1 the independent office of evaluation, internation a l fund for agricultural development lusaka 18...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
The Independent Office of Evaluation, International Fund for Agricultural Development
Lusaka 18 November 2011
Project Performance Assessment of Forest Resource Management Project (FRMP)
![Page 2: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
This presentation?
• Very preliminary findings
• Further analysis required
• No recommendations at this stage
• Purpose is to identify what worked well and what not so well
2
![Page 3: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Evaluation questions
• What was done, and how well?• How did this relate to objectives?• Were there important changes in
context? • Were there any constraints?• How well was the project
managed?
3
![Page 4: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Project context
• Legislative and policy constraints• Non implementation of Forest Act• Non implementation of Zambia Forest
Commission (ZFC)
• Government commitment
4
![Page 5: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Changes in project implementation
• Early project closure• Shift in focus after MTR towards bee-
keeping and marketing (not JFM)• Non implementation of Rural Finance
component• From spot improvement to full
rehabilitation of Social Infrastructure Development and Feeder Roads
5
![Page 6: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Successes• Although not all targets reached there were
successes in training and mobilising the communities
• Beneficiary appreciation of social infrastructure (schools and clinics)
• Innovative institutional set-up (use of CAs as implementation agencies)
• Important learning experience of Government Staff in managing complex project and PPP
6
![Page 7: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Progress: Community Development
• Communal Management of Forest Resources• Evidence of understanding of sustainable
forest management practices (but difficulties in practical application)
• Only two JFM plans developed in WAs (i.e.Kikonge, Mufumbwe)
7
![Page 8: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Progress: Community Management (cont.)
• Natural Resource Mapping• Undertaken but of little relevance to
forest inventories
• Social Infrastructure Development and Feeder Roads• Undertaken but far below targets• Important community contributions
made
8
![Page 9: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Sustainable Income Generation
• Significant number of groups trained and formed – however not always well targeted
• Effectiveness of some training unclear (timing, number of days, limited M&E)
• Not clear how effective the adaptive research has been but no evidence of tangible results presented to the mission
9
![Page 10: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Project Facilitation
• Concept of PFU and PPPs innovative – however implementation was constrained by lack of clarity of respective roles
• Cost overruns, lack of ownership in government
• Impacted on core components and ultimately reduced resources available to beneficiaries
10
![Page 11: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Meeting project objectives• Project had marginal impact on the increase of
incomes of poor people• Objective of building robust institutions and
systems for management of the forest - not successful
• Some uptake of knowledge and skills in production and processing – however no evidence of wide application
• Some improvements of social infrastructure and access to basic services - however few compared to initial target and uncertainty about the relevance of certain infrastructures.
11
![Page 12: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Challenge 1: Developing institutions for forest management
• Complex policy and legislative environment • How to establish robust institutions in the
absence of enforcement of legislation?• What is a ‘village resource management
plan’?• Does it include all their priorities or only
those funded by IFAD?• How to ensure PRA-based planning
continues after the project?
12
![Page 13: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Challenge 2: Building knowledge of forest resources and technologies
• Are the technologies the right ones?
• How to stimulate adoption rates?• How to improve market linkages?• How to improve quality and
marketing of products?• How to target training (areas,
beneficiaries, timing, length)?• How to ensure sustainability of
skills and training? 13
![Page 14: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Challenge 3: Improving living conditions and reducing isolation
• Did the project support the right type of infrastructure?
• How to ensure proper O&M in particular of roads?
14
![Page 15: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Challenge 4: Increasing incomes and assets of poor households
• How to manage expectations?
• How to work with the community (groups versus individuals)?
15
![Page 16: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Challenge 5: Sustainability and ownership
• How to ensure ownership at all levels (i.e. government, communities)
• How to continue activities after project closure (funds, human resources, policies, institutions)?
• How to ensure that the lessons from this project are incorporated in future designs?
16
![Page 17: 1 The Independent Office of Evaluation, Internation a l Fund for Agricultural Development Lusaka 18 November 2011 Project Performance Assessment of Forest](https://reader035.vdocuments.us/reader035/viewer/2022070408/56649e6c5503460f94b6bc76/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Thank you
• For being patient with our questions• For your generous hospitality• Sorry if we got some things wrong,
please tell us• Thank you for coming to this meeting• Thank you.
17