017 with the same conclusion that it should be done. Thus, there was one full year with no action taken on this, which unfortunately again has indicated a lack of close collaboration, and procrastination, especially where it involved the IP and its national partner, the MWCT working together. BNP MP - has also undergone similar delays, latterly reported as due to a change in the MWCT Director of PAs & Wildlife (March 2016), however during the TE in November 2017, the Director of PAs (who had previously been working with the project as the MWCT Training Director), indicated that the plan had not even been submitted to him. TE believes that this also indicated a reluctance on behalf of the IP to constructively engage with the MWCT. (see management role of UNDP and recommendations section). Tag: Natural Resouce management Challenges Project and Programme management Strategic Positioning |
| 59. | PA and buffer zone boundaries assessed and participatory redefinition commenced, leading to Boma and Badingilo NPs and the extension of Zeraf Reserve being legally gazetted An assessment of PAs boundaries was undertaken with extensions and changes proposed by a MWCT – WCS technical committee, however these proposals were not fully debated or communicated to the responsible government office within the MWCT. The verification process was halted due to MWCT / SSWS administrative constraints (not specified) and security issues in the field. Tag: Implementation Modality Project and Programme management Security |
| 60. | Basic infrastructure established for BNP, BaNP and SNP management and operations New PA administrative facilities were built and new ranger stations were constructed. These include: 3 administrative headquarters; 4 ranger posts; 2 garage workshops; 1 standalone toilet block; and WCS infrastructure (1 administrative office; 2 storehouses; and a tent platform). Park roads have been constructed or rehabilitated. Two airstrips have been prepared (1 km each). Tag: Infrastructure Operational Services |
| 61. | Capacity and technical expertise of field-based PA management staff improved, work plans developed and implemented An example of capacity building at BaNP - Operational planning included the deployment of rangers, improvement of Bala HQ and Gerikidi ranger post, and technical support from the IP for field operations including provision of patrol food rations, fuel for patrol vehicles, and maintenance of law enforcement vehicles. See training delivered – Annex 5. Tag: Capacity Building Operational Services |
| 62. | Stakeholder participation (local, State) and capacity increased to support PA management National / Transboundary level
Tag: Wildlife Conservation Transborder Partnership Institutional Strengthening |
| 63. | Local Communities Conservation education and outreach has been undertaken in secure areas. The awareness has been conducted by: screening wildlife conservation documentary films produced by WCS and others; a comparison of wildlife conservation pictures from within / outside the country; and focus group discussions with communities in and around the PAs. The WCS staff and community mobilizers from the four CSOs (ART, CEPO, PDCO and OSDI) have received refresher training on delivering conservation messages through the video screenings, pictures and group discussions. The awareness has targeted the communities on the western and eastern boundaries of BaNP, and Boma areas (Nyat and Pochalla) due to: the high conservation importance of these areas; being in proximity to higher human population densities; and the prevalence of illegal bushmeat trade and trafficking in wildlife parts including ivory. E.g. In Nyat, three communities used to hunt, including two groups of livestock keepers but since SSWS have been confiscating guns (~7 times/ / year) and the project initiating LSGP activities (such as to create more livestock meat for market by supporting a butcher), the incidence of hunting has been reduced. In SNP, the threats included hunting with guns and wildlife crop damage from elephant and hippo. The challenges included: a lack of patrols and ranger stations; wildlife seasonally (end of rainy season) residing in north-east outside the park which still needs protection and a wildlife corridor to be developed. However, SNP have brought under control the seasonal / random movement of cattle, and reduced hunting inside the park. Hunting outside the park remains an issue, as cattle traders / raiders hunt wildlife for meat as opposed to slaughtering their own animals. In BNP, cattle control has been initiated around the park headquarters, however this only represents about 5% of the total cattle being herded in the park40 . Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Communication Education Awareness raising |
| 64. | Community based partnerships designed & piloted aiming at developing benefits / opportunities Training Results (Beneficiary numbers) For 2017, BJLP reports41 an accumulated 1,176 beneficiaries (378 W, 798 M) from livelihood activities and employment. The estimated multiplied value is considered six times this, with each direct beneficiary having an average of six members in their household. Thus 7,056 people are reported to have increased economic benefit derived from sustainable natural resource management and conservation. These figures (which do not include SNP or Lantoto where livelihood activities were not undertaken) should be taken as the GEF-4 PAN project beneficiary numbers42 . Similarly, the number of participants trained in sustainable natural resources management and/or biodiversity conservation is put at 1,181 (390 W, 791 M). The number of people that apply improved conservation law enforcement is reported as:
Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Civic Engagement Justice system Partnership |
| 65. | Local Conservation & Community Development Training Delivered During the project period 495 people were trained under the project (WCS Training Overview.xls). Concerning gender, of these only 25 (5%) were recorded as women. These 25 women were trained under CCSPs / LSGP in small scale poultry production in Lafon (19); in sustainable fishing / marketing cooperatives in Gemeiza, Mangalla & Lirya (4); and a 6-month training course at Mweka wildlife college in communitybased wildlife management (2). However, livelihood training post-project in 2017 (until end Sept. 2017) appears to have increased considerably with 702 participants trained including 238 (34%) women. These courses have primarily been undertaken by the four CBOs with the livelihoods trainings in this period presented below: Tag: Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Gender Parity Jobs and Livelihoods Capacity Building |
| 66. | CSO livelihoods delivery results Badingilo
Tag: Livestock Peace Building Capacity Building Operational Services |
| 67. | Boma
These more comprehensive rural development agreements with the CSOs were only witnessed by the TE for 2015-16. And whilst some activities (training and piloting) were initiated earlier in BNP with ART and BaNP with CEPO in 2013 (and reported in the annual 2014 report) the overall scale appears to be too little, too late to have a significant impact. Such work should have been implemented on a larger scale within the first 2.5 years of the project (2011-13). Tag: Agriculture Food Security Wildlife Conservation Security Social cohesion Jobs and Livelihoods Micro-credit |
| 68. | Proposals to mobilize community alternative livelihoods and sustainable development funding sources to benefit and enhance income generation for key communities living near and in PAs
Tag: Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Small Grants Programme Jobs and Livelihoods |
| 69. | Outcome 3 (Sustainable Financing) at the Output Level (4 Outputs) There were four Outputs that directly matched the indicators under the Outcome 3, so they are only briefly reported here (see also previous section):
Tag: Extractive Industries Site Conservation / Preservation Tourism Wildlife Conservation Resource mobilization Partnership Private Sector |
| 70. | 3.3.4 Efficiency Was the project implemented efficiently, in-line with international and national norms and standards? The TE guidance defines efficiency as ‘the extent to which results have been delivered with the least costly resources possible.’ The TE findings were generally that the IP focused heavily on gaining baseline biodiversity information for large mammals. This involved comparatively expensive spending on maintaining an aircraft and conducting aerial surveys (0.285 million km flown ~ flying from London to Sydney 17 times). The approved Prodoc did not envisage the high effort to conduct aerial surveys, apart from using such methods to re-confirm pre-project biodiversity numbers and to support boundary determination for the selected PAs44 . The project also had a more immediate focus on supporting rangers and stopping illegal wildlife hunting which should be considered as cost effective. However, sustainability often rests on creating institutional capacity and delivering the building blocks for these institutions to work with (e.g. new legislation, strategies and management plans), which was an area the project was only partially successful at. Lastly, working on integrated conservation and development – i.e. livelihoods improved in return for conservation support, only really started in 201445, which was rather late. There was a lack of explanation as to how the accounting for the GEF Trust Fund was separated from the accounting of the complimentary USAID funds (US$12.77m) 46 when project activities were largely alike. Efficiency Rating – Moderately Unsatisfactory Tag: Biodiversity Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Efficiency Jobs and Livelihoods Institutional Strengthening |
| 71. | 3.3.5 Relevance The project was relevant to national environmental and developmental priorities and was in line with GEF biodiversity priorities for terrestrial ecosystems. The objective concerned laying the foundations for biodiversity conservation through the improved management of the PA estate, in a post-conflict situation. However, retrospectively it is clear that apart from 2011-13 (1st 2 ½ years), the conflict situation returned intermittently until project end in 2016 (the last 3 years). Thus, the project circumstances totally changed politically, and indeed had an impact on the all project partners (UNDP, the IP and the government counterpart). The partners and IP undertook activities that were still possible in context of civil unrest, and largely a collapse in governance and the economy. The IP who despite their best efforts, often just had to return to what they knew and could do best which was wildlife monitoring and working with rangers whenever possible. They also supported PA management, conservation awareness and local engagement of stakeholders, piloting CCSPs and livelihood interventions, anti-wildlife trafficking, and policy and legislation development. Relevance Rating – Relevant Tag: Biodiversity Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Relevance Global Environment Facility fund Partnership Jobs and Livelihoods Private Sector |
| 72. | 3.3.6 Country Ownership & Mainstreaming Country Ownership The country ownership of the project is questionable. Certain aspects or deliverables have been taken onboard by the MWCT / SSWS. The wildlife and tourism policies has been adopted, and their subsequent laws are expected to be promulgated. The two management plans need to be endorsed by MCWT as project deliverables. However, on the whole, the project remains a package of knowledge, closely held by the IP, not least due to the lack of capacity and institutional resources (computers, databases) at the MWCT. Mainstreaming Biodiversity mainstreaming often involves applying biodiversity conservation to cross-sectoral plans and regulations. Mainstreaming is actually only mentioned once in the Prodoc with respect to Land Use Planning regulations. The project has a mapping GIS database relating to conservation – which should be of use to national cadastral services and the extractive ministries. However, these maps need to be in the domain of the responsible national partner, once they have the resources to administer them 47 . The project mainstreamed biodiversity conservation into the draft tourism law (chapter 11 – wildlife conservation). Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Tourism Wildlife Conservation Rule of law Ownership |
| 73. | 4. SUSTAINABILITYSustainability: According to the four GEF risk categories (financial, socio-economic, institutional & governance, and environmental), present status and the future Rating: Moderately Unlikely Justification: There are significant risks, but due to progress made by the IP, the building blocks are being put in place, even if the country ownership is still lacking. It also depends on the recommendations of the TE taken-up, otherwise the risk would be considered severe. The Atlas risk and the Risk log tables outline the risks (see section 3.1 project design). The future is largely unknown due to on-going political instability and civil conflict. Many of the advances made by the project are not sustainable without further donor funds. Tag: Sustainability Ownership Conflict Social cohesion |
| 74. | 4.1. Financial Risks to SustainabilitySouth Sudan is in financial dire straits. National funds are not present and there is an outstanding oil pipeline rental bill with annual arrears for 2015-16 estimated at US$291 million to pay Sudan48 . On-the-ground the IP reported: PA staff being paid 6 months in arrears (April/May salaries received in November); no state funds to visit PAs (fly-ins – paid by WCS); and limited mechanism to pay PA staff - WCS flies in salaries to project PAs. Hopefully, these are all short-term problems. Project Outcome 3 was designed to address financial sustainability, however practical avenues were largely not explored (leveraging development funds from international NGOs by for example using GEF funds as ‘seed money’, or leveraging conservation funds from extractive – oil and mining companies in the form of conservation easements – either ‘wildlife managed rights of way’ or significant payments for biodiversity offset alternatives if there were no mitigation options). The IP has supported the development of a GEF-6 biodiversity project. As an example of continuing donor funds for conservation, WCS reported during the TE mission that the US FWS is to provide US$0.3m (2017-19) for WCS to implement a project in SNP titled – ‘Strengthening protection & PA management for the key elephant population in SNP’. This will ensure continuation of the work started under the GEF project and allow for its assets to continue running (vehicles, generator, HF radio) and infrastructure to be maintained and managed49 . The project also produced a National Tourism Strategy (2015), although the practicalities and financing of the plan in the short term remain uncertain. PA infrastructure planned by WCS includes seven further ranger stations, including one in the Shambe / Sudd region. Tag: Sustainability Global Environment Facility fund Resource mobilization Human and Financial resources Risk Management |
| 75. | 4.2 Socio-economic Risks to SustainabilityThe country is in a dire situation. The risk at present is donor fatigue with the high cost, high danger level, and under-funded humanitarian relief programme. Most donors are unable to move from conflict resolution and disaster relief to socio-economic recovery and development modes. The situation is six million people food-insecure, two million internally displaced, two million in camps in neighbouring countries according to OCHA50 . The sustainability and scale of impact of the CSOs was difficult to fully assess due to security limitations on the TE. Whilst the local schemes developed by the project have shown some promise, then need to be implemented on a more comprehensive scale by professional international development NGOs, with their own complimentary funding. This needs to be explored much more by the UN agencies. There is some continued activity such as with Farm Africa in BaNP. Tag: Disaster Recovery Sustainability UN Agencies Conflict Conflict resolution |
| 76. | 4.3. Institutional Framework & Governance Risks to SustainabilityThe overall objective and Outcome 1 of the project were focused on building institutional capacity and building the planning / legal framework for PA conservation. At present, MWCT is a restructured ministry (April 2016) in a temporary compound, and subject to the political – security turmoil with financial hardship in the country. MCWT are unable to govern their PA network. Communication remains largely via HF radio and without internet – email. What is required for future sustainability is for WCS to develop a much more mature professional working relationship to be fostered with MWCT, and accept the latter’s frailty and failures, as well as the fact that ultimately conservation success will be down to national responsibility, motivation and political willpower. There remains a need for key conservation partners, such as WCS to continue work at a national strategic level and train others to teach the management work at the PA site level. For the latter as an example of institutionalising capacity, this could be developing the curricula with leaders of college conservation courses. Tag: Sustainability Ownership Conflict Institutional Strengthening |
| 77. | 4.3. Environmental Risks to SustainabilityAs USAID and WSC see a long-term future in South Sudan, and as WCS hold technical ‘conservation keys’, they will be able to unlock PA conservation programmes again when the conditions are suitable. Furthermore, WCS are involved in the next large-scale PA project (under GEF-6) and have a secure relationship with USAID as well as having their own conservation funds (from New York). International support & complementary projects
The IP final report focuses on gains made at local level:
Tag: Biodiversity Natural Resouce management Site Conservation / Preservation Wildlife Conservation Sustainability Programme Synergy Capacity Building Institutional Strengthening |
| 78. | 5. IMPACT & CATALYTIC EFFECTImpact: According to the three GEF categories (Significant, Minimal or Negligible), present status and towards the future Rating: Significant Justification: The project has made a significant positive impact, with respect to understanding the baseline for wildlife conservation and developing some of the PA governance structures (wildlife law and demonstrated management at three parks). Tag: Wildlife Conservation Impact Rule of law |
| 79. | 5.1. ImpactMeasuring impact requires assessing the pathway from project outcomes to expected impacts51. The overall objective was an improved management effectiveness of the PA estate. The results and impacts were: Improvement in ecological status
Reduction in stress on ecological systems
Overall the impact has been improved management of part of the PA estate. The three Outcomes were: 1 - capacity built; 2 – management of four parks strengthened; 3 - sustainable financing options prepared. The expected impacts and results were: Tag: Biodiversity Ecosystem based adaption Natural Resouce management Wildlife Conservation Impact |
| 80. | Capacity Built Regulatory and policy changes at regional, national and/or local levels
Tag: National Regional Local Governance Capacity Building Policy Advisory |
| 81. | Management of four parks strengthened The results included: infrastructure at three parks established; two management plans and one park strategy prepared; administrative and ranger patrol systems established at three parks. The impact has been to provide a strong demonstration of PA management for the future work of the MWCT and their SSWS. Sustainable financing options The result was mainly linked to funding for future conservation projects. The impact on a wide scale has been minimal. Comment on Impact The project’s logic and intended impacts did not change, however many of the risks and assumptions dramatically changed, indeed new risks also arose, which in turn meant added new and changed assumptions. This meant that the scale of project operations was severely curtailed, however the IP continued to adapt and work through three years of periodic and intense civil unrest / conflict. Tag: Natural Resouce management Impact Sustainability Human and Financial resources Conflict Institutional Strengthening |
| 82. | 5.2. CatalyticEffect Scaling up
Replication (outside of the project)
Demonstration
Tag: Natural Resouce management Wildlife Conservation Sustainability Partnership Sustainability Jobs and Livelihoods Civil Societies and NGOs |
| Recommendations | |
|---|---|
| 1 | Future projects require stronger leadership from the UN and from government partners. This means |
1. Recommendation:
Future projects require stronger leadership from the UN and from government partners. This means
in practical terms that PSCs should have a clear mandate with roles and responsibilities and that the
particular UN agency should take the lead in this, as well as in organising (and co-chairing) the PSC
meetings themselves.
Management Response: [Added: 2018/12/07] [Last Updated: 2021/01/10]
UNDP will lead setting up of the project governance structure- project steering committee or project board that will ensure the provision of solid project oversight and guidance to project implementation
Key Actions:
| Key Action | Responsible | DueDate | Status | Comments | Documents |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Set up of project board, or project steering committe for new GEF supported projects implemented by UNDP.
[Added: 2018/12/07] [Last Updated: 2021/08/06] |
UNDP | 2020/12 | Completed | There is presently no ongoing GEF funded projects. However, UNDP is developing project proposals which are expected to generate resources around 2019/2020, but the CO didn't get the fund. So the recommendation is closed and it will opened again if the CO get fund from GEF. History |