1 / 27

Evaluation Mission SEED Project Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

Evaluation Mission SEED Project Results, Conclusions and Recommendations. Islamabad, 01/07/2013. The Methodology and the Evaluation Report. Assessment of Project Objectives and Design A. Justification B . Objectives C . Project Design

amaris
Download Presentation

Evaluation Mission SEED Project Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation MissionSEED ProjectResults, Conclusions and Recommendations Islamabad, 01/07/2013

  2. The Methodology and the Evaluation Report • Assessment of Project Objectives and Design A. Justification B. Objectives C. Project Design • Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficiency and Management A. Project Budget and Expenditure B. Activities and Outputs C. Government Support D. Project Management • Assessment of Results and Effectiveness A. Effects and Impact B. Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Results C. Gender Equity in Project Implementation and Results D. Cost-effectiveness E. Major Factors Affecting the Project Results

  3. The Methodology and the Evaluation report (2) • Conclusions and Recommendations • Lessons Learned

  4. Projectdesign • The Project design is a key component of the project • SEED Prodoc is a combination of several proposals from partners • The focus is sometimes the CKNP/NRM, sometimes Rural Development activities • The result is: 13 Expected results, 58 Activities • 94 Budget lines with repetitions and often including disparate items, 49 Lump sums • Logical framework • Names of activities are often misleading, also in terms of geographical scope • Indicators

  5. Project Budget and Expenditure

  6. Project Budget and Expenditure (2) • The expenditure rate is 54,7% at 30/04/2013, 60% at end of June 2013 • According to Prodoc 50 % should have been spent by the end of 2011 • No-cost extension depends on PIDSA Programme overall duration, AED and MAE

  7. Project Budget and Expenditure (1)

  8. Activities and outputs • When assessing the activities, it is convenient to reason in term of what is related to: • CKNP Core Area • CKNP Buffer Zone (NRM, the Eyes of the Ecosystems) • Zone of influence outside the Park (Rural Development) • Research related to CKNP features and outside the Park, both from KIU and Italian Universities/researchers (should have been: Management oriented ecosystem research) • 2380 man/days, 160 missions • Tourism related activities

  9. Activities and outputs (2) Rightly, the SEED project activities in the Buffer Zone and the immediate area outside CKNP have been: • Irrigation channels • Poplar, willow, Russian olive and fruit trees plantations • Pastures improvements and fodder production • Wildlife/livestock interaction These have to be considered First Priority

  10. Activities and outputs (3) • Infrastructures (CKNP Directorate/Entry points, Link roads, etc.) • Trophy Hunting (1 new CMHA) • Income Generation (Tourism >>>, mining >>) • KIU Researches (11 Bagrote, 9 Shigar, 5 Haramosh and Hushey, 4 Braldo, 11 valleys with only 1 research) These have to be considered First Priority

  11. Activities and outputs (4) • Other activities should be considered good entry points to work with communities, however are indirectly related to the Park: • Health • Education infrastructure • Drinking water schemes, link roads • Anthropological studies and restorations

  12. Government Support • Government support is satisfactory at this stage of the Project • Involvement less satisfactory • At Federal level SEED is definitely less known than at Provincial level • Need to improve GoP and GB involvement for ownership and sustainability • Involvement will depend on results • Role after closure of SEED • No contacts with Army (pressure on Baltoro )

  13. Project Management • Project Management has improved since the initial phase of the project • Joomla software developed (codes and queries) • Reporting and Finances are submitted to PIDSA TSU on time (note: PIDSA TSU does not comment on field activities and the Management Committee cannot enter in technical details) • Audits recommendations and remarks still require follow-up and agreements on how to handle specific issues • The use of a “compensation” account to handle expenditure abroad is useful but irritual, a way forward has been identified in the past by PIDSA

  14. Project Management (2) • Technical follow up needs improvement in the brief working season: • Difficult logistics and costs • “Main office” in Skardu, ”Liaison Office” in Islamabad (staffed) • CKNP Directorate and AKRSP in Skardu • KIU/IMARC, EV-K2-CNR, WWF in Gilgit • MGPO and ACP in Islamabad • 1 M&E officer to cover the whole project area • Insufficient communication and coordination among partners

  15. Effects and Impacts • Impact evaluation is currently not possible as no proper Baseline studies were done • Indicators proposed in the Prodoc partly unrealistic, vague, not easy to measure, requiring specific information • Revision requested, not a proposal for new indicators • CRITICAL RISK

  16. Sustainability • The sustainability of SEED achievements is directly linked to the engagements of Federal and Provincial Governments of Pakistan to fund selected activities for CKNP and KIU • Most field activities are well identified and of great relevance for communities, therefore engaged in maintenance works and in applying the acquired skills • Sustainability of agriculture/livestock related activity is doubtful in the absence of extension services

  17. Gender Equity • The social context is extremely difficult to work in • The prodoc (and CKNP MP) do not have gender analysis but have a few gender specific activities (gender awareness, green houses, drinking water, education…) • However, there is lack of women involvement in NRM (VCP) • There is only one female Social Organiser (AKRSP)

  18. Cost-effectiveness • Overall costs • Field expenditure

  19. Cost-effectiveness (2)

  20. Cost-effectiveness (3)

  21. Cost-effectiveness(4) • Askole Mosque restoration cost more than doubled (from 12.9 million to 8 and then to 19.6 after two budget amendments) • Cost is now more than CKNP headquarter • Expenses related to raw material and labour are 12%

  22. Recommendations The following recommendations have been identified and discussed: • Reinforce the SEED management for the remaining project duration • Reinforce the CKNP Directorate and Park’s functioning • Reinforce the current Village and Valley Conservation Plans into operational plans

  23. Recommendations SEED/PMU • Establish the Governing Board/Steering committee at GB level, under Chief Secretary, including provincial stakeholders and Federal Rep, this Committee will continue after SEED closure • Strengthen the technical guidance of the Project • Improve proximity with CKNP area (Skardu or Gilgit) • Improve SEED visibility and signage standards

  24. Recommendations CKNP • Follow up approval of submitted Management Plan by Province Forest Department • Finalise the Park budget and submit a PC-4 before 10/2013 • Elaborate an Operational Management Plan for 5 years, subdivided in year plans, including a M&E system: adaptive management (as integration) • Improve Park infrastructure and signage • Improve field staff capacities and equipment • Closely liaise with Sassari University and KIU on GIS • After SEED closure, CKNP should take the lead in coordinating all activities in and around the Park

  25. Recommendations SEED and Partners Improve and reinforce the Village and Valley Conservation Plans (priority): • They should include a minimum set of information (as Baseline studies) on population, wealth, village activities, infrastructure, resources availability (land, water, pastures, livestock) • Resource (biomasses) needs assessment quantified • PRAs should be conducted in coordination (harmonised) by IP including CKNP • Plans should include maps (PRAs + GIS/topographic) • Plans should quantify (estimate) areas and costs of proposals included

  26. Recommendations SEED and Partners (2) • The focal points of SEED activities in the Buffer Zone and the immediate area outside CKNP should be: • Firewood production/harvesting • Timber production/extraction • Pastures and fodder production • Wildlife/livestock interaction For all these points there are technical answers to apply: Tree plantations, fodder production, Insurance schemes • Continue with Approved Plans in all the other activities • All researches should provide indications on which type of figures will be produced and how use the information within the CKNP Operational Management Plan

  27. Thankyou, Now: discussion

More Related