A mitchell results & lessons learned-sep29

1st Steering Committee Meeting

Minsk, October 1-3, 2013

Main results and lessons learnt from FLEG I

OverviewOverview

1. Project Development Objective

2. Results Areas

3. Assessment of Outcomes

4. Overall Results from Phase I

5. Types of Interventions

6. Results by Partner Country

7. Lessons Learned

Project Development ObjectiveProject Development Objective

• The Development Objective: to contribute to • legal and sustainable forest management and

utilization• a strengthened rule of law• improved local livelihoods

focus on environmental sustainability, human rights and gender equity.

Specific PurposeSpecific Purpose

to improve forest governance through: – implementation of the main priorities St

Petersburg Declaration,

with the support of– selected pilot activities and – active involvement of governments, civil

society and the private sector.

Results AreasResults Areas

Result Area 1: Increased awareness and commitment of key stakeholdersResult Area 2: Effective national and regional FLEG

action processes in placeResult Area 3: Increased national ownership and capacityResult Area 4: Improved regional and sub-regional

collaboration and knowledge sharingResult Area 5: Effective engagement of key trading

partnersResult Area 6: Continuation of the formal official Europe- North Asia FLEG processResult Area 7: Sustainable forest management practices implemented

Assessment of OutcomesAssessment of Outcomes

• The FLEG Program monitored progress for each of the seven key results areas in country and regional programs, based on qualitative assessments by the country teams of the percentage completion and the success of each activity.

Overall ResultsOverall Results

The FLEG Program successfully contributed to The FLEG Program successfully contributed to improved environmentally, socially and improved environmentally, socially and economically sound governance which linked economically sound governance which linked governments with the business, academia, civil governments with the business, academia, civil society and rural communities through:society and rural communities through:

developing forest policy; amending legislation; developing forest policy; amending legislation; stakeholder involvement; education and training; stakeholder involvement; education and training; increasing transparency; and strengthening increasing transparency; and strengthening governance and anti-corruption measuresgovernance and anti-corruption measures.

.

Overall ResultsOverall Results

One of the key benefits of the ENPI East FLEG Program has been the significant increase in both national ownership of the FLEG processes that have been commenced, and also the regional networking that has occurred both within and between the participating countries.

Overall ResultsOverall Results

The FLEG Program also responded to a changing operating environment and was able to provide timely advice and information for example about the impact of the implementation of the US Lacey Act amendment and the EU’s Timber Regulation.

Overall ResultsOverall Results

Through analysis of the current forest sector status, and of the forest legislation, forest policy, and forest institutions, in all the participating countries, the FLEG Program helped identify critical perverse incentives, poor policy, lack of participation and inclusion of key stakeholders as key causal factors

Types of InterventionsTypes of Interventions

• forest policy (all countries)• developing appropriate timber sales systems and

transparency (Belarus, Armenia)• forest certification (all countries)• pilot activities (Belarus, Russia, Armenia, and

Georgia)• training of forest guards and forestry staff,

utilization practices will have been enhanced

Types of InterventionsTypes of Interventions

– Appropriate activities were commenced to address the reforms of the sector in many countries, e.g. • in Russia, the amendments to the Forest Law and

the new participatory forest policy process commenced were based on the ENPI FLEG analysis

• in Belarus the formulation of the new Forest Strategic Plans which addresses key governance issues is being prepared with ENPI FLEG support

• in Moldova the forest institutional reforms process has commenced with program support

Types of InterventionsTypes of Interventions

– Support for increasing sustainable forest management capacities through reviewing, enhancing both the basic and ‘in service’ training for forestry professionals, e.g.:• specific training modules were developed in

Russia, trialed, and then mainstreamed into the standard training program

• support has been given both regional and at national levels for forest certification to international standards,

• many of the policy and legislative recommendations will increase the sustainability of forest management

Regional ResultsRegional Results

• Three Operational Committee Meetings convened (Kiev, Chisinau, Brussels)

• FLEG Program Regional Conferences and Events organized

• International Year of Forests (2011) celebrated by the FLEG Program, which raised awareness of sustainable management, conservation and development of all types of forests.

• Regional Analysis, Studies and Surveys conducted

• FLEG Program Website, www.enpi-fleg.org

EU Independent MonitoringEU Independent Monitoring

 2008

/92010

Relevance and quality of design C B

Efficiency of Implementation to

dateC B

Effectiveness to date C A

Impact prospects B A

Potential sustainability B B

Indicator scale: A-very good; B-good; C-problems; D-serious deficiencies.

Main Lessons Learned Regional Level

Main Lessons Learned Regional Level

– FLEG issues are complex and addressing them will require sustained engagement with multiple stakeholders beyond the lifetime of a project.

– FLEG issues have provided a common ground for improving regional collaboration, dialogue and knowledge sharing across the participating countries and beyond (e.g. EU).

– The continuation of the formal official Europe-North Asia FLEG process has been slower than anticipated given that progress towards its implementation was mixed.

Main Lessons LearnedCountry Level (1)

Main Lessons LearnedCountry Level (1)

– The development of the NPACs proved far more important than was initially thought and solidified country ownership and buy-in.

– The FLEG National Focal Points in most participating countries were key drivers of the FLEG Program’s success.

– Close cooperation between Program teams and with key stakeholders as well as continuous information exchange is essential for program success.

Main Lessons LearnedCountry Level (2)

Main Lessons LearnedCountry Level (2)

– The trust and transparency developed under the FLEG Program through continued dialogue with key stakeholders opened doors for deeper engagement in other programming areas (e.g. development of a new Forest Fire Response Project in Russia, Forest Policy Notes in Belarus and Moldova, potential new WB Lending, ADA collaboration Georgia and Armenia).

– Flexibility of the program was key to adapt to emerging institutional developments, changes in government and operating environments, and new policy realities.

Main Lessons LearnedProgram Level (1)

Main Lessons LearnedProgram Level (1)

– The complementary blend of strengths from each of the implementing organizations (IOs) and the synergies created between the IOs, the participating countries, the donors and Program beneficiaries/stakeholders resulted in outcomes greater than their sum.

– At the start of the FLEG Program, no baseline survey was conducted regarding the state of forestry in each of the participating countries. This would have offered a better understanding of the commonalities and differences between the Program countries as well as gaps to be addressed.

Main Lessons LearnedProgram Level (2)

Main Lessons LearnedProgram Level (2)

– No formalized quality control mechanism was in place during the implementation of the FLEG Program.

– The complex FLEG Program framework (3 implementing organizations, 7 participating countries) once the administrative bodies were functioning, they proved very effective in delivering on the program objectives.

Questions?

Thank you for your attention!