Project Final Evaluation - NTFP-PFM Oct 2013

Transcription

Partners:
Funders:
Forest landscape sustainability and
improved livelihoods through non-timber
forest product development and payment
for environmental services
End of Project Evaluation Report
ENV 2006 114-229
Submitted to SLA and its partners by LTS International Ltd
5th October 2013
The Baro River and its tributaries drain the watershed in the Ethiopian Highlands.
LTS International Ltd
Pentlands Science Park, Bush Loan
Penicuik, EH26 0PL
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (0)131 440 5500
Fax. +44 (0)131 440 5501
Web. www.ltsi.co.uk
Twitter. @LTS_Int
Registered in Scotland Number 100833
Email. [email protected]
Acronyms
BR
Biosphere Reserve
EWNRA
Ethiopian Wetlands and Natural Resources Association
GO
Government Office
MoV
Means of Verification
MTR
Mid-Term Review
NTFP
Non-timber Forest Product
OECD - DAC
Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development Development Assistance Committee
OVI
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
PDD
Project Design Document
PES
Payments for Ecosystem Services
PFM
Participatory Forest Management
PLC
Private Limited Company
PMC
Project Management Committee
REDD
Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation
SLA
Sustainable Livelihood Action
SNNPRS
Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State
Executive Summary
The NTFP-PFM Project [the Project] aimed to contribute to maintaining a forested landscape
that would support improved livelihoods for the local forest-dependent communities in focal
areas of South West Ethiopia and thereby ensure the delivery of environmental services in a
wider context. The project was funded primarily (80%) by the European Commission, with
matching funds provided by the Embassies of the Netherlands and Norway in Ethiopia. It had
a total budget of €3,342,318.
The Final Evaluation of the Project was undertaken from 3 to 21 June 2013. It encompassed
participation in the national lesson learning workshop on 3 and 4 June and field work in the
South West from 7 to 19 June.
General Findings. In general there has been good progress towards the achievement of the
Project’s Specific Objective1. The project faced a substantial refocusing in 2010 following the
Mid Term Review (MTR) that placed greater emphasis on securing Participatory Forest
Management (PFM) in the target Woredas2 as a priority within the project. The results
framework was revised accordingly, and the original results were re-organised and rephrased to reflect the new emphasis.
The evaluation report follows the main sections of the Terms of Reference (the OECD-DAC
criteria of Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability & Impact).
Relevance. The project objectives were relevant to the forest management policies and
stated forest-related priorities of the regional government, and were considered relevant to
the local livelihood and forest management priorities of the local communities with whom it
operates. The economic priorities around commercial agricultural – principally estate –
investment are a conflicting priority of regional government which needs to be reconciled.
The programme logic was coherent and built on the experience of a First Phase of NTFP-PFM
project. The balance of effort was reorganised following the MTR, so that a focus on
securing the natural forest under PFM was prioritised. Given the pressures on the forest and
the available resources and time for the project, the approach was relevant. However, the
institutional drivers of deforestation largely lie in land use planning and land allocation and
the conflicting investment agenda; now that efforts to secure PFM agreements and
associated legal rights for communities is well progressed in focal Kebeles, there is a need to
1
The Specific Objective is described in the logical framework as: “To develop and promote local forest management
and forest-based economic incentives with integrated practices of NTFP and forest product development, for different
people/forest scenarios”
2
Woredas are administrative units resembling a District in other countries. ensure interaction at a more landscape or catchment level to ensure the project’s outcomes
remain relevant going forward.
Efficiency. The restructuring of the project after the MTR significantly improved the
efficiency by which inputs were turned into outputs, although the focus was on the
establishment of PFM Groups and PFM Agreements and less on the wider landscape level
aspects of the project. The previous project approach and staffing structure, which led on
from Phase I, successfully supported individual (model) farmers but had limited scope for
scaling up.
The stalling of a number of PFM agreements affected the efficiency of project delivery.
Some of this is inevitable when dealing with communities and are not known in advance
(where for example historical border conflicts arise between communities). However, the
PFM process has been stalled by land reallocation for private estate development and the
setup of the Sheka Biosphere Reserve. More proactive interaction with the relevant
authorities may have improved the opportunity for negotiation or identification of potential
overlap in planning areas at an earlier stage in the planning process.
Effectiveness. The project design theory was generally effective, in that all Results
contributed to the achievement of the Specific Objective. The relative strength of the
contributions varied substantially: Result 1 (Effective PFM approach developed and
implemented) has made the largest contribution and Result 6 (Government enabled to
develop participatory land use planning and intensify land use and domesticated production
of forest products) the least. This is because of the change of focus to securing the forest
under PFM as the first priority since 2010. Judged against the Result targets, only four of the
six Results were partially achieved. The contributions to regional forest policy and improved
incomes are considered to have been successfully achieved. External factors (stated up front
as assumptions in the project design) did affect the full achievement of the other Results.
The processes of group formation are considered to have been inclusive, with consideration
of gender and the needs of minority and often highly forest dependent groups. There have
of course been the inevitable trade-offs that come with bringing previous open-access
resources into regulated management, but local rules have sought to make special provision
for the most needy and to existing legal or customary uses with respect to forest use. Apart
from the income-related benefits, the strengthening of forest-related rights for communities
in PFM Groups is a tangible success achieved by the project and one that will lead to
fulfilment of the project outcomes.
Sustainability. The establishment of PFM Associations at Woreda level provides the higher
level structure for the PFM Groups – whether established by the NTFP-PFM Project, the EDF
‘Scaling-up’ or any other – to be organised and represented at Woreda level. This really
creates the potential for sustainability of the PFM Groups where agreements have been
signed. Where agreements have not yet been signed there is a concern that; without
external support; these groups will not reach PFM agreement stage. This would have
represented a waste of resources had it not been for the long-term presence of Ethiopian
partner EWNRA who intends to continue working with these communities to complete PFM
group formation.
There is strong ownership of the project outputs amongst established PFM Groups.
Government engagement has been supportive and productive, looking ahead, there is still
no dedicated office that the project could meaningfully hand over to. However, in Sheka at
least, there was a commitment to continue support to the PFM processes through allocation
of resources in the upcoming year.
Looking ahead, the competition for land – from a growing population as well as from agribusiness investments – will present a real challenge for the maintenance of the forest and
forest-based livelihoods, no matter how much value can be extracted from the forest.
Impact. The project has made a promising contribution towards its overall objective.
Livelihoods for many of the targeted households have been diversified and the financial
contribution that NTFPs make to household incomes and the local tax revenues has
improved. The project has secured approximately 22% of the forest in the 5 focal Woredas
under PFM agreements in the last 4 years. This is a substantial achievement and has
potential to reduce the risk of deforestation in the area. Forest based incomes have
improved, not only for focal communities, but others who can now sell their honey forest
coffee and spices into more organised and higher value markets. The evaluators can
confidently state that these impacts would not have happened without the influence of the
project.
Looking Ahead. Going forward, a broader landscape level approach is recommended in
order to manage forests in the broader context the landscape within which they are placed.
Drivers of forest change come from aspects such as agricultural expansion (either for
smallholder land allocation or investment in estate agriculture) and there is a need to work
with Government to reduce such risks to forest loss by ensuring more effective planning of
the forest-agriculture interface. Lessons to be learned from the project’s experience include:
1. Going forward, a broader landscape level approach is recommended in order to
manage forests in the broader context the landscape within which they are placed.
2. The SW forests are in effect a ‘Water Tower’ for Baro and Akobo river systems and
have important ecosystem service functions that need to be recognised and
managed.
3. The structure of such a programme would require a different approach than what has
been used up until now, i.e. various NGOs working in separate kebeles (or sometimes
overlapping).
4. A watershed and basin type of approach is in line with the Government of Ethiopia’s
approach.
5. Both PFM and more restricted forest conservation – e.g. Sheka Biosphere Forest
Reserve’s ‘core areas’ – have a role to play within a greater landscape approach.
6. This concept of ‘functional landscapes’ is to maintain ecological functioning systems
to promote a productive landscape, in part by keeping soil organic matter levels and
preventing water resources from being drained from water towers.
Contents
BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. GENERAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 3 2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.1 Review of Secondary Information ................................................................................................................. 4 2.1.2 Interviews with Sample Beneficiaries .......................................................................................................... 4 2.2 DATA COLLECTION PROCESS ...................................................................................................................................... 5 3. RELEVANCE ....................................................................................................................................... 7 4. EFFICIENCY ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5. EFFECTIVENESS .............................................................................................................................. 20 6. SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................................................ 28 7. IMPACT ........................................................................................................................................... 33 8. CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 37 8.1 MAIN LESSONS LEARNED & ACHIEVEMENTS..........................................................................................................37 8.1.1 Project Objectives and Scope........................................................................................................................37 8.1.2 Project Organisation and Management ...................................................................................................37 8.1.3 Challenges and Recommendations............................................................................................................38 8.1.4 Broader Strategic Issues .................................................................................................................................39 8.2 LOOKING AHEAD ........................................................................................................................................................41 ANNEX A – ACHIEVEMENTS AGAINST EXPECTED RESULTS ............................................................. 43 ANNEX B: TERMS OF REFERENCE ......................................................................................................... 49 ANNEX C: EVALUATION ITINERARY .................................................................................................... 66 ANNEX D: LIST OF PEOPLE MET ........................................................................................................... 67 ANNEX E: CHECKLISTS ........................................................................................................................... 71 WOREDA & ZONAL RELATED QUESTIONS ..............................................................................................................................71 PLC/PFMA/COOP RELATED QUESTIONS...............................................................................................................................72 COMMUNITY RELATED QUESTIONS ..........................................................................................................................................73 Target Kebeles ...................................................................................................................................................................73 Non Target Kebeles..........................................................................................................................................................74 Background
The NTFP-PFM Project (full title: Forest landscape sustainability and improved livelihoods
through non-timber forest product development and payment for environmental services)
originally began in 2003 with the first phase being considered a learning phase with a focus
on piloting innovative approaches to Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and
community-based marketing of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs). At the end of Phase 1,
the project’s main strengths were found to be: i) highly motivated and committed staff; ii)
participatory approaches and close collaboration with the government; iii) the innovative
contribution to the establishment/strengthening of CBOs; and iv) the establishment of a
trade link for honey (van Rijsoort & Abate, 2007). Conversely, the major challenges were
found to have been: i) high turnover of government staff; ii) top-down governmental
budgeting system not linked to forests; iii) development policies focussing on agricultural
development; and iv) large-scale investments (van Rijsoort & Abate, 2007).
Phase 2 of the NTFP-PFM Project [the Project] was launched in July 2007 and ran until July
2013. The aim has been to contribute to maintaining a forested landscape that would
support improved livelihoods for the local forest-dependent communities in focal areas of
South-West Ethiopia and thereby ensure the delivery of environmental services in a wider
context. With a total budget of €3,342,318, the project was funded primarily (80%) by the
European Commission, with matching funds provided by the Embassies of the Netherlands
and Norway in Ethiopia.
The Project is implemented jointly by three partners: the University of Huddersfield (UHUD)
in the UK (the contractor to the EU), the Ethio-Wetlands and Natural Resources Association
(EWNRA) in Ethiopia, and Sustainable Livelihood Action (SLA) in the Netherlands. All three
were partners in Phase 1. The Project has an agreement with SNNPRS BoFED and BoA, and
works in close collaboration with its offices at the state and zonal levels. Operational
agreements have been made with the five (now four) Woreda Agricultural Offices and field
implementation is undertaken in collaboration with, and through, their staff.
NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
Page | 1
The Final Evaluation of the Project was undertaken from 3 to 21 June 2013. It encompassed
participation in the national lesson learning workshop on 3 and 4 June and field work in the
South West from 7 to 19 June.
The two objectives of the final evaluation are:
1. To assess the project progress made against the achievement of the expected results
of the project purpose, with particular reference to :
a. the efficiency and effectiveness of the project’s implementation,
b. the achievements made against proposed log frame OVIs and expected
project outputs, and
c. the relevance and sustainability of the project activities.
(for details of terminology see Annex B Evaluation Terms of Reference Annex 1)
2. To assess the project approach, activities and organisation in terms of the project’s
efficiency and effectiveness, the relevance and sustainability of the outputs and
the overall achievements of the project’s objective and purposes.
In addition, the evaluation team was asked to provide guidance about future directions of
this type of work given the on-going work with another funding agency and the discussions
about a wider project for the South-West.
Evidence to indicate the progress against Project Results and the Specific Objective were
gathered through secondary data Means of Verification (MoVs) and interviews with key
stakeholders in Zonal and Woreda Governments, as well as sampled Kebeles and Gotts3 from
within and outside of the NTFP-PFM target area. Field visits and interviews were held in all
three Zones where the project has been operating (Sheka, Kafa, and South Bench). A total of
198 people were interviewed during the course of the exercise, primarily in focus groups or
key informant interviews.
The evaluation report follows the main sections of the Terms of Reference (Annex B) that
follow the OECD-DAC criteria of Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability & Impact
and the specific questions set out in the Terms of Reference under these criteria.
3
Gott is a term for a community, a level under the Kebele. Kebel is Amharic for neighbourhood, it is the smallest administrative unit of Ethiopia similar to a ward. NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
Page | 2
1. General Findings
In general there has been good progress towards the achievement of the Project’s Specific
Objective4. The project faced a substantial refocusing in 2010 following the Mid Term Review
(MTR) that placed greater emphasis on securing Participatory Forest Management (PFM) in
the target Woredas5 as a priority within the project. The results framework was revised
accordingly, and the original results were re-organised and re-phrased to reflect the new
emphasis.
There has been a measurable improvement in the forest based incomes of households
involved in the project’s PFM process. The number of communities (Gotts) participating in
the PFM process has increased substantially since the MTR – from seven Gotts pre-MTR to
153 Gotts by end of project – but the number of fully completed signed agreements and
moving into full implementation of the Forest Management Plans remains at approximately
41%. The capacity of participating communities and Government partners has been
improved through training and practical exposure. This has extended beyond the project’s
targeted Gotts, to include areas covered by the ‘Scaling up PFM’ project.
The project has developed a workable set of institutional relationships for supporting the
management of the PFM and the forest marketing arrangements. These institutional
relationships are likely to need long term support before they are fully self-sufficient.
Looking ahead, the project has perhaps come ‘full circle’ in that the necessary focus on the
forest now needs to be broadened out in any future work to consider the role and function
of the forests and forest based livelihoods within the context of the wider landscape in which
they are located.
4
The Specific Objective is described in the logical framework as: “To develop and promote local forest management
and forest-based economic incentives with integrated practices of NTFP and forest product development, for different
people/forest scenarios”
5
Woredas are administrative units resembling a District in other countries. NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
Page | 3
2. Methodology
The evaluation used both secondary information review and direct interviews with
stakeholders in the project areas, as well as with representatives from national and regional
offices (whilst attending the national workshop 3-4 June 2013).
2.1 Data Sources
2.1.1 Review of Secondary Information
Documentation was provided by the Project’s management team and the team in Masha.
The information reviewed included:

Quarterly and Annual Reports to EU

Short term technical assistant mission reports

Review and evaluative reports (e.g. MTR report, Impact Assessment)

Internal M&E Reports and data sheets

Reports and plans from PFM Groups and PFM Associations
Presentations at and discussions with stakeholders attending the national lesson learning
workshop held in Addis Ababa 3-4 June 2013.
The secondary data was used to identify possible issues for investigation through primary
data collection, to corroborate and triangulate findings and interpretations from primary
data collection.
2.1.2 Interviews with Sample Beneficiaries
Primary data was collected through interviews with beneficiaries and stakeholders in the
three Zones of the project: Sheka, Kafa and South Bench. Focus group interviews were used.
A sampling frame was set up that allowed the evaluation team to interview:

PFM Groups that had been established for over 3 years

PFM Groups that were still in the process of development

PFM Groups where conflicts had stalled the completion of the PFM agreement

Representatives from Gots that were not involved in the project
Page | 4
Representatives from each PFM Group interviewed included men, women and minority
groups. This is detailed in Annex D.
At the Woreda level, the evaluation team interviewed:

PFM Association representatives

PLC representatives

Marketing cooperative representatives
Zonal and Woreda Administration, Agriculture (Natural Resources), Finance & Economic
Development, Cooperatives representatives were interviewed.
Visits to field sites were undertaken in each Zone, to witness PFM and NTFP activities and
project investments.
Interviews were held with SNNPR Bureau of Agriculture Office staff whilst attending the
national lesson learning workshop. Specifically issues related to Relevance and Sustainability
were covered.
A debriefing workshop was held at the end of the field mission, to which representatives
from all institutions visited were invited.
2.2 Data Collection Process
The evaluation team prepared a set of evaluation instruments, comprising:

A set of key issues and questions to be answered based on the DAC evaluation
criteria and ToR specific questions.

A semi-structured questionnaire specifically tailored to each of the main groups
interviewed: PFM Groups that had been established for over 3 years; PFM Groups
that were still in the process of development; PFM Groups where conflicts had stalled
the completion of the PFM agreement; Representatives from Gots that were not
involved in the project; PFM Association representatives; PLC representatives;
Marketing cooperative representatives, Woreda and Zonal Government
representatives.
Each day, the data collected was reviewed and the set of key issues and questions was
populated. Where additional information was required, to triangulate or to fill gaps, this
would be sought, either through the secondary data or through slight changes to the
questionnaire.
Page | 5
A “proportional piling” exercise was also undertaken with the PFM Groups to elicit semiquantitative information for use in the project impact assessment.
Page | 6
3. Relevance
Summary:
The project objectives were relevant to the forest management policies and stated forestrelated priorities of the regional government, and were considered relevant to the local
livelihood and forest management priorities of the local communities with whom it operates.
The economic priorities around commercial agricultural – principally estate – investment are
a conflicting priority of regional government which needs to be reconciled.
The programme logic was coherent and built on the experience of a First Phase of NTFP-PFM
project. The balance of effort was reorganised following the MTR, so that a focus on
securing the natural forest under PFM was prioritised. Given the pressures on the forest and
the available resources and time for the project, the approach was relevant. However, the
institutional drivers of deforestation largely lie in land use planning and land allocation and
the conflicting investment agenda; now that efforts to secure PFM agreements and
associated legal rights for communities is well progressed in focal Kebeles, there is a need to
ensure interaction at a more landscape or catchment level to ensure the project’s outcomes
remain relevant going forward.
Relevance in relation to the state of the forest
The representatives of the partner organisations and community groups visited have
unanimously expressed the opinion that the interest and decision to support and participate
in the project work is based on the fact that the forests in their districts are in imminent
danger from illegal logging and clearing for agricultural purposes, both by the local
community and investors. The government lacks the capacity to control illegal use of and
prevent logging and clearing of forests by the individuals coming from within and/or outside
of the district. Though forest protection is a traditional practice, the indigenous system could
not cope with the increasing problem of forest destruction. Ineffective forestry policies and
forest regulatory mechanisms, combined with poverty and lack of alternative livelihood for
the local community has also undermined the traditional system of forest management.
Furthermore, the target woredas are largely covered by forest (consisting more than 60% of
the land cover in the woredas) and it is very difficult for the government to protect this
expanse of land. The SNNPRS and Federal Government have a stated interest to develop a
Page | 7
forest strategy that integrates participatory forest management and the local communities
have an interest to adopt PFM to protect forests from being converted into unsustainable
land use systems and livelihoods and enable the changes so that they will be able to secure
rights and benefits. Hence the NTFP-PFM work and support is very relevant and
important in this regard.
Coherence with Relevant Policy and Strategy
Growth & Transformation Plan (GTP) – PFM can contribute to a broader rural
development strategy which aims to improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty whilst at
the same time protecting the environment and promoting genderequality. Therefore, PFM is
a dualistic approach: (i) establishing community based forest management system; and (ii)
adoption of improved livelihood systems through complementary natural resource based
interventions.
Livelihood diversity and agri-market development strategy of the government is relevant
to NTFPs development as the Project has introduced techniques and technologies that have
improved the productivity of NTFP production and the quality of the produce derived.
Integrated Land Management is relevant to the GTP and ADP that promotes integrated
water and soil management.
EC Country Strategy. The NTFP-PFM Project directly contributes to two out of three parts
of the Country Strategy’s focal sector II on rural development and food security, namely:

Support to agricultural markets and livestock development. The development of
markets chains for honey, coffee and forest spices has increased the returns to those
operating in those rural markets in the project areas, beyond those directly involved
in the project.

Management of natural resources, including restoration and preservation of
degrading environmental conditions in rural Ethiopia. Through engaging in a
process of management planning, negotiating user rights and establishing use
agreements based on management plans, and by informing policy on natural
resources management, the project has directly supported the achievement of this
part of the strategy.
Relevance of building on lessons and experiences gained during the first phase
Ensuring sustainable livelihood sources for the target community could require long-term
support to develop the NTFPs products demanded by the markets and creating enduring
Page | 8
market linkages to those markets. The focus of the first phase project (2003-07)
implemented by Huddersfield University and its partners was mainly on research and
development of forest and non-forest based livelihood opportunities that could help to
minimise people’s dependence on the forest resources, particularly timber or related
products.
The project’s strategy of first introducing livelihood diversification then promoting resource
management approach/PFM was a rational and appropriate step towards sustainable
forest management. Thus, the project strategy of building on lessons and experiences of
the first phase project was relevant and complementary to achieving phase two objectives; a
unique feature that Huddersfield University and its partners have introduced in the region.
Relevance of institutional arrangements
There are two aspects of institutional arrangements to be assessed:

The relevance of the institutional arrangements for project implementation.

The relevance of institutional arrangements for NTFP Production and local level forest
landscape management.
The institutional arrangements for project implementation at the management level
were maintained throughout the project period and relate to the minimum requirements of
the EU (i.e. the contract was with an EU organisation (University of Huddersfield) and with a
not-for profit organisation in Ethiopia (EWNRA)). The relevant regional government
(SNNPRS) was an institutional partner, thus allowing interaction with Zonal and Woreda
bureaus and offices.
Institutional arrangements for local NTFP production and PFM were developed through
an iterative process throughout the first and early second phases of this project. A set of
institutional arrangements were agreed upon that seem to suit well the local management
and marketing arrangements; although only time will really tell. Forest management
responsibility has been devolved to the lowest level, which is the Gott or community level,
but this is coordinated through a Woreda level PFM Association, to which Gott level PFM
Groups are associated. There is an inherent logic to this arrangement, and should allow the
PFM association to grow in membership and representation as more PFM Groups are formed
and PFM agreements are signed. The formation of district level PFMAs comprising all the
village institutions sharing a given resource minimise difficulties that could occur during
negotiations, reduces conflicts, and increases solidarity to protect resources from misuses
and degradation due to conversion to other land uses. Moreover, during the field
Page | 9
discussions, the evaluation team found that PFMAs are better positioned to bargain with
local government organisations (such Woreda Administration, WoARD) for their rights and
entitlements when organised at this level.
Two potential options for the institutional arrangements for marketing entities have been
tried and both have risks and opportunities (as noted later in the report). These are PLCs and
marketing cooperatives. Both arrangements are relevant and both should be able to
successfully operate. However, the institutional arrangements between PFMAs and the
marketing cooperatives still needs clarification; specifically the levying of an agreed
proportion of income from the cooperative to fund the running costs of the PFMA.
The separation of responsibility for forest management and forest product marketing is
probably appropriate because it provides for checks and balances in the system and allows
each entity within the institutional arrangement to focus on its function.
Relevance of the Project Design
The project design, as articulated by the project’s Logical Framework (Log Frame) was built
on the experience and partner interactions of an earlier phase of this work as mentioned
above. The process of needs identification and translation of that into a relevant objective
hierarchy was therefore informed by the detailed local and institutional knowledge of the
partners and their field agents. As a result, the objectives set out by the project were
informed by and relevant to the needs of the local situation. The efficiency and effectiveness
of the objective hierarchy is explored in later sections.
P a g e | 10
4. Efficiency
Summary:
The restructuring of the project after the MTR significantly improved the efficiency by which
inputs were turned into outputs, although the focus was on the establishment of PFM
Groups and PFM Agreements and less on the wider landscape level aspects of the project.
The previous project approach and staffing structure, which led on from the Phase I,
successfully supported individual (model) farmers but had limited scope for scale up.
The stalling of a number of PFM agreements affected the efficiency of project delivery.
Some of this is inevitable when dealing with communities and are not known in advance
(where for example historical border conflicts arise between communities). However, the
PFM process has been stalled by land reallocation for private estate development and the set
up of the Sheka Biosphere Reserve. More proactive interaction with the relevant authorities
may have improved the opportunity for negotiation or identification of potential overlap in
planning areas at an earlier stage in the planning process.
Has the project’s organisation been efficient and appropriate in the light of
required implementation, expected outputs and outcomes sought?
In light of the 2010 mid-term review (MTR), the project refocused on developing communitybased forest management agreements through a participatory forest management (PFM)
approach. Prior to the MTR the project had undertaken PFM in 7 Gotts of the project area,
focussing on other household level livelihood activities on other areas. Since the MTR the
project has taken on 153 Gotts through the PFM process in about 2 years.
Figure 1 below provides a breakdown of project progress against each step of the PFM
process. There is a relatively sharp drop from completed Gotts in Step 4 to Step 5, which is
predominantly related to the fact that 25 Gotts are ready to sign their PFM agreements but
the financial year end for Woreda offices is causing delays. There are also another 29 Gotts
that are pending due to conflicts mainly over boundary demarcations.
P a g e | 11
Figure 1: Project progress against each step of the PFM process. Approximately 33 gotts have
completed the five steps and are waiting for government to sign the PFM agreements (20 of which
are delayed due to dispute with Biosphere Forest Reserve.
7.2%
92.8%
11.8%
24.3%
25.5%
26.1%
7.8%
32.7%
13.1%
1.3%
75.2%
74.3%
66.7%
Not Done
Partially Complete
41.2%
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Complete
Step 5
Figure 2 indicates the status of the 177 Gotts from the beginning of the project.
Approximately 28% of Gotts were deemed ‘Not viable for PFM’. According to project staff,
there were three criteria used for assessing the viability of PFM in a given Gott:
i)
percentage of forest cover in the target area6;
ii)
level of community interest in PFM; and
iii)
existing conflict over boundaries in the target area.
It should be noted that the figures below come with the caveat of partially reliable data due
to conflicting data sources from project staff. As will be discussed further below, collecting
data from the field staff was a challenge mainly because of multiple versions of Gott level
data available from the project on the status of PFM.
6
The threshold at the beginning of the post-MTR process was 30% of forest cover. However, project staff explained that
this was not a fixed standard and that Gotts with less than 30% forest cover may have still qualified for PFM if it was
adjacent to other forests under PFM and/or if there was a strong interest by the communities.
P a g e | 12
Figure 2: Status of PFM in target gotts
63
Agreement signed
49
Not Viable for PFM
25
Ready to sign PFM
20
Pended due to Biosphere
9
Pended due to conflict
7
Old Gotts
4
Others
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
It is, however, worth considering whether the change of approach with a focus on PFM
agreement implementations has been more efficient than keeping with the original
approach of agricultural intensification. The project is
only now beginning to observe the benefits of the
earlier interventions of agricultural intensification
Betay Bezabih has introduced vetiver grasses,
among other practices, since the beginning of
the project
and NTFP domestication, even if the interventions
have ceased since the MTR. For example, since first
starting with the project in 2007 with training on
agricultural intensification and soil/water
conservation techniques, Betay Bezabih of the Jarika
PFM group in Fanika Kebele has established a
panoply of income-generating crops (apple, apple
mango, Arbaminch banana, black pepper, kororima,
coffee) as well as doing contour bunding of his
farmland with rows of vetiver grass. Betay states that
since the project has introduced him to these
technologies, he has stopped practicing traditional
beekeeping. His wife produces honey on their
homestead now and they sell (mainly to tej brewers)
approximately 80kg of honey per year at 35 birr per
P a g e | 13
kg. Asked whether the project had any benefits for him and his family, Betay explains that
before the project they were living in a thatch hut, but with the additional revenue from the
project interventions they have built a new house with a corrugated roof. He even went one
step further to say that “I consider the project as 2nd to my father”.
What are the implications of project’s organisation and the linkages with
government and other initiatives upon the efficiency of the project, its ability to
achieve the expected results and purpose in a timely manner and sustainability of
the project outcomes?
Linkages with government have on the whole been positive and within the context of
delivering the projects results. That government workers trained through the NTFP-PFM
project were transferred to the “EDF Kebeles” once Scaling Up PFM project started,
demonstrates a ‘multiplier effect’ of the project where GO staff are being trained by the
project and assigned to replicate PFM in other areas.
On the other hand, the engagement with the Sheka Biosphere Reserve (BR) processes was
not able to head-off the conflicts over PFM and BR Core Areas in Sheka. Would greater
engagement with MELCA7 have assisted? It’s difficult to tell, but certainly the result has been
inefficiencies – where investments in PFM processes have now been stalled at the agreement
level, until such time as the location of the BR core area is resolved. Proactive engagement
with MELCA with a rationale of an integrated approach where there may be space for both
PFM and the BR, and providing data on the location of PFM sites may have reduced the risk
of the poor placement of the BR in Sheka.
From a Time Efficiencies point of view, the project was not able to fully deliver all its
intended Results targets within the original time frame. It should be noted that this is quite
common - it is impossible to predict what issues may arise in the future and when – and
whilst some can be accounted for and managed, others which are outside the control of the
project, cannot. The project planning and management processes identified aspects where
progress was slower than planned, project management requested and received a no cost
extension which has enabled the project to complete most activities in support of the
project’s Results.
7
MELCA supported the establishment of the Sheka Biosphere Reserve in 2010. NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
P a g e | 14
How was the project organised?
Before the Mid-Term Review, the project had a central office in Mizan Teferi where
‘specialists’ in key areas – such as beekeeping, soil and water conservation, marketing, PFM,
cooperatives, etc – were deployed to Woreda offices when trainings and specific meetings
were required. One project staff member was based in each Woreda, and so specialists were
competing for time with these Woreda officers. This competition for project staff time and
resources created inefficiencies (from logistical delays) and sector territories in the project.
After the MTR, there was a restructuring of field offices
and teams into two area-based PFM multi-disciplinary
Yeshiti Non-timber Forest Products PLC in
Anderacha, SNNPR
implementation teams that would take into account
different skill sets, field experience and abilities to
work in a team” (MTR Final Report, 2010). The focus of
this restructuring was on implementation of PFM, but
perhaps at the expense of devoting attention for
advocacy to mainstream PFM into Government
processes and policies at Woreda and Zonal levels.
Woreda offices were then team based, which
improved the project ethos (particularly in the North).
Looking ahead, a similar such project may consider
the need for both support at the higher level of
Government – e.g. placing a GIS and Land Use
Planning Expert in Hawassa – as well as on-going
support for PFM, NTFP marketing and land use
management from a ‘bottom-up’ local field team.
The organisation of PFM Gotts within Woreda PFMAs make logical administrative units, but
the forests that the PFM Gotts manage do not always make effective ‘management blocks’
for forest management as they can vary widely in forest area. Gott boundaries may create
disproportionate sizes of forest for PFM groups, which has implications on their ability to
properly manage the demarcated PFM forest site; for example if a PFM group is managing
1,000+ hectares versus another one with 10 hectares (with 70 members). Practically, the
extent of benefits to be obtained from these smaller areas may be negligible. That said, the
Woreda PFMAs are effectively placed to manage conflicts because it’s clear to Government
Offices where administrative boundaries lie.
Who was involved in the project and what roles did they play?
The Table below summarises those involved in the project and the roles they played. The
project interacted with stakeholders at a range of levels. The successful delivery of project
P a g e | 15
results has required the presence of collaborating stakeholders at Kebele, Woreda and Zonal
levels, all of them with various purposes. Interaction with Kebele and Woreda government
staff has generally been good and is viewed positively by government representatives. The
project did not have a permanent presence at regional level to work with relevant institutions
responsible for policy decisions that would affect the project. Interactions with the regional
government were managed through the EWNRA offices in Addis Ababa.
Output 6 demands constant presence and dialogue with key decision makers at regional
level. That responsibility within the project team was not clear but by default would fall under
the Project Coordinator. In the past, a Liaison Officer from EWNRA Addis Ababa was
assigned this responsibility.
Short term technical assistance was deployed to help provide direction, build local operating
capacity and to fulfil specific technical requirements of the project. Based on the evidence
provided in project technical reports, these inputs were of a high quality, were acted upon
and provided valuable input to the delivery of project outputs.
Policy and
Practice
Forest
Management
Marketing
NTFPs
Extension
Services
Conflict
Management
Financial
Support
Technical
Support
Receiver
Technical
Support
provider
Facilitation
Organisation
Project
Management
Table 1: Organisations involved in the project and their roles
Woreda GO
Zone GO
BoARD
PLCs
Cooperatives
PFMA
EWNRA
Huddersfield
SLA
MOA-EDF (in
non-target
areas)
Biosphere
FARM/SOS
EECMY
Regional PFM
Forum
National PFM
Forum
P a g e | 16
The management team consisted of representatives from the three implementing entities
(Huddersfield University, SLA and EWNRA). The presence of the EWNRA management staff in
the project area was limited during the time immediately following the MTR. This was a time
of staff conflict. Whilst there may have been genuine political or safety reasons for not
engaging more strongly, it is considered that a more rapid and decisive management
intervention post-MTR would have allowed a change project focus sooner.
What was the working relationship with the Government institutions and
especially with the Woreda Agricultural Offices as key project partners?
In most cases, the Woreda office staff interviewed explained that the project’s workplans and
budgets were submitted quarterly and annually to be included into their own planning. This
seems to have been an efficient working relationship that ensured that GO staff were aware
of and could be available when needed for consultations, training sessions, etc. Of course,
there were also ad hoc requests for assistance – e.g. conflicts over boundary demarcation –
but these requests were outside of the ordinary.
This worked initially, but despite efforts to ensure alignment of activities on a quarterly basis,
the limited government staff availability has been a challenge for the project to fully
engage with staff as part of government planning processes, particularly at Woreda
and Kebele level. Around 2010, the integrated watershed management programme was
launched at all levels of Government, with Woredas as the implementing agents. Woreda
Government staff were heavily engaged with the implementation and promotion of this
programme, therefore it became a challenge to keep that momentum because Government
staff were constantly unavailable for project trainings and support due to the promotion of
this highly politicised integrated watershed management programme in every rural Kebele.
From the project side, this appears to have been a missed opportunity to promote and
integrate PFM and land management activity interventions into this Government-led
integrated watershed management programme; particularly the land management activities
since this was exactly what the Government was promoting (e.g. vetiver grasses, contour
bunding, etc.). There is evidence of a training session during Year 2 of the project on
“Biological soil and water conservation and land use management” for three GO staff in total
over the course of four days, but nothing more significant. The EDF-financed ‘Scaling up
PFM Project’ is operating in the three zones but is still limited in its scale; working on only a
few Kebeles. The Project has sought to work closely with the staff implementing EDF; joint
training has been held for example; in order to maximise opportunities for harmonising
approaches.
P a g e | 17
What were the networking relationships with other stakeholders and what was
their impact on project progress and achievement of the aim and objectives
In regards to conflict management, over 50% of the groups interviewed complained that the
government took too much time to settle the conflicts dealing with, among other issues, the
Sheka Biosphere Forest Reserve as well as boundary disputes between PFM group sites.
Though they have the same broad ideas over the need to protect forests and grant land
rights to its users, the project and the Biosphere Resreve seem to have diverging views over
the implementation of PFM. On the one hand, the project aims to take communities through
the five PFM steps and have a signed agreement with government. On the other hand,
Biosphere only have boundary demarcation (core, transitional, buffer) but no specific
procedures developed to manage these areas.
The target of the project being the implementation of PFM and having a signed agreement
in at least 100 Gots has been negatively impacted since 19 gotts have pending conflicts yet
to be resolved. As a result, they have not been able to complete the five PFM steps as part of
Expected Result #1; i.e. “full PFM establishment process completed in at least 100 communities
(gotts) in 38 focal kebeles”.
What capacity does the team have to go out and implement the project in terms
of human resources, financing for training and logistics
Training and Logistics: Considering that the project managed to fully establish 63 PFM
Groups – with 50 more in the process of finalising their PFM agreements – it would be fair to
say that they have managed to demonstrate a high capacity of implementing PFM. There
were some issues in finding the right ‘mix’ of staff that fit with the project’s new approach
post-MTR, however they seem to have been resolved with the current Project Coordinator
and his staff.
From the evidence provided to the evaluation team, the training that was conducted around
the PFM Steps, the NTFP enterprises and marketing is considered to have been of a high
quality. Clear capacity has been developed in government partners and the skills
development was singled out by Government respondents as one of the positive results of
the project.
Data management appears to have been a challenge for the project staff, both in
aggregating information from all its activities into a central location, as well as having the
proper data collection systems in place to ensure their accuracy. As mentioned above, the
evaluation team had difficulties at times obtaining the information required and there is still
not full confidence in the figures provided (mainly due to contradictory figures from various
spread sheets/sources).
P a g e | 18
Financial management: The project established financial management systems for the
project and the accounts of the project were audited annually, both in the UK and in
Ethiopia.
Financial control systems were used and a policy of cost minimisation was pursued, such that
a no-cost extension to the project was possible. Fees and related costs were realistic and
based on long experience of operating in rural Ethiopia.
The project was subject to three Riders, indicating that the project was able to adapt to
changing situations and needs in the pursuit of its specific objective.
Because of the budget breakdown (which is per budget item and not per activity or output)
it was not possible to assess the extent to which expenditure per Result was efficient.
Would it have been more efficient to focus primarily on the NTFP Marketing or
primarily on the PFM?
Should the project have focused primarily on establishing a clear legal framework for the
operation of PLCs and cooperatives and let the market do the rest?

In our interviews with the PLCs and cooperatives, they expressed their need for further
capacity building to overcome specific constraints (access to markets, high transport
costs, low capacity, insufficient capital) that are keeping them from being self-sufficient.

At the same time, it is suggested that any future intervention should focus on a ‘hands
off’ approach of letting the newer cooperatives work out their internal management and
financial systems – these groups must be able to ‘stand on their own two feet’.

This approach requires the acceptance that there will be both ‘winners’ and ‘losers’, i.e.
not every group will be as successful as the next. There have already been two cases of
PLCs making poor decisions due to a lack of understanding of their market. In this
specific case, the cooperatives had not known from private traders the price set by the
latter, and so it ended up with a profit margin (2 birr per kg) that could not give them
any capital to reinvest.
Market day in Anderacha
P a g e | 19
5. Effectiveness
Summary:
The project design theory was generally effective, in that all Results contributed to the
achievement of the Specific Objective. The relative strength of the contributions varied
substantially: Result 1 (Effective PFM approach developed and implemented…) has made the
largest contribution and Result 6 (Government enabled to develop participatory land use
planning and intensify land use and domesticated production of forest products) the least.
This is because of the change of focus to securing the forest under PFM as the first priority
since 2010. Judged against the Result targets, the contributions to regional forest policy and
improved incomes are considered to have been successfully achieved. The remaining four
Results were partially achieved: External factors (stated up front as assumptions in the project
design) did affect the full achievement of these four Results.
The processes of group formation are considered to have been inclusive, with consideration
of gender and the needs of minority and often highly forest dependent groups. There have
ofcourse been the inevitable trade-offs that come with brining previous open-access
resources into regulated management, but local rules have sought to make special provision
for the most needy and to existing legal or customary uses with respect to forest use. Apart
from the income-related benefits, the strengthening of forest-related rights for communities
in PFM Groups is a tangible success achieved by the project and one that will contribute to
fulfilment of the project outcomes.
Achievement of Results in terms of contributions to the project’s overall objective
and in terms of the benefits accruing to target groups
It is difficult to assess whether the achievements from the specific objectives have
contributed to the overall objective – i.e. ‘Maintain a forested landscape to support improved
livelihoods of local forest-dependent communities and ensure the delivery of environmental
services in a wider context’. While there is evidence that indicates improved livelihoods from
economic growth in NTFP markets and PFM plan development/implementation, it is still too
early to make any conclusions on the extent to which the overall objective has been
achieved.
P a g e | 20
The assessment of the extent to which the specific objective has been achieved is
summarised in Table 2 below, and presented in more detail in the following paragraphs.
Table 2: Specific Objective OVIs
Planned
Achieved
a) 75% of the focal kebeles practising
- 56% (22 of 39) of focal kebeles have at
local forest management with formal PFM least one Gott with formal PFM agreement
arrangements with government.
b) 50% of the households in the focal
kebeles involved in at least one ‘best
practice’ NTFP production / processing
and / or forest based income generating
activity
- Each gott tested various methods and
determined ‘best practice’ based on their
experimental trials (e.g. materials for
constructing beehives). Unfortunately no
household monitoring data was provided to
corroborate this.
c) 25% increase of forest income amongst
50% of the households in forest user
communities from NTFP and forest based
income generating activities from the
forest areas under PFM agreements
- According to the Impact Study a combined
mean of 24.1% increase amongst (all) forest
products was generated compared to the
baseline (Melaku, 2013: Table 6).
d) At least one viable model for payment
of environmental services (PES) identified
for the project intervention area
- Draft PDD to be completed with Free, Prior
and Informed Consent (FPIC) study
- Technical Specification included as annex
in PDD, but not yet reviewed by Plan Vivo
Technical Advisory Board
Specific Objective OVI A) – Kebeles practicing PFM
Specific Objective OVI a) states that “75% of the focal Kebeles practising local forest
management with formal PFM arrangements with government.” The PFM group formation
process is being done at Gott level (this is at a level blow Kebele). This makes Kebele
aggregation a bit misleading therefore, because although PFM under agreements is now
being implemented in 56% of focal Kebeles (22 out of 39 Kebeles) only in 36% of the Kebeles
are all the target Gots implementing PFM.
As has been noted above, the evaluation team have been given several different accounts of
the numbers of PFM Groups that have been established and so this is our current best
information estimate.
P a g e | 21
Specific Objective OVI B) – NTFP Best Practice
Specific Objective OVI b) states “50% of the households in the focal Kebeles involved in at
least one ‘best practice’ NTFP production / processing and / or forest based income
generating activity.”
Best practice was not defined in the project documentation, and so discussions with the
project team lead to a working definition being use of improved production or
domestication practices. Based on the M&E data provided to the evaluation team, the total
population of the focal Kebeles is 8,334. No household level monitoring data was available
for the evaluation team to measure the number or proportion of households that had
adopted best practice NTFP production. However, a total of 655 households supplied the
PFM PLCs and Coops with honey, coffee and spices by year 5 of the project. This represents
nearly 8% of the population. This is clearly significantly below the 50% target.
The 2010 MTR reported 20% of the households were involved in best practice NTFP
production/processing/income generation, but the evidence for this could not be identified
by the current authors. We therefore assume that this data has not been systematically
collected since the MTR.
Specific Objective OVI C) – Increase in forest-based income
Specific Objective OVI c) states “25% increase of forest income amongst 50% of the
households in forest user communities from NTFP and forest based income generating
activities from the forest areas under PFM agreements.” The interviews with Gott
representatives suggested that there had been significant improvements in forest based
income generation over the project life. The May 2013 impact assessment results indicate
that average total forest income has increased from Birr 4,967 before PFM to Birr 12,193
(145%) after PFM. According to the same assessment, most of the observed increases in
income might reflect the combined effect of the increase in the value of products and the
increase in the number of business-oriented households who tend to harvest more and sell a
higher proportion of their harvests. 84% of the sampled households had experienced two
fold increases in income from honey production, 31% had experienced increases of as much
as seven fold in coffee income and 23% had experienced income increases from spices of as
much as 13 fold. Additional household level data on changes in incomes was not available
to the evaluation team to triangulate these figures, but data from the PLCs and marketing
cooperatives did indicate substantial increases in the volume and value of sales over the
lifetime of the project.
P a g e | 22
Specific Objective OVI D) – Identifying viable PES scheme
Specific Objective OVI d) clearly states: “at least one viable model for payment of
environmental services (PES) identified for the project intervention area”. A Project Design
Document (PDD) has been drafted for the Plan Vivo8 Standard but not yet validated. A strict
interpretation of the OVI would consider this OVI achieved because the objective was to
‘identify’; in other words, the project has gone beyond expectations by drafting a PDD.
On the other hand, by undertaking this process with Plan Vivo the project has created
expectations within the target communities. In over 75% of interviews and meetings, the
evaluators were asked when the ‘carbon money’ was going to come because they have been
hearing about this source of revenue since 2010 – either through the project or the Ministry
of Agriculture’s trainings on REDD. Whether the project has tried to manage expectations or
not, the fact remains that people are waiting for ‘carbon money’ to arrive.
When asked about existing and future revenue streams, all the PFM institutions (PLCs,
PFMAs, cooperatives) indicated that they were expecting carbon finance to bring them to
their break-even point because other revenue streams were limited to membership fees and
percentages of profits from PLCs/cooperatives (in the case of PFMAs). This is a highly risky
situation because if Plan Vivo certificates are generated – and sold, assuming the project can
find a buyer – this would likely be in the form of a one-off payment and not necessarily
distributed directly to these groups.
Because the project has come to an end and the PDD has not yet been finalised and
validated by Plan Vivo, there is concern over the ownership of this process going forward.
Fortunately, EWNRA and the other project partners have a long-standing presence in the
region. However, resources must be allocated specifically to the completion of this process,
particularly to cover the transaction costs related to PDD validation. Otherwise, there is a
serious risk of PFM institutions – and its members – becoming disillusioned about carbon
finance and losing focus of the more important and sustainable goal of generating
sustainable income from forest-based products and NTFPs.
Finally, the same OVI states that the option identified for PES must be ‘viable’. Normally, a
pre-feasibility and/or feasibility study is conducted in part to explore the various carbon
standards and weigh up their strengths, weaknesses and applicability/eligibility in the
context of the project. In the case of this project, there did not appear to be any formal
8
Plan Vivo is a framework for supporting communities to manage their natural resources more sustainably, with a view to generating climate, livelihood and ecosystem benefits http://www.planvivo.org/about‐plan‐
vivo/. NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
P a g e | 23
identification process. Plan Vivo was identified because it seemed to focus on smallholder
farmers over relatively small areas, and also because there was a practical existing
relationship between Plan Vivo and one of the project’s technical advisors.
The project could have explored further the possibility of opting for the Verified Carbon
Standard (VCS) combined with the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Standard (CCBS)
because of the following potential advantages (over Plan Vivo): i) VCS/CCB projects are in
greater demand and dominate the forest carbon market9; ii) VCS/CCB provides the option of
scaling-up activities through a ‘grouped approach’, which would have been in line with the
upcoming Norad-funding ‘Scaling up REDD+’ project; and iii) VCS/CCB offers a revenue
stream over a longer period of time (normally 20-30 years) but with higher transaction costs
to cover the annual or bi-annual verification process. It is not the intention of this review to
recommend VCS/CCB over Plan Vivo, but rather to indicate that there are other options that
could have been considered.
Are achieved results at output level in line with the original plan and OVIs?
At output level, the overall assessment is that expected results have been partially achieved.
Table 3 below summarises achievements against each expected Result.
Table 3: Achievement against Expected Results from the project Log Frame
Expected Result
Achievement
Comments
Green – Achieved
Yellow – Partially
Achieved
Red – Not Achieved
Expected Result 1
Effective PFM approach
developed and implemented
in majority of the forest in
Project Area
Expected Result 2
Partially Achieved
However, the project has nearly achieved ‘full PFM
establishment’ within 33 more gotts, which cannot
be reflected within the OVI due to its specific
wording.
Achieved
Benefits to communities from
sustainable forest
management increased
9
The OVI specifically implies ‘full PFM establishment’,
i.e. through to implementation. Therefore a strict
interpretation of it would lead one to conclude that
it has achieved 63% of its intended target.
Achieved, based on evidence provided in the
Project Impact Assessment, produced in May 2013
by Bekele & Tesfaye (24.1% increase in incomes
from forest products)
Forest Trends (2012) Leveraging the Landscape – State of the Forest Carbon Markets 2012 NTFP-PFM Project Final Evaluation ENV 2006 114-229
P a g e | 24
Expected Result
Achievement
Comments
Green – Achieved
Yellow – Partially
Achieved
Red – Not Achieved
Expected Result 3
Partially Achieved
OVI 3 is not SMART since it was not measurable and
therefore difficult to achieve. Monitoring evidence
wasn’t available in relation to this OVI (in the form
of quarterly reports, for example) so we had to rely
on proxy unverified (and anecdotal evidence)
information provided by the project staff
Partially Achieved
Four Woreda-level legalised PFM institutions have
been established. Too early to assess whether the
PFM institutions are ‘viably operating’ since most
have been set up in the last 1-2 years.
Achieved
Continuous technical and financial support from the
project for the revision of the SNNPRS Forest
Proclamation. Land certificates in PFM Gotts in
Gesha Woreda granted land ownership rights (first
of its kind in Ethiopia).
Partially Achieved
An accurate indicator in this case would have been
a Participatory Land Use Plan developed at Woreda
or Zonal level, which was not developed. However,
training on land management was provided for 11
Development Agents.
Strengthened PFM support /
services delivered from
government officers and
Development Agents (D.A.s)
Expected Result 4
Economically viable forest
management and forest
enterprise development
institutions operating
Expected Result 5
Forest Proclamation and
Regulations development and
implementation influenced in
support of devolved forest
management (PFM)
Expected Result 6:
Government enabled to
develop participatory land use
planning and intensify land
use and domesticated
production of forest products
As Table 3 above indicates (and further elaborated in Annex A), the results are largely in line
with the planned indicators and milestones. It should be noted that this evaluation is using
the Log Frame from Rider 3, as there was a re-shuffle of outputs within the Log Frame as a
result of the Mid-Term Review.
Some of the indicators could have been better designed with the SMART principle in mind –
i.e. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound. For example, the OVI 310 is
not easily measurable because it would rely on GO staff to report to the project on their
visits. Therefore the project was setting itself up for an indicator that was difficult to measure.
10
“By end of project, government PFM facilitation and support capacity increased with at least one support visit by GO
staff per focal kebele per two months.[…]”
P a g e | 25
Have the results contributed effectively to the Project purpose?
The purpose (specific objective) of the project was “to develop and promote local forest
management and forest-based economic incentives with integrated practices of NTFP and
forest product development, for different people/forest scenarios”.
Figure 3: schematic of the extent to which Results have contributed to the project purpose
Result 1
Result 2
Result 3
Result 4
Specific Objective: to develop
and promote local forest
management and forest-based
economic incentives with integrated
practices of NTFP and forest product
development, for different
people/forest scenarios
Result 5
Result 6
Figure 3 provides a simple schematic illustrating the relative contribution of the results
towards the realisation of the Specific Objective. The strongest progress against this purpose
has been on the Result 1 “develop and promote local forest management” where an effective
implementation of the PFM process has been achieved; for example, with the 67 PFM
agreements and other pending signature from Government. Potentially, the completion rate
of the targeted Gotts may have been improved if it had targeted on achieving the full PFM
process (to the point of agreement) by the end of the project with a smaller number of
Gotts. As it stands now, there will be 98 PFM Gotts that will have not fully completed the
PFM process by the end of the project.
Traditional beekeeping (left & arrowed) is being replaced by domesticated beekeeping (right) after being introduced to
target areas during the first half of the project.
P a g e | 26
In terms of forest-based economic incentives, it is perhaps too early in the PFM development
stages to assess the extent to which PFM Gotts have received sufficient financial incentives to
cover management costs, as well as opportunity costs. Over 75% of PFM institutions are still
in their early stages and dealing with generating sufficient revenue to cover their operational
costs.
Results from the proportional piling exercise done by PFM groups interviewed (see Figure 4
below) indicate that there are only slight variances between the three target groups: ‘New’
PFM, Non-target Kebeles and ‘Old’ PFM. Comparing the Non-target Kebeles to the Old PFM
groups, for example, indicates an increase in the proportion of income derived from NTFPs.
Although there is no statistical validity to this variance, in all cases forest based incomes
represent approximately half of household incomes. This is both significant – indicating the
level of impact improving forest based NTFP incomes can have – but also indicates that there
is potential for farm based livelihoods improvements also.
Finally, “integrated practices of NTFP and forest product development” have been successful
particularly in the pre-MTR part of the project, where the focus was on agricultural
intensification and domestication of NTFPs. All PFM groups and institutions interviewed
expressed that the trainings received on various NTFPs had served as a ‘launch pad’ for their
activities and product development.
Figure 4: Results of the proportional piling exercise to better understand current breakdown of
household income.
100%
90%
23.6%
23.2%
25.1%
33.1%
26.4%
23.0%
46.6%
50.5%
52.4%
New PFM
Non-target kebeles
Old PFM
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
NTFPs (honey, wild coffee, spices)
Crops
Livestock
P a g e | 27
6. Sustainability
Summary:
The establishment of PFM Associations at Woreda level provides the higher level structure
for the PFM Groups – whether established by the NTFP-PFM Project, the EDF ‘Scaling-up’ or
any other – to be organised and represented at Woreda level. This really creates the
potential for sustainability of the PFM Groups where agreements have been signed. Where
agreements have not yet been signed there is a concern that; without external support; these
groups will not reach PFM agreement stage. This would have represented a waste of
resources had it not been for the long-term presence of Ethiopian partner EWNRA who
intends to continue working with these communities to complete PFM group formation.
There is strong ownership of the project outputs amongst established PFM Groups.
Government engagement has been supportive and productive, but looking ahead, there is
still no dedicated office that the project could meaningfully hand over to. However, in Sheka
at least, there was a commitment to continue support to the PFM processes through
allocation of resources in the upcoming year.
Looking ahead, the competition for land – from a growing population as well as from agribusiness investments – will present a real challenge for the maintenance of the forest and
forest-based livelihoods, no matter how much value can be extracted from the forest.
Extent of the ownership of the project purpose and achievements, and means for
ensuring this ownership
Time is needed to build effective organisations and institutions. Some of the local forest
management organisations have only recently been set up. Others are still in process and
these would not be considered sustainable without continued support of EWNRA. Ownership
of the project’s outcomes is strongest amongst those PFM Groups that have been
established for 3 or so years, and which have had – with project support – time to grow in
confidence and experience.
A positive indication of ownership at Government level was evidenced in Sheka Zone where
representatives said they will consider making provision of PFM within its 2013-14 budget,
P a g e | 28
although they admitted it would not have resources to take over PFM at the same resourcing
level as the project has been doing.
The PLCs and cooperatives both have encouraging potential for long term operation. There
just remain some issues which need to be resolved:

The lack of government-related support and transaction costs related to small scale
PLCs have resulted in some of them ceasing operations, whilst others have become
subject to elite capture (the latter is not necessarily a negative issue if it leads to a
well run company that can maintain a strong value chain for NTFPs).

The cooperatives need strong governance to maintain their focus on their marketing
and enterprise function. If they become successful, they also risk elite capture or
interference from higher level Unions, which may result in their losing their close link
to the PFM groups and their strong enterprise focus.
Extent of the policy and regulatory environment being in support of the project
purpose and achievements.
The project has contributed to the revision of the SNNPRS forestry proclamation and within
this there are provisions for the community management of forest. In Gesha Woreda, the
Woreda has made use of land legislation to grant group land certificates to PFM groups that
have signed PFM agreements.
The forestry regulations11 are being drafted and there is evidence that the project staff have
contributed to the development of the regulations, but these will be critical to successful
development of PFM and the realisation of local forest benefits in the longer term.
What became clear from the assessments was that PFM doesn’t necessarily ‘secure’ the
forest for the long-term (i.e. it is not a formal Protected Area status). It does not open up an
avenue for communities to monetise the land because the PFM agreement is based on the
sustainable use plan prepared by the owning communities. It provides a basis for the
communities to invest in and monetise the NTFPs within that forest under the sustainable
use plan. The PFM agreements strengthen the use rights over the forest, but if that land is
later demarcated as land for agribusiness investment it doesn’t prevent the conversion of
that forest. It does offer protection for the communities, who would in turn be eligible to
claim compensation (assuming a fair and transparent compensation mechanism is in place
for forest land).
11
The forestry regulations are still being discussed at the regional government level and there are no English or Amharic
versions available yet, as of 15 September, 2013.
P a g e | 29
There is a variation in the Zonal attitude to investment, some have a much more conservative
approach to investment and in these cases, the PFM probably has a higher chance of
success. The PFM needs to be undertaken within a wider engagement with the Zonal and
Woreda land use planning team (and probably Regional also) to understand how PFM can
contribute to the management and retention of the forests in the landscape.
Extent of the institutional capacity of the host BoARD and PFMAs,
cooperatives/PLCs to carry forward project outcomes post project support, taking
into account scientific, technological and financial considerations.
The technical and scientific methodologies applied by the project are simple and good
guidance has been provided. National standards & guidelines for PFM exist and the project
has been contributing experience to update these.
The institutional capacity within BoARD is weak. Whilst Zonal and Woreda staff have been
involved in the project and have benefitted from that in terms of gaining experience and
knowledge, there are no staff posts in BoARD that are dedicated to PFM. From a financial
perspective, it is encouraging that Sheka Zone is looking to include support to PFM in its
upcoming budgeting cycles. However, in the short to medium term, the likely government
level investment in expansion of the project activities beyond project areas will likely depend
on the resources BoARD and other implementing entities (like the Co-operatives Agency)
can source beyond their core budgets. Resources from climate financing and from
international donors provide a possible avenue for additional financing.
Institutional arrangements are in place for cost coverage of Coops and PFMAs (e.g. cost
sharing mechanisms). This does need to be tried and tested and it is not yet clear how that
revenue is allocated by PFMA for forestry management operations. This is the sort of thing
that the project really needed to be supporting for a year or so first to help “get it right”.
Smallholder (farmer specific) NTFP operations (like back yard bee hives, fruit trees) seem to
have survived well since 2010 and these household components have a greater chance of
sustainability without project support than the community activities that will need more ongoing institutional support.
There isn’t yet any evidence of real landscape level land use planning – that can incorporate
PFM, smallholder and estate agriculture, biodiversity conservation. This remains a weakness.
P a g e | 30
Extent of the socio-cultural factors being in support of project outcomes, and
whether the project outcomes are well grounded
Forest conservation and management is part of the local tradition and culture and in this
context, the PFM fits well with socio-cultural expectations.
What is the phasing out strategy?
There does not appear to be a phase out strategy for the end of the project. The expectation
was that the community–based institutions established by the project would take over the
responsibilities for forest management and NTFP marketing. The Project has been working
hard over the last 2 years to get PFM arrangements in place, but as we reach the end of the
project, still many PFM groups are in progress towards completion.
The question then, is “What happens to those?” Thankfully, the EWNRA has received
additional financing (from Norway) will continue to support them using alternative resources.
The development of strong institutions does take time and this can be evidenced in those
institutions that were established in Phase I or early in Phase II: these are confident, articulate
and have growing capacity for management of their forest and relations with Government
and other stakeholders. This is also the experience of similar projects and initiatives in
Ethiopia and elsewhere (e.g. Table 4). The project should have considered how it was
intending to phase out or hand-over from day one; whilst the opportunity of continued
financing is fortunate, there was no guarantee of it.
P a g e | 31
Examples of PFM in other countries
Table 4: Examples of PFM from other countries in the region
Participatory Forest Management in Sub-Saharan Africa – Some Examples
Tanzania
In Tanzania there are two forms of PFM:
1) Community-based Forest Management (CBFM)
2) Joint Forest Management (JFM)
CBFM takes places on communal or private land and the forest resources are
owned and managed by a Village Natural Resource Committee (VNRC), a group
or an individual. In this case, the local government has very little authority and
the costs/benefits belong to the owner of the land.
On the other hand, JFM is done on ‘reserved land’ that is owned and managed
by the local or central government. Co-management agreements are negotiated
and signed with the communities adjacent to the ‘reserve land’.
In both forms, fee structures are determined for each forest service/product. For
example, a 70 kg sack of charcoal has a 700 Tanzanian Shilling fee to be paid to
the PFM group.
Source: Vyamana et al (2008) Participatory Forest Management in the Eastern Arc
Mountain area of Tanzania: Who is benefiting?
http://iasc2008.glos.ac.uk/conference%20papers/papers/V/Vyamana_134501.pdf
Malawi
In Malawi, non-State forest reserves known as Village Forest Areas (VFA) are
brought under the control of Village Natural Resource Management
Committees (VNRMC). In some studies, communities have indicated that they
are able to guard their VFA against intruders and that they are able to make
their own decisions in relation to the use of forest resources. In comparison to
PFM in Ethiopia, Malawi’s approach to Community Based Forest Management
(CBFM) appears to have multiple versions that are similar but with slight
variances.
Sources:
Wily, Liz (2003) Participatory forest management in Africa: an overview of
progress and issues. Second International Workshop on Participatory Forestry in
Africa
Kafakoma (2009) Locally controlled forestry Key factors affecting the effectiveness
of community based forest management (CBFM) within and outside village
natural resource management committees – study report. Malawi Forest
Governance Learning Group; International Institute for Environment and
Development
P a g e | 32
7. Impact
Summary:
The project has made a promising contribution towards its overall objective. Livelihoods for
many of the targeted households have been diversified and the financial contribution that
NTFPs make to household incomes and the local tax revenues has improved. The project has
secured approximately 22% of the forest in the 5 focal Woredas under PFM agreements in
the last 4 years. This is a substantial achievement and has potential to reduce the risk of
deforestation in the area. Forest based incomes have improved, not only for focal
communities, but others who can now sell their honey forest coffee and spices into more
organised and higher value markets. The evaluators can confidently state that these impacts
would not have happened without the influence of the project.
The Project’s Overall Objective was to:
Maintain a forested landscape to support improved livelihoods of local forest-dependent
communities and ensure the delivery of environmental services in a wider context
It was anticipated that this could be measured by

Decrease in rate of deforestation and landscape degradation

Woreda level rural economic growth increasingly based on sustainable forest
management, forest-based enterprise development including NTFP & forest product
development / trading and payment of environmental services.
Impact on Deforestation Rates
The Project commissioned an inventory of the forests of the three targeted Zones. This
inventory drew on a number of historical studies and conducted its own field validation work
of satellite imagery. This section is based on the information provided in these reports,
supported by interviews with stakeholders in the project area.
The 1985-2005 deforestation rate for the area was approximately 1.2-1.5%, but in the last
decade this has increased rapidly (2001-2005 estimates are approximately 3.0-3.6%). The
2009 inventory undertaken by the project suggests that this trend has continued. Figure 5
below shows that the main drivers of forest loss have been conversion for small holder and
estate agriculture.
P a g e | 33
Figure 5: The extent of forest cover change 1973-2001 in focal Woredas: (Source: 2nd Mission
Report Land Use Planning and PES ST-TA)
120,000
100,000
Area ha
80,000
Forest converted to
Coffee/Tea Estate
60,000
Forest lost to
Agriculture/Settlement
40,000
Agriculture/settlement
reverted to forest
20,000
Forest: No change
‐
Figure 6: The coverage of PFM compared to total forest cover in focal Woredas (Source: 2nd Mission
Report Land Use Planning and PES ST-TA and Project M&E Reports)
100,000
Area ha
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
‐
Part of the rationale of the project has been to add value to the forest such that it is more
valuable standing than converted. Bringing forest under PFM agreements will lead to
substantial proportions of forest under management, particularly in Gesha, Masha and
Anderacha Woredas. (Figure 6 and Table 5). The project should be applauded for this.
P a g e | 34
Table 5: Deforestation statistics for the focal Woredas (Source: 3rd Mission Report Land Use
Planning and PES ST-TA)
Woreda
Forest area
1973
Forest Area
2009
Lost to
Agric
(%)
Lost to
Estates
(%)
PFM Area
(ha)
PFM Area
(% of 2009
area)
Gesha
73,901
29132
10%
0%
9553
32%
Masha
63469
53435
12%
1%
18078
33%
Anderacha
85748
80630
8%
9%
25865
32%
S Bench
22671
18358
20%
5%
2372
6%
Sheka
90078
33664
14%
50%
493
1.5%
However the extent to which this reduces the risk of deforestation remains in doubt. The
value of the forest has undoubtedly increased from an economic and social perspective for
the communities (specifics of this are outlined in the next section). But unless this is well
incorporated into land use planning processes, and the PFM areas recognised as having
some level of permanence or status, the allocation of land for investment will not necessarily
take into consideration forest under PFM agreements.
Even if the land is afforded some protection status, land pressures from a growing
population needing land to grow food on will have to be accommodated some how. One
solution (that brings the project back ‘full-circle’ to the initial rationale of working at a land
scape level) is to improve the productivity of agricultural land outside of the forest, enabling
more intensive, but sustainable, land use practices. We explore this further in the next
chapter.
Impact on Livelihoods
Drawing on the data for the trade in Honey only, (Figure 7) we can see that the project has
had a positive impact on the local honey trade. As a proxy for the influence on the local
forest-based economy, we can see that the NTFP market has grown substantially during the
project period. Granted that prices will have risen due to inflation, but the project can be
attributed with introducing improved honey production and processing and creating market
linkages to facilitate the growth of the local honey based economy. This NTFP trade is now
well established and likelihood of long term benefits are high.
P a g e | 35
Figure 7: Changes in the local Honey based economy 2004-2010
Anderacha honey purchased and average purchase/sales prices
60
70,000
50
60,000
40
50,000
30
40,000
30,000
20
20,000
Average prices (in Birr per kg)
Honey purchased and supplied by members (in birr)
80,000
10
10,000
-
2004 (Y2)
2005 (Y3)
2006 (Y4)
2007 (Y1)
2008 (Y2)
Phase I
2009 (Y3)
2010 (Y4)
Phase II
Total amount of honey purchased (in kg)
Supply by members (in kg)
Average purchase price (birr per kg)
Average sales price received (birr per kg)
Masha honey purchased and average purchase/sales prices
60
70,000
50
60,000
40
50,000
40,000
30
30,000
20
20,000
80,000
10
10,000
-
2004 (Y2)
2005 (Y3)
2006 (Y4)
2007 (Y1)
2008 (Y2)
Phase I
2009 (Y3)
2010 (Y4)
Phase II
Total amount of honey purchased(in kg)
Supply by members(in kg)
Average purchase price per kg
Average sales price received per kg
Gesha honey purchased and average purchase/sales prices
60
70000
50
60000
40
50000
40000
30
30000
20
20000
80000
10
10000
0
0
2004 (Y2)
2005 (Y3)
2006 (Y4)
2007 (Y1)
Phase I
2008 (Y2)
2009 (Y3)
2010 (Y4)
2011 (Y5)
Phase II
Total amount of honey purchased(in kg)
Supply by members(in kg)
Average purchase price per kg
Average sales price received per kg
P a g e | 36
8. Conclusions
8.1 Main Lessons Learned & Achievements
8.1.1 Project Objectives and Scope
Building on their understanding from delivering Phase I, the management team clearly had a
good understanding of the land-use related needs and the potential role a project such as
this could play. Given its limited resources and time – relative to the scale of the issues in the
target area – the project probably tried to take on too much at once.
The decision to focus on the establishment of PFM institutions and PFM forest management
following the MTR process was a sensible (given its limited resources and time) but that
doesn’t mean that the other issues is was dealing with have gone away: the project had to
prioritise and it did so appropriately in the evaluators opinion. This is evidenced by the
achievements presented this report. However this is not nearly enough to secure the forests
of the SW and the highly valuable ecosystem service functions that they provide.
The dual focus on PFM and NTFP marketing was appropriate, and there are valuable lessons
to be learned about adding value to NTFPS through improvements in production, processing
and market linkages. However this sort of success is likely only to be possible for a few
select products. It may be repeatable within the forests of the South West (for those areas
with honey and forest coffee).
The project lacked an exit strategy (beyond securing further funding for a continuation of the
project’s work). This was ultimately successful but a risky strategy. There needs to be a
concerted effort to build sustainability in the process, and this requires engagement at all
levels – from local capacity development up to institutional and policy development in
BoARD at Regional level.
8.1.2 Project Organisation and Management
It is acknowledged that the project has had to work within the constraints of the “70:30” rule
in terms of how it allocates its resources. It is also acknowledged that the PMC did an
excellent job in recruiting and retaining a staff complement that - on the whole - were well
P a g e | 37
qualified and motivated. This is not an easy task for such an isolated location as the SW
Ethiopia.
The project staffing structure was initially adopted from the Phase I. With hindsight and the
experience from the 5 plus years of operation some useful lessons for the future
management of such programme can be identified:
Strong PMC oversight of the field operations, particularly from the EWNRA office, is needed.
A conflict situation between members of the field staff arose around the time of the MTR
that soured team spirit and caused delays in the project moving forward. Once the decision
had been made to adopt the recommendations of the MTR, decisive action was needed,
because the delay only deepened team and project related conflict.
The approach of putting ‘boots on the ground’ to build and engage with the PFM
development process delivered rapid results, but it did lead to a very bottom-up focus.
There is a need to have a level of strategic and higher level engagement also, to ensure
potential issues (such as investment planning and land use allocation) can be engaged with
strategically. Engagement with regional and national PFM practitioner networks for example,
and engagement with the relevant Bureaus in Hawassa to ensure the project had both the
profile t deserves and was able to influence or at least have advance warning of decisions or
processes that may affect it.
This leads on to the third management/organisation lesson which reflects the need for
cooperation and integration. There was almost a feeling that the NTFP-PFM project was in
competition with others to over who could register the most PFM groups or secure the
largest areas of forest under PFM. This should not be a competitive process: if these various
groups are working towards a set of common goals – ideally stated by the regional
government(s) – there is no reason why various forest and landscape management
approaches; if planned and applied in the appropriate places, may not be delivered
concurrently by organisations operating in concert.
8.1.3 Challenges and Recommendations
Throughout the report, there have been challenges and gaps identified that provide valuable
lessons learned going forward.
1. Challenge: There has been a lag in the efficiency of establishing PFM agreements
due to the fragile relationship with the Sheka Biosphere Reserve.
Recommendation: Hold periodic coordination meetings with Melca Ethiopia and
other local partners in the project area.
P a g e | 38
2. Challenge: The project team struggled to provide quality data to the evaluation team
due to inadequate data management systems.
Recommendation: i) Build a central repository for important live documents; ii) ????
3. Challenge: While significant progress has been made in establishing PFM sites in the
project area, the local government – particularly at Woreda and Kebelele level – has
not proven to demonstrate the capacity or willingness to take on more responsibility
post-project.
Recommendation:
4. Challenge: Expectations from communities, PFM institutions and Government over
REDD+ finance are inflated, which is an important risk that needs to be mitigated by
(e.g. Plan Vivo normally arranges a one-off ex ante payment for new projects starting
up, but this would first require a benefit sharing mechanism to be determined
through free, prior and informed consent consultations with the stakeholders).
Recommendation: When conducting future consultations for the Plan Vivo project,
provide a greater appreciation of the challenges and the prerequisites for accessing
‘carbon money’ – i.e. have discussions over the potential costs and implications, not
only the benefits.
8.1.4 Broader Strategic Issues
The National Workshop (3-4 June 2013) provided an opportunity to share experiences and
lessons from the project with wider regional and national stakeholders. Some key issues of
discussion at that meeting included:

The SW spices potential and management gaps;

The need to focus in the future on sustainable utilization of timber by the local
communities due to the fact that NTFP may not be sufficient to sustain PFM in the
future

The discussion being made with ENTRO in connection to PES by downstream projects
such as hydropower as a sustainable source of financing
Spices in the south west have a limited potential in the wild as production and quality
control is limited in a natural setting. The market potential for these has not been explored
by the project, which has focused on honey and coffee which have shown greatest potential.
In comparing to cardamom production in Asia, forest understory clearance for production
(similar to understory clearance for coffee production in SW Ethiopia) has been an issue in
trying to balance forest management and commercial production.
P a g e | 39
The project has made a case for allowing Timber production, making the point that
harvesting of timber would create sufficiently high returns to make the management of the
forest economically attractive. The reviewers would suggest that helping communities to
harvest merchantable timber has its pros and its cons. Felling trees, preparing and skidding
logs to a point where they may be collected by buyers will need skills and investment, as well
as a detailed and more technical management plan. The political economy of timber
production may result in interests from other parties (e.g. timber processors, hauliers) keen
to access the valuable timber resources competing with the community interests. The value
of standing timber may represent a potentially important resource for the community, but
that value could also represent a threat to PFM is not well managed.
PES production is an interesting theoretical debate. Putting this into practice is in most cases
significantly more complex. Carbon, as a global ecosystem benefit has existing markets and
assessment/MRV methodologies that can be applied, and the link between beneficiaries and
benefits can be relatively easily pinpointed. On the other hand downstream ecosystem
service benefits, such as water and sediment management, are much more difficult to
attribute to particular point sources or users.
A PES approach where direct payments are made by ecosystem service users to ecosystem
service providers would require

The policy, legal and institutional arrangements to be in place to enable a
transparent; and well governed payment system, and;

The potential ecosystem service providers to develop and market those services.
In addition, this assumes that the incentives for particular land use decisions in the SW
highland forests of the Baro and Akobo catchments are financially driven. If they are, a
downstream bulk water user may have a very large number of people to pay, resulting in
either an unsustainable huge PES bill for the water user, or an insignificantly small amount of
payment received by the land manager in the catchment.
In kind payments, by way of support for technical advice and support, market development
enhanced rights may be alternatively considered. Over time, the modalities of a PES with
direct payments may also be explored.
P a g e | 40
8.2 Looking Ahead
1. Going forward, a broader landscape level
approach is recommended in order to
manage forests in the broader context
the landscape within which they are
placed. Drivers of forest change come
from aspects such as agricultural
expansion (either for small holder land
What is the ‘Landscape Approach’?
The ‘Landscape Approach’ strategically considers
the wider landscape, not just the immediate locality.
It ensures that communities downstream are not
adversely affected by land uses higher up in the
watershed. Through participatory planning, it
combines farming needs with soil and water
conservation.
allocation or investment in estate
It involves protecting and rehabilitating watersheds
agriculture) and there is a need to work
in a way that increases the productivity of the land
with Government to reduce such risks to
forest loss by ensuring more effective
planning of the forest-agriculture
interface.
for both the short-term and the long-term. This can
involve soil and water conservation activities,
reforestation and area enclosures to allow
regeneration of vegetation.
2. The SW forests are in effect a ‘Water Tower’ for Baro and Akobo river systems and have
important ecosystem service functions that need to be recognised and managed. The
PFM work in the south west could serve as the focal point around which sustainable land
management and forest management related activities can be as part of integrated
watershed management programmes.
3. The structure of such a programme would require a different approach than what has
been used up until now, i.e. various NGOs working in separate kebeles (or sometimes
overlapping). With a broader geographical and technical scope, greater coordination
and linkages between non-State actors would be essential.
4. A watershed and basin type of approach is in line with the Government of Ethiopia’s
approach – as communicated in its Growth & Transformation Plan.
5. Both PFM and more restricted forest conservation – e.g. Sheka Biosphere Forest
Reserve’s ‘core areas’ – have a role to play within a greater landscape approach. PFM
allows for forests and its resources to provide economic incentives/benefits, but with the
risk of being overtaken by large agri-business types of investments. Whereas with forest
conservation – ideally in remote forested areas with minimal reliance from forestdependent communities – there is an opportunity to secure and protect forested areas
providing critical ecosystem services, in addition to adding greater value to downstream
P a g e | 41
economic activities ‘outside of the forest’.
6. This concept of ‘functional landscapes’ is to maintain ecological functioning systems to
promote a productive landscape, in part by keeping soil organic matter levels and
preventing water resources from being drained from water towers. A landscape needs to
function as an effective ecosystem both upstream and downstream.
P a g e | 42
Annex A – Achievements against
Expected Results
Expected Result 1: Effective PFM approach developed and implemented in majority of
the forest in Project Area
Planned
By end of project, full PFM establishment
process completed in at least 100
communities (gotts) in 38 focal kebeles.
Forest management plans implemented by
communities in at least 100 communities in
38 kebeles before the end of year 6 of
project
Achieved

63 signed PFM agreements in 33 kebeles
completed Step 5 in PFM process, and
are thereby fully established and in the
forest management plan implementation
phase.
Extent of achievement
-
Partially achieved
The OVI specifically states ‘full PFM establishment’, therefore a strict interpretation of
it would lead one to conclude that it has achieved 63% of its intended target.
However, the project has nearly achieved ‘full PFM establishment’ within 33 more
gotts, which cannot be reflected within the OVI due to its specific wording.
For the second part of this OVI, the extent to which is meant by “forest management
plans implemented” is not clear. If it implies that these plans are fully implemented
then there would be zero PFM groups that meet the criterion.
P a g e | 43
Expected Result 2: Benefits to communities from sustainable forest management
increased
Planned
By end of project, 25% increase in forest
derived household income through
sustainable off take and marketing of forest
products, and services amongst 50% of the
households in forest user communities.
Achieved





According to Impact Study (Melaku,
2013), a mean 24.1% increase amongst
forest products was generated compared
to the baseline (Table 6 of the study)
174 HHs in seven kebeles engaged in
honey trading establishing seven PLCs
this is about 8% of the total HHs
(assuming all HHs are forest users)
The seven PLCs operating almost
independently with the sale of honey.
Diversification into spices is now
underway.
The price of unprocessed honey has
increased on average from 12 birr in
2007 to 48 birr/kg in 2012
Six cooperatives that comprises 323
members of which 88 female have
established and ready to start enterprise
development activities
Extent of Achievement
-
-
Achieved, based on evidence provided in the Project Impact Assessment, produced
in May 2013 by Bekele & Tesfaye (Table 6: Income from major forest products
extracted before and after PFM)
As a proxy, the significant increase in price and volume traded of honey can confirm
an increase in household income.
P a g e | 44
Expected Result 3: Strengthened PFM support / services delivered from government
officers and Development Agents(D.A.s)
Planned
By end of project, government PFM
facilitation and support capacity increased
with at least one support visit by GO staff
per focal kebele per two months.
Achieved
-
-
70% of beneficiaries perceive GO
support/services for PFM improved and
useful.
-
-
Extension Agents have conducted
the support visits to facilitate
boundary conflicts
According to the project staff, “The
GO staff particularly the DAs are on
average conducting two visit per
kebele per month in relation to
supporting the PFM CBOs and ED
establishment process” However
there has been no evidence of
monitoring to demonstrate visits per
two months (e.g. quarterly
monitoring reports)
80% of those interviewed perceive an
improvement in GO support/services
MOA-EDF PFM in four project
woredas
The project has signed MoU with
woreda Agricultural Offices (AO) for
effective joint implementation and
GO staff are involved in all project
trainings and workshops.
The GO experts and DAs are involved
in the joint planning for community
level PM&E process and community
feedback assessment
-
Partially achieved
OVI 3 is not SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time-bound) since it
was not measurable and therefore difficult to achieve.
Monitoring evidence wasn’t available in relation to this OVI (in the form of quarterly
reports, for example) so we had to rely on proxy unverified (and anecdotal evidence)
information provided by the project staff (last three bullets).
P a g e | 45
Expected Result 4: Economically viable forest management and forest enterprise
development institutions operating
Planned
By the end of the project, 75% of PFM
Institutions in 20 focal kebeles viably
operating with own financial and human
resources
Achieved


PFM institutions implementing forest
management agreements and forest
management plans in at least 50
communities (gotts) in 20 kebeles before
end of project
Four woreda level legalised PFM
institutions have been established
These established legalised PFM
institutions cover 33 kebeles that
constitute a total of 108 gotts.
Among the 108 gotts, 63 gotts have
signed an agreement with respective
GOs.
-
Partially achieved
Too early to assess whether the PFM institutions are ‘viably operating’ since most
have been set up in the last 1-2 years
As far as the quantitative measure is concerned, this output can be considered
achieved because a sufficient number of institutions have been created in at least 50
communities
P a g e | 46
Expected Result 5: Forest Proclamation and Regulations development and
implementation influenced in support of devolved forest management (PFM)
Planned
By end of project SNNPRS Forest Policy and
Regulations revised with increased support
for PFM
Achieved

The project has provided continuous
technical and financial support for the
revision of the SNNPRS Forest
Proclamation. The Proclamation, after a
series of participatory processes, has
been approved in August 2012 and
published for dissemination

The project is also supporting for the
formulation of the Forest Regulation and
this is at the final stage, to be
commented on by the multi-stakeholder
workshop and awaiting approval

Land certificates granted to PFM gotts in
Gesha woreda where they are granted
not only rights to use the forest but also
land ownership rights. This is the first
case in Ethiopia for forests (although it
has been recently applied for pastoralist
communities in the East of Ethiopia)
-
Achieved
The formulation of the Forest Regulation has taken much longer than expected,
however it appears to be near completion.
The land certificates granted to PFM gotts in Gesha have piqued interest from
neighbouring woredas and zones, and has the potential as being the catalyst for
other woreda administrations to take similar ‘risks’ (in that there is no clear policy
from higher levels of Government to grant these rights).
P a g e | 47
Expected Result 6: Government enabled to develop participatory land use planning
and intensify land use and domesticated production of forest products
Planned
By end of project:
-
-
Government capacity developed to
undertake strategic PLUP at wereda
to accommodate wider land use and
population pressure issues.
Pilots of best practices highlighting
land intensification, and
domestication of forest products in
75% of the 20 focal kebeles,
community and government driven.
Achieved



According to project documentation:
“PLUP activities are implemented first in
two pilot sites of two woredas with
selection of six trial farmers and it now
started to be implemented in additional
one site (Sheka)”.
Training on land management has been
given to 11 Development Agents.
Transfer of capacity with GO extension
staff in Keffa Zone (transferring them
from PFM project to EDF project because
they had developed a certain expertise in
PFM that would be valuable for setting
up EDF)
-
-
Partially achieved
An accurate indicator in this case would have been a Participatory Land Use Plan
developed at woreda or zonal level. Also, key relevant trainings for this output have
been delayed due to ‘government staff / institutional changes’, which can arguably
be considered an insufficient reason as this is a common occurrence in Government
Offices. For example:
- Training on strategic PLUP in Zones based on agreement with regional BOA
and NRMEPA has been delayed, apparently due to government staff /
institutional changes
- Training on strategic PLUP has not yet taken place with GO, although it has
been discussed with region and agreed. This is delayed due to government
staff / institutional changes
Also, there doesn’t appear to be evidence of having measured and monitored pilots
of best practices OVI (perhaps since this was remaining from the pre-MTR
approach?)
P a g e | 48
Annex B: Terms of Reference
Non-Timber Forest Products – Participatory Forest
Management Research and Development Project
in south-west Ethiopia, Phase 2
“Forest landscape sustainability and improved livelihoods through non-timber forest product
development and payment for environmental services”
Grant Contract ENV/2006/114-229
Final Evaluation, March 2010
Terms of Reference
A. Introduction
The “Non-Timber Forest Products – Participatory Forest Management (NTFP-PFM) Research
and Development Project in South-west Ethiopia” started in July 2007. It will run for six years
until July 2013. It is a second phase following on from the original four year exploratory NTFP
R&D Project (2003-2007) and has behind it the overall idea of further testing, adjusting and
scaling up the approaches developed in Phase 1. The full title of the project is
P a g e | 49
“Forest landscape sustainability and improved livelihoods through non-timber forest
product development and payment for environmental services.”
The project is funded primarily by the European Union from the Environment budget line. It
has also received funding from Norwegian and Netherlands Embassies in Ethiopia.
The project is located in the highlands of south-west Ethiopia at altitudes of between 1000m
and 2500m amsl. The precise operational area is in the north-western part of SNNPRS, in
Sheka, Kefa and Bench-Maji zones. The project was operational in five focal woredas
(districts) therein - Masha, Anderacha, Gesha, Sheka and South Bench up to July 2012, after
which Sheka woreda was handed over to the partner project WCC-PFM. Within these
woredas, the project began with work in 7 Kebeles or villages, and increased this after the
Mid Term Review in 2010 to 34 Kebeles.
The project is implemented jointly by three partners: the University of Huddersfield (UHUD)
in the UK (the contractor to the EU), the Ethio-Wetlands and Natural Resources Association
(EWNRA) in Ethiopia, and Sustainable Livelihood Action (SLA) in the Netherlands. All three
were partners in Phase 1. The project has an agreement with SNNPRS BoFED and BoA, and
works in close collaboration with its offices at the state and zonal levels. Operational
agreements have been made with the five (now four) Woreda Agricultural Offices and field
implementation is undertaken in collaboration with, and through, their staff.
The project has one overall objective and one specific objective as given below. The latter
was revised after the Mid Term Review and in Rider 2 and is now as presented below.
Overall objective: ‘To maintain a forested landscape to support improved livelihoods of
local, forest-dependent, communities and thereby ensure the delivery of environmental
services in a wider context’
Specific objective: ‘To develop and promote local forest management and forest-based
economic incentives with integrated practices of NTFP and forest product development, for
different people/forest scenarios.’
The main activities and areas of work of the project in the light of the Log Frame revised
after the MTR are as in the following table.
P a g e | 50
1. Effective PFM approach developed and implemented in the majority of the project
area.
1.1 Prepare PFM Guidelines, Extension and Training Materials, with fine tuning of approach
1.2 Apply PFM Guidelines through Project facilitated GO and Community Actions with 7 phases:
2. Benefits to communities from sustainable forest management increased.
2.1 Support communities to identify forest products/services and conduct market and value chain
analysis and product supply analysis to ascertain economically viable enterprises and sustainable
off take
2.2 Support communities to undertake forest-based enterprise development based on previous
analysis (see 2.1).
2.3 Develop extension materials on NTFP / forest product production, processing and marketing
2.4 Support CBOs in establishing trade links for NTFPs / forest products through promotion, value
chain development, etc.
2.5 Explore options for payment for environmental services and support preparations for a pilot
REDD+ activity and other payment for environmental services.
2.6 Disseminate findings on payment for environmental services and feed into national strategies,
e.g. for REDD+
3. Strengthened PFM support / services delivered from government officers and
Development Agents (D.A.s)
3.1: Training of Trainers
3.2 Support government development of PPME systems for PFM and related activities
3.3 Training material produced
3.4 On-the-job training and follow up with GO staff
4. Economically viable forest management and forest enterprise development
4.1 Training of CBO leaders for institutional formation, operational effectiveness and business plan
development
4.2 Support development of CBO institutions and their own PPME, especially participatory forest
management institutions
4.3: Training materials produced
P a g e | 51
5. Forest proclamation and regulations development and implementation influenced in
support of devolved forest management (PFM).
5.1: Develop and maintain relations with GO staff and policy makers
5.2: Support government and help it maintain multi-stakeholder approaches to proclamation and
regulation development & implementation
5.3: Document & disseminate project findings including policy briefs supporting devolved forest
management and associated topics.
5.4: Support development of strong CBO / community network to strengthen community voice in
policy development and implementation.
6. Government enabled to develop participatory land use planning and intensify land
use and domesticated production of forest products.
6.1: Support GO development of strategic land use plans at wereda level in a participatory manner
involving communities
6.2: Support government and communities to develop of pilots to intensify land use and increase
domestication of forest products to improve livelihoods and increase population support capacity.
The project has a “research and development” orientation, in which it combines an
integrated technical approach to the sustainable use and management of forest resources
with empowerment of local communities and a participatory and gender/minority sensitive
approach to improved rural livelihoods. The project tries to explore, develop and disseminate
appropriate methods of PFM, as well as improved NTFP production, processing and
marketing, and explore the potential of Payments for Environmental Services.
Through the direct involvement of government institutions in project implementation and
the dissemination of project findings, and project support and advocacy in policy
discussions, the project aims to ensure the sustainability of its initiatives and their scaling up.
B. Objectives of the Final Evaluation
The two objectives of the final evaluation are:
3. To assess the project progress made against the achievement of the expected results
of the project purpose, with particular reference to :
a. the efficiency and effectiveness of the project’s implementation,
P a g e | 52
b. the achievements made against proposed log frame OVIs and expected
project outputs, and
c. the relevance and sustainability of the project activities.
(for details of terminology see Annex 1)
4. To assess the project approach, activities and organisation in terms of the project’s
efficiency and effectiveness, the relevance and sustainability of the outputs and
the overall achievements of the project’s objective and purposes.
In addition, the team are asked to provide guidance about future directions of this type of
work given the on-going work with another funding agency and the discussions about a
wider project for the south-west.
C. Responsibilities
Specifically the evaluation should review the following topics and address at a minimum the
questions listed below:
1. Circumstances and Objectives
a) Have the circumstances envisaged in the project document remained the same as at
the time it was approved or have they changed? If they have changed, in what way
have they changed, for what reasons, and with what impact on the project? Do any
changes in circumstances have implications for the relevance of the project’s aims,
objectives and methods and the project achievements?
Specific points of attention:
 Project-related Policy Framework of SNNPRS – especially forest policy and their
implications in the project area,
 Local and Regional Government support,
 Other project-related initiatives by government or other agencies in the focal areas.
b) Have the original objectives and purposes and indicators of achievement been
retained or have they been adjusted. If they have been changed, for what reasons
have they changed and are these justifiable given the need to maintain the
relevance of the project?
P a g e | 53
 Has the project achieved its specific objective and met the outputs as measures
by the OVIs?
2. Project Organisation and Management
Has the project’s organisation been efficient and appropriate in the light of required
implementation, expected outputs and outcomes sought.
What are the implications of
project’s organisation and the linkages with government, other NGOs etc upon the
efficiency of the project, its ability to achieve the expected results and purpose in a timely
manner and sustainability of the project outcomes. In case there have been limitations, how
have these been addressed and impacted the project execution?
Specific points of attention
 The project structure and the role of the implementing partners.
 The project staff team, the overall expertise and performance, in the light of achieving
the project purpose.
 The working relationship with the Government Institutions, and especially with the
Woreda Agricultural Offices as key project partners, and their commitment and inputs
provided towards achieving the project purpose.
 Networking relationships with other stakeholders and their impact on project
progress and achievement of the aim and objectives.
3. Inputs
Considering each proposed activity, assess the efficiency of the implementation of activities,
including whether these have been implemented as planned, and if not, why not and is this
reasonable, have there been additional activities, were there any specific problems with
implementation from either internal or external factors which need to be considered further
in future implementation.
 Have the project activities been implemented so that they are efficient, and has this
contributed to achieving the expected results in a timely and sustainable manner.
4. Outputs / Results
With reference to the log frame, especially the OVIs, and considering each proposed output,
to assess the effectiveness of the outputs achieved, especially in terms of their contributions
P a g e | 54
to the project’s overall objective. Also, to assess if the outputs have been achieved as
expected in terms of the benefits accruing to target groups, and if not to assess why not, and
assess if this is reasonable, and what factors should have been better considered in the
achievement of project results?
 Are achieved results at output level in line with the original plan and OVIs?
 Are the outputs sustainable. If not, what changes should have been made, including
in the OVIs?
 Have the results contributed effectively to the Project purpose?
5. Budget and expenditures
With reference to the Rider 3 budget and subsequent notifications, review the project
expenditure to date in the light of project progress and the achieved outputs, considering
the different sources of funding.
6. Debriefing and Mission Feedback to Project Beneficiaries and Major Stakeholders
The mission should organise a debriefing workshop in the project area with project
beneficiaries and stakeholders to discuss the main findings and recommendations and
receive beneficiaries’ and stakeholders’ feedback.
A separate debriefing will be provided to the EU delegation in Addis Ababa on the mission’s
findings and the reactions from the debriefing workshop with stakeholders and beneficiaries.
7. Conclusions
These should be drawn around the themes of
-
relevance of the project design, conceptualisation of the problems and
opportunities, as well as implementation strategy,
efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the project organisation and
management,
efficiency of the field activities and their implementation – inputs,
P a g e | 55
-
impact and effectiveness in terms of achievements and outputs - results, as
compared to the Log Frame,
phasing out strategy and sustainability.
8. Recommendations for Future Work building on Project Lessons
Recommendations should be made with respect to:



identifying key areas for attention in the future project work (funded by NORAD) in
the woredas of this project especially with respect to sustainability,
applying the approach from this project more widely in the south-west region in the
light of project experience and lessons,
building on the lessons from this project at the national level.
9. Report Structure and Length
A single report combining the specific areas of interest of the different consultants should be
prepared. The length should be in the order of 8-10,000 words, with additional annexes as
appropriate addressing specific issues of providing advisory material. The structure should
follow that given in the EU’s Project Cycle Management Guidelines (p. 48).
The report should be in English. A draft of the report should be provided (electronically) to
the University of Huddersfield (attn Professor Adrian Wood – [email protected]) by 30th
June 2013. A copy of this draft will be submitted by the University of Huddersfield to the EU
Delegation in Addis Ababa for their comment. Compiled comments from the project team,
advisors and partners, and the EU will be provided to the Team Leader by 7th July 2013 by
the University of Huddersfield. The final version of the report, incorporating the consolidated
comments provided by the University, should be submitted by
20th July 3013 to the
University of Huddersfield.
10. Working Language(s)
The working language of the present assignment will be English. Perfect written and oral
skills are required.
P a g e | 56
D. Team Composition
The proposed team of two staff is as follows:
Team Leader – international experience in the evaluation of rural development projects,
especially ones concerned with Participatory Forest Management (PFM) and skills on
sustainable land use and livelihood development. Working experience in rural conditions
(preferably in Ethiopia), leading multi-national teams and experience with EU monitoring and
evaluation procedures.
Local Expert Consultant - with expertise PFM project implementation, capacity building in
communities and government organisations, rural community institutional development,
NTFP production and marketing, land use management, forest product marketing, as well as
payment for environmental services.
For Details of Expert Profiles see Annex 2
E. Timing and Duration of the Mission
The mission will last for 18 days in Ethiopia, of which 10 will be spent in the field area.
Additionally five days for report writing will also be included for the team leader and four
days for the other staff member. The Evaluation will be held during June 2013.
F. Guidance for Evaluation Team
The Evaluation should be undertaken with reference to the EU’s Project Cycle Management
Guidelines, specifically Section 4.6 on Evaluation. For key terms from this document see
Annex 1.
P a g e | 57
ToR Annex 1
Key Terminology for EU Evaluations
Relevance
The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was supposed to address,
and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated. It should include and
including an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design – i.e. the logic and
completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the
project design.
Efficiency
The fact that the project results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how well
inputs/means have been converted into Activities, in terms of quality, quantity and time, and
the quality of the results achieved. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches
to achieving the same results, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
Effectiveness
An assessment of the contribution made by results to achievement of the Project Purpose,
and how assumptions have affected project achievements. This should include specific
assessment of the benefits accruing to target groups, including women and men and
identified vulnerable groups such as children, the elderly and disabled.
Impact
The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider policy or
sector objectives, (as summarised in the project’s Overall Objective).
Sustainability
An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue to flow after
external funding has ended, and with particular reference to factors of ownership by
beneficiaries, policy support, economic and financial factors, socio-cultural aspects, gender
equality, appropriate technology, environmental aspects, and institutional and management
capacity.
P a g e | 58
ToR Annex 2:
Mid Term Review Expert Profiles
Management Research and Development Project in southwest Ethiopia, Phase 2
Mid Term Evaluation, March 2010
Expert Profile – Project Review Team Leader
(minimum professional experience & qualifications)
The Team Leader for the evaluation should have international experience in the evaluation of
rural development projects, especially ones concerned with Participatory Forest Management
(PFM). He/she should have experience of leading multi-national teams, of working in rural
conditions in Africa – preferably Ethiopia, and be experienced in the management and
evaluation of major development projects, especially under EU procedures. Specific expertise
in PFM and its practical implementation is sought, as well as experience of scaling-up PFM,
forest enterprise development as an approach to PFM, sustainable land management and
providing support for policy development and advocacy. Academic qualification should be at
M.Sc level or above in a relevant subject area.
Expertise in capacity building in communities and government organisations, rural
community institutional development, forest enterprise development and marketing,
sustainable land management, as well as payment for environmental services, would be
additional advantages.
Excellent command of written and oral communication in English required. Knowledge of
Amharic an advantage.
P a g e | 59
Management Research and Development Project in southwest Ethiopia, Phase 2
Mid Term Evaluation, March 2010
Expert Profile for Local Expert Team Member
(minimum professional experience and qualification)
The team member for the evaluation should have experience in the evaluation of rural
development projects, especially ones concerned with Participatory Forest Management
(PFM).
He/She should have experience of working in rural conditions in Ethiopia with
experience of the practical implementation of projects. A Masters qualification in a relevant
subject is expected.
Expertise in some of the following areas is required: PFM, project implementation, capacity
building in communities and government organisations, rural community institutional
development, forest enterprise development and marketing, land use management, policy
development, as well as payment for environmental services.
Excellent command of oral and written English and Amharic required.
P a g e | 60
Mid Term Review, March 2010 NTFP-PFM Project, Revised Log Frame. Includes changes made.
Project
Description
Overall
objectives
Specific objective
Intervention logic
Objectively verifiable
indicators of achievement
To maintain a forested landscape to support
improved livelihoods of local forest-dependent
communities and ensure the delivery of
environmental services in a wider context
Decrease in rate of deforestation
and landscape degradation
Woreda level rural economic growth
increasingly based on sustainable
forest management, forest-based
enterprise development including
NTFP & forest product development
/ trading and payment of
environmental services.
To develop and promote local forest
management and forest-based economic
incentives with integrated practices of NTFP
and forest product development, for different
people/forest scenarios
a) 75% of the focal kebeles
practising local forest management
with formal PFM arrangements with
government.
Assumptions
Forest and land-use maps
of SW Ethiopia
Government and UNDP
Statistics
Field surveys
By end of project:
b) 50% of the households in the
focal kebeles involved in at least
one ‘best practice’ NTFP production
/ processing and / or forest based
Sources and means of
verification
PFM agreements, plans
and institutions active.
Quarterly monitoring
reports.
Woreda RDCO statistics
Annual project progress
reports, field surveys
Continued
commitment of
regional and local
authorities to the
project objectives
Maintenance of
peace and
stability in the
area
Continued
P a g e | 61
income generating activity.
c) 25% increase of forest income
amongst 50% of the households in
forest user communities from NTFP
and forest based income generating
activities from the forest areas
under PFM agreements.
d) At least one viable model for
payment of environmental services
(PES) identified for the project
intervention area.
Expected Results
1) Effective PFM approach developed &
implemented in majority of the forest in
Project Area.
2) Benefits to communities from
sustainable forest management increased.
By end of project, full PFM
establishment process completed in
at least 10050 communities (gots)
in 3820 focal kebeles.
Minutes of PMC and PAB
meetings
Technical project
documents and policy briefs
Reports of annual review
and planning meetings.
interest of target
groups in forestbased
development
Surveys of forest income.
Payment for Environmental
Services agreement in
preparation / identified.
PFM Agreements and GPS
created maps of area under
PFM.
Forest management plans
implemented by communities in at
least 10050 communities in 3820
kebeles before the end of year 65 of
project
Monitoring reports of forest
management activities from
Forest Management
Organisations, the Project
and supporting government
institutions.
By end of project, 25% increase in
forest derived household income
through sustainable off take and
Reports of forest
management organisations,
and kebele and forest user
Consistency in
forest and landuse policies.
Favourable
market
opportunities and
P a g e | 62
marketing of forest products, and
services amongst 50% of the
households in forest user
communities.
Pilot Experience with payment for
environmental services (PES)
documented
household surveys.
Forest income surveys and
forest resources
assessments.
PES documentation
supportive policy
environment for
quality NTFPs
and forest
products
maintained.
Favourable legal
conditions for
forest-based
income
generating
activities
maintained.
Ethical
commodity chain
development for
NTFPs and forest
products
including coffee
and honey in
Ethiopia
continued
P a g e | 63
3) Strengthened PFM support / services
delivered from government officers and
Development Agents(D.A.s)
By end of project, government PFM
facilitation and support capacity
increased with at least one support
visit by GO staff per focal kebele
per two months.
Quarterly monitoring by
project of government office
and DA support
70% of beneficiaries perceive GO
support/services for PFM improved
and useful.
Beneficiary survey in the
focal kebeles
Appropriate
baseline level
education of GO
staff at woreda
and kebele levels
maintained
MOA-EDF PFM Up-scaling work
supported in four project weredas
4) Economically viable forest management
and forest enterprise development
By the end of the project, 75% of
PFM Institutions in 3820 focal
kebeles viably operating with own
financial and human resources
PFM institutions implementing
forest management agreements
and forest management plans in at
least 10050 communities (gots) in
3820 kebeles before end of project
5) Forest Proclamation and Regulations
development and implementation
influenced in support of devolved forest
management (PFM)
By end of project SNNPRS Forest
Policy and Regulations revised with
increased support for PFM
Quarterly monitoring of
institutions by project and
government offices
Survey of forest
management and
enterprise development
institutions
Reports of project actions
to support policy and
regulation development and
implementation.
Favourable
political context
for CBO
development
continues
Willingness to
revise forest
policy continuted.
Gazetted policies and
regulations addressing
P a g e | 64
PFM
6) Government enabled to develop
participatory land use planning and
intensify land use and domesticated
production of forest products.
By end of project:
- Government capacity developed
to undertake strategic PLUP at
wereda to accommodate wider land
use and population pressure issues.
-Pilots of best practices highlighting
land intensification, and
domestication of forest products in
75% of the 3820 focal kebeles,
community and government driven.
Wereda land use plans and
list of stakeholders
engaged in their
development.
Field surveys.
Quarterly monitoring by
project and government
jointly.
P a g e | 65
Annex C: Evaluation Itinerary
Date
Activity
03 June 2013
Attend national lesson learning workshop, Addis Ababa
04 June 2013
Attend national lesson learning workshop, Addis Ababa
05 June 2013
Meet project coordinator and plan field work
06 June 2013
Meet ST-TA for Forest Carbon: Peter Sutcliffe
07 June 2013
Travel to Masha
08 June 2013
Market visit & presentations from Project Field Staff
09 June 2013
Presentations from Project Field Staff
10 June 2013
Meet Woreda GO staff & PFM Groups, Masha
11 June 2013
Meet Sheka Zonal GO staff and NTFP marketing institutions,
Masha
12 June 2013
Meet Woreda GO staff & PFM Groups, Gesha
13 June 2013
Meet NTFP marketing institutions, Gesha
14 June 2013
Travel to South Bench
15 June 2013
Meet Woreda GO staff & PFM Groups, S Bench
16 June 2013
Meet NTFP marketing institutions, S Bench
17 June 2013
Preparation for debriefing workshop in Mizan Teferi
18 June 2013
Debriefing for stakeholders, held in Mizan Teferi
19 June 2013
Travel to Addis Ababa
20 June 2013
Preparation of Aide Memoire and debrief PMC members
21 June 2013
Presentation of Aide Memoir EC Delegation
22 June 2013
Return to UK (international staff)
24-30 June 2013
Write up of Evaluation Report
P a g e | 66
Annex D: List of People Met
Table 6: List of PFM Institutions and Government offices met
Date
10-Jun13
11-Jun13
12-Jun13
Location
Woreda
Masha
Masha
Gesha
13-Jun13
Gesha
14-Jun13
Anderacha
Activity
Kebele
Beto
Kanga
Got
Kipi
Gasa
Uwa
Gatimo
Yigo 1
Benga
Yina
Kipi -New PFM group interview
Gasa - New PFM group interview
(Bamboo)
Break
Yigo 1 Old PFM group
Benga New PFM group interview
(within biosphere area)
EDF targeted Kebele/Got
Woreda
Woreda
FMAs, Coops and PLCs interview
Woreda sector offices interview
Zone
Sheka Zone sector offices interview
Field visit
Wechitoyeri
Gechitoyeri
Oma
Ameracha
Yoffo
Deka town
all
Deka town
Chgecha
Chagecha
Chgecha
yaga
Yokichichi
Shita
Tugiri
15-Jun13
Anderacha
Oma - old PFM group interview
Ameracha - New PFM group
interview
Break
Non PFM group interview
Getcha
town
Getcha
town
Anderacha
Chagecha - New PFM group
interview
Yaga - old PFM group interview
Shita New PFM group interview
(Biosphere reserve)
EDF targted Kebele/community
HHs visit
P a g e | 67
Anderacha
16-Jun13
South
Bench
Travel to Mizan
Fanika
Dembi
Dembi - Old PFM group interview
Keberta
Mahal
Kushinka
mahal Kushinka - New PFM group
interview
Non PFM group interview
Break
Kitte
Woreda
17-Jun- Mizan
13
18-Jun13
Preparation for feedback workshop
Mizan
Mizan
Mizan
Feedback workshop
Kefa Zone sector offices interview
Travel to Jima
Table 7: List of people attending Debriefing Meeting in Mizan Teferi
S.No
Name
Organization Zone/Woreda/Kebele Position
1.
Biruh Tesfaye
AO
Sheka zone
Head
2.
Gezahegn
Admasu
Zone Admin
Sheka zone
Delegate
3.
Adisalem Bekele
AO
Sheka/Masha
Head
4.
Mitiku Adraro
Coop &
marketing
office
Sheka zone
Delegate
5.
Ayalew Abebe
Finance
Bench maji
Expert
6.
Tsegaye
Gebretsadik
Coop &
marketing
office
Bench maji
Vice
7.
Abate Ayelle
Admin
Sheka/Masha
Admin office
head
8.
Teshome Bekele
Coop &
marketing
office
Sheka/Masha
Head
9.
Addisu Chegito
Finance
Sheka/Masha
Head
P a g e | 68
10. Zemene Chanie
Finance
Benchi Maji/South
Bench
Vice head
11. Melesse Ato
Coop &
marketing
office
Sheka/Anderacha
head
Head
12. Yitagesu Haile
Coop &
marketing
office
Kaffa/Gesha
Vice head
13. Tadele Bekele
Finance
Sheka/Anderacha
head
Head
14. Samuel Shaweno
AO
Sheka/Anderacha
head
Head
15. Kifle Gebremariam
Zone Admin
Kaffa Zone
Chief
administrator
16. Abdisa Adraro
Finance
Kaffa Zone
Vice head
17. Solomon Bekele
Woreda
admin
Kaffa/Gesha
Administrator
18. Abadir Abagisa
Zone AD
Kaffa
NRM office
head
19. Tsegaye Tilahun
Coops &
marketing
office
Benchi Maji/South
Benchi
Head
20. Wogen Nursefa
AO
Benchi Maji/South
Benchi
Vice head
21. Mengistu Manote
AO
Kaffa/Gesha
NRM head
22. Terefe
Gebremichael
Fiance
Kaffa/Gesha
Head
23. Mekuria
Teklemichale
Zone AD
Benchi Maji
NRM
coordinator
24. Girma Gedeno
Shato PLC
Sheka/Masha
manager
25. Gizaw Abeto
Chefedale
PLC
Sheka/Masha
manager
26. Yohanes Geneme
Coop
Sheka/Masha
Chairman
27. Shawono Sharo
FMA
Sheka/Masha
Chairman
P a g e | 69
28. Tekalign Shodeno
FMA
Sheka/Anderacha
Chairman
29. Ayele Andemo
Coop
Sheka/Anderacha
Chairman
30. Meshesha mekuria
PLC
Kaffa/Gesha
Manager
31. Markos
Woldemichael
PLC
Kaffa/Gesha
Vice manager
32. Alemayehu
Achomo
Coop
Sheka/Masha
Chairman
33. Jemere Shiferaw
PLC
Sheka/Anderacha
Manager
34. Belachew Mamo
Coop
Sheka/Anderacha
Chairman
35. Jemere Gebito
PLC
Sheka/Anderacha
Chairman
36. Gebeyehu Borken
FMA
Bench maji/South
Bench
Chairman
37. Zemach Arega
Coop
Bench maji/South
Bench
Chairman
38. Mengistu Mamo
FMA
Kaffa/Gesha
Chairman
39. Melese Metacho
Coop
Kaffa/Gesha
Chairman
40. Kayito Shagito
PLC
Sheka/Masha
Manager
P a g e | 70
Annex E: Checklists
Woreda & Zonal Related Questions
1. Who are the actors and stakeholders directly involved in the project? What are their
specific roles and responsibilities? (Relevance)
2. How are the other relevant projects coordinated (e.g. EDF, watershed management,
Sheka Biosphere Forest Reserve)? Specifically, how is the PFM and EDF work
coordinated? (Relevance, Efficiency)
3. What are the three most important or significant changes you have observed as a
result of the project? (Effectiveness)
Probe: do any success stories stand out?
4. What is your plan to scale-up the project’s activities? (Sustainability)
5. How does the project fit into your existing/future policies and plans? (Relevance,
Effectiveness)
6. What are the challenges and constraints observed and how has the project
responded to challenges you have had? (ALL)
7. Once the project is finished, how will you continue to support the PFMA and
marketing cooperatives established as part of the project? (Sustainability)
8. What factors do you think would undermine the continuity of these groups and the
forests in your area? (Sustainability)
9. If the project continues, what are the things that the project should no longer do?
(Effectiveness, Sustainability)
P a g e | 71
PLC/PFMA/Coop Related Questions
Relevance
What is your role within the project? What is your specific institutional function (e.g.
mission)?
Probe: How have you become established and organised?
What are the major products that you are producing and trading? (PLC/Coops)
Probe: What is the change that you have seen in terms of benefits (e.g. volume of
products, income)?
What level of support have you had from the project?
Probe: Has it changed since 2010? If so, how?
Efficiency
How do you cover your operating costs? (PFMA/Coops/PLC)
Who do you report to? What is your management structure? (PFMA)
Sustainability
How do you plan to operate after next month?
Probe: financial and technical capacity
Effectiveness
What are the challenges affecting the performance of your operations/profitability?
(PFMA/Coops/PLC)
What is your role in implementation, monitoring and management of the forest
management plans? (PFMA)
P a g e | 72
Community Related Questions
Target Kebeles
Relevance
Why do you want to join a PFM Group?
What were your expectations of the project
Efficiency
What are the challenges and constraints observed and how has the project responded to
challenges you have had?
Has the project supported land management activities outside of the forest?
Sustainability
What support did you get so far from the Woreda extension agents
Do you think you will be able to manage the forest at the end of the project? If yes, why? If
no Why?
What more should the project do to support you manage the forest?
What are the interventions or activities of the project that you have not liked?
Effectiveness
What activities have you undertaken with the project?
What activities are included in the forest management plan?
What benefits did you get so far from participating in PFM?
Probe – any income generating activities (proportional piling) and source?
How do you use the income you generate from PFM;
P a g e | 73
What mechanisms do you use to allow PFM Groups members to harvest NTFPs from the
forest
What do you consider to be of greatest potential benefit that you will gain from managing
your forest under PFM?
Non Target Kebeles
Tell us about your forest resources in your area
Are there any state forests in your areas?
Do you know how does your management of the forest differ from those Gots managing
under PFM agreements?
What are they doing to manage the trees and forest within their farms, esp for NTFPs
Tell us what you hear about the project and what changes have happened to those Gots
involved in PFM?
Do you why you have not been targeted for PFM; either by the project, or by Government
PFM Project?
Landless people in the Kebele – what are their main livelihoods
Probe: What are their main sources of income
Do you manage and sell NTFPs at all? If so, where do you sell them to?
P a g e | 74

Project Final Evaluation - NTFP-PFM Oct 2013

Transcription

Similar documents

SUSTAINABLE PACIFIC GROVE APRIL MEETING

Los combustibles fósiles liberan bióxido de carbono al quemarse e

What`s Happening at Oak Forest UMC

Retail Leasing Brochure Here

crankers main

Lumholtz`s Tree-Kangaroo: Conserving a rare marsupial

Monitoring of Italian Forests and environment

Climate Change solutions in Madagascar: The role of forests

climbing area - Hocking Hills