THE Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN) Project is a six-year project which officially started in 2006 with funding from the Global Environmental facility (GEF) through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP-Namibia). The project is housed within the Directorate of Parks and Wildlife management of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). Overall, SPAN was planned to contribute towards the realization of the Namibian Government’s strategic vision for Protected Areas (PAs). SPAN has been designed to be implemented in two phases – during Phase I (6 years – 2006-2012) interventions include: - Strengthening systematic capacity–namely the enabling legal/policy environment and financial mechanisms for PA management
- Strengthening the institutional capacity for PA management, including partnership with other government agencies, local communities and the private sector, to add to the range of options currently available. These interventions are critical to improve management effectiveness in the PA system as a whole.
Phase II (5 years) - Envisaged to build on the successes of Phase I by consolidating the experience and lessons learned in Phase I ensuring that PAs are systematically Mainstreamed into regional and local development, building on the lessons learned and experience gained. Funding for Phase II was not secured and therefore the project will end after Phase I.
The Project Development Goal: The long-term goal of the SPAN Project is ensuring the sustainable management of renewable natural resources protects biodiversity while contributing to equitable economic and social developmen. The Project Objective: The immediate objective of the project is “to increase management effectiveness of the national PA network for biodiversity conservation”. The Project has three Outcomes, and associated Outputs as listed below: Outcome 1: Improved systematic capacity provides the enabling framework for enhancing PA management effectiveness (It is worrying that this was not copied correctly): - Park and Wildlife management Act and Regulations
- Park Management Plans
- Sustainable PA Financing Mechanism
- Strategic PA Network Plan
- Systematic Biodiversity Monitoring Mechanism
- Knowledge Management System
Outcome 2: Institutional capacities for PA management are strengthened, resulting in more effective use of financial and human resources: - Structural Reorganization
- Devolution of Decision making and Financial Management
- Individual and Park-Level Performance M&E
- Training and Incentive Mechanisms
- PA Economics and Business Planning Capacity
- Partnership Building Capacity
- HIV/AIDS Succession Planning Capacity
Outcome 3: PA management know-how is expanded and reinforced through innovative field management demonstrations: - Field Demonstration Site 1: Ai-Ais Hotsprings Game Park
- Field Demonstration Site 2: Bwabwata-Mudumu-Mamili Complex
- Field Demonstration Site 2: Etosha/Skeleton Coast Link
- Field Demonstration Site 4: Sperrgebiet National Park (combined with field demonstration site 1)
|
While the specific issues of concern are listed in the following paragraphs, a reference to the UNDP programming manual and UNDP/GEF guidelines to conduct final evaluations should be made for addressing the issues not covered below. The evaluation will include ratings on the following aspects: - Sustainability
- Outcome/Achievement of objectives (the extent to which the projects immediate and development objectives were achieved).
The review team should provide ratings for three of the criteria included in the Final Evaluations: - Implementation Approach
- Stakeholder Participation/Public Involvement
- Monitoring and Evaluation. The ratings will be based upon the UNDP/GEF six-point scale: Highly Satisfactory (HS), Satisfactory (S), Marginally Satisfactory (MS), Marginally Unsatisfactory (MU), Unsatisfactory (U) and Highly Unsatisfactory (HS).
Project Conceptualization Design: To identify and acertain the following: - Problem was clearly identified and the approach soundly conceived.
- The target beneficiaries and end-users of the results of the project were clearly identified.
- The objectives and outputs of the project were stated explicitly and precisely in verifiable terms with observable success indicators.
- The relationship between objectives, outputs, activities and inputs of the project were logically articulated.
- If the project started with a well-prepared work-plan and reasons, if any, for deviations.
- The indicators were SMART.
Project Relevance: - Relevance to the development priorities of the country.
- Given the project objectives, identify appropriate institutions that have been assisted.
Project Implementation: The evaluation team will examine the quality and timeliness in regard to: - The delivery of inputs specified in the project document, including selection of sub-project, institutional arrangements, interest of beneficiaries, the scheduling and actual implementation.
- The fulfillment of the success criteria as outlines in the project document.
- The responsiveness of the project management to significant changes in the environment in which the project functions (both facilitating and impeding project implementation).
- Lessons from other relevant projects if incorporated in the project implementation.
- The monitoring and backstopping of the project as expected by the Government and UNDP.
- The delivery of Government counterpart inputs in terms of personnel, premises and indigenous equipment.
- The project’s collaboration with industry associations, private sector and civil society.
Project Performance: - Appropriate project management arrangements.
- Adequate project resources (financial, physical and manpower) in terms of both quantity and quality.
- Use of project resources to effectively produce planned results.
- Was project cost-effective compared to similar interventions.
- Whether the technologies selected (any innovations adopted, if any) were suitable.
- The role of UNDP Country Office and its impact (positive or negative) on the functioning of the project.
Results/Success of the project applied to each of the Specific Outcomes and Outputs: The overall outputs are as defined in the project document that should form the main basis for this evaluation. In addition to the Final targets in the logical framework, the details of the specific impacts to be investigated are: - Major achievements of the project vis-à-vis its objectives, outcomes and outputs.
- Other potential areas could have provided project success? Please explain in detail in terms of impact, sustainability of results and contribution to capacity development.
- Major issues and problems affected the implementation of the project, and what factors could have resolved them.
- Given an opportunity, what actions would the evaluation team members recommend to realize actual success.
- Level of institutional networking achieved and capacity development of key partners, if done in a structured manner at different stages - from inception to implementation.
- Environmental impacts (positive and negative) and remedial actions taken, if relevant.
- Social impacts, including impact on the lives of women at each demonstration site.
- Any underlying factors, beyond control, that influenced the outcome of the project.
Progress towards the project objective and specific outcomes will be rated suing the 6-point UNDP/GEF rating scale. |
| UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. |
No comments: