1

The Independent Office of Evaluation, International Fund for Agricultural Development

Lusaka 18 November 2011

Project Performance Assessment of Forest Resource Management Project (FRMP)

This presentation?

• Very preliminary findings

• Further analysis required

• No recommendations at this stage

• Purpose is to identify what worked well and what not so well

2

Evaluation questions

• What was done, and how well?• How did this relate to objectives?• Were there important changes in

context? • Were there any constraints?• How well was the project

managed?

3

Project context

• Legislative and policy constraints• Non implementation of Forest Act• Non implementation of Zambia Forest

Commission (ZFC)

• Government commitment

4

Changes in project implementation

• Early project closure• Shift in focus after MTR towards bee-

keeping and marketing (not JFM)• Non implementation of Rural Finance

component• From spot improvement to full

rehabilitation of Social Infrastructure Development and Feeder Roads

5

Successes• Although not all targets reached there were

successes in training and mobilising the communities

• Beneficiary appreciation of social infrastructure (schools and clinics)

• Innovative institutional set-up (use of CAs as implementation agencies)

• Important learning experience of Government Staff in managing complex project and PPP

6

Progress: Community Development

• Communal Management of Forest Resources• Evidence of understanding of sustainable

forest management practices (but difficulties in practical application)

• Only two JFM plans developed in WAs (i.e.Kikonge, Mufumbwe)

7

Progress: Community Management (cont.)

• Natural Resource Mapping• Undertaken but of little relevance to

forest inventories

• Social Infrastructure Development and Feeder Roads• Undertaken but far below targets• Important community contributions

made

8

Sustainable Income Generation

• Significant number of groups trained and formed – however not always well targeted

• Effectiveness of some training unclear (timing, number of days, limited M&E)

• Not clear how effective the adaptive research has been but no evidence of tangible results presented to the mission

9

Project Facilitation

• Concept of PFU and PPPs innovative – however implementation was constrained by lack of clarity of respective roles

• Cost overruns, lack of ownership in government

• Impacted on core components and ultimately reduced resources available to beneficiaries

10

Meeting project objectives• Project had marginal impact on the increase of

incomes of poor people• Objective of building robust institutions and

systems for management of the forest - not successful

• Some uptake of knowledge and skills in production and processing – however no evidence of wide application

• Some improvements of social infrastructure and access to basic services - however few compared to initial target and uncertainty about the relevance of certain infrastructures.

11

Challenge 1: Developing institutions for forest management

• Complex policy and legislative environment • How to establish robust institutions in the

absence of enforcement of legislation?• What is a ‘village resource management

plan’?• Does it include all their priorities or only

those funded by IFAD?• How to ensure PRA-based planning

continues after the project?

12

Challenge 2: Building knowledge of forest resources and technologies

• Are the technologies the right ones?

• How to stimulate adoption rates?• How to improve market linkages?• How to improve quality and

marketing of products?• How to target training (areas,

beneficiaries, timing, length)?• How to ensure sustainability of

skills and training? 13

Challenge 3: Improving living conditions and reducing isolation

• Did the project support the right type of infrastructure?

• How to ensure proper O&M in particular of roads?

14

Challenge 4: Increasing incomes and assets of poor households

• How to manage expectations?

• How to work with the community (groups versus individuals)?

15

Challenge 5: Sustainability and ownership

• How to ensure ownership at all levels (i.e. government, communities)

• How to continue activities after project closure (funds, human resources, policies, institutions)?

• How to ensure that the lessons from this project are incorporated in future designs?

16

Thank you

• For being patient with our questions• For your generous hospitality• Sorry if we got some things wrong,

please tell us• Thank you for coming to this meeting• Thank you.

17