Evaluation MissionSEED Project

Results, Conclusions and Recommendations

Islamabad, 01/07/2013

The Methodology and the Evaluation Report

• Assessment of Project Objectives and DesignA. JustificationB. ObjectivesC. Project Design

• Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficiency and ManagementA. Project Budget and Expenditure B. Activities and Outputs C. Government Support D. Project Management

 

• Assessment of Results and EffectivenessA. Effects and Impact B. Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Results C. Gender Equity in Project Implementation and ResultsD. Cost-effectivenessE. Major Factors Affecting the Project Results

The Methodology and the Evaluation report (2)

• Conclusions and

Recommendations

• Lessons Learned

Project design• The Project design is a key component of

the project• SEED Prodoc is a combination of several

proposals from partners• The focus is sometimes the CKNP/NRM,

sometimes Rural Development activities • The result is: 13 Expected results, 58

Activities• 94 Budget lines with repetitions and often

including disparate items, 49 Lump sums• Logical framework• Names of activities are often misleading,

also in terms of geographical scope• Indicators

Project Budget and Expenditure Partner Name

Total Budget Allocated

% Allocated

Total Expenditures Balance % Used

PMU 122,444,262 12 74,830,776 47,613,486 61

CKNP 86,670,825 9 48,227,451 38,443,374 56

Ev-K2-CNR 375,976,751 37 219,554,804 156,421,947 58

KIU 187,598,338 18 57,693,658 129,904,680 31

AKRSP 91,934,000 9 78,580,614 13,353,386 85

WWF 72,462,396 7 42,288,852 30,173,544 58

MGPO 40,000,000 4 20,417,254 19,582,747 51

ACP 12,167,654 1 12,293,554 -125,900 101

Total 989,254,226 97 553,886,963 435,367,263 56

Contingencies 29,677,627 3 1,050,000 28,627,627 4

Grand Total 1,018,931,853 100 554,936,963 463,994,890 54

Project Budget and Expenditure (2)

• The expenditure rate is 54,7% at 30/04/2013, 60% at end of June 2013

• According to Prodoc 50 % should have been spent by the end of 2011

• No-cost extension depends on PIDSA Programme overall duration, AED and MAE

Project Budget and Expenditure (1)

No. Result description Total Allocated % Allocated Exp. 30/04/2013 % Exp.

1 Income generating activities related to conservation and non-farming developed 10,300,190 1.0 6,706,306 65

2 Access to important livelihood-assets ensured for Community Organization and local population 93,919,896 9.2 68,809,032 73

3 Local-level natural resource management improved 41,198,360 4.0 21,624,858 52

4 Local agricultural production improved in accordance with CKNP vision, objectives and regulations 87,413,013 8.6 53,136,921 61

5 Local awareness, quality and extent of health services improved; 33,952,143 3.3 10,083,692 30

6 Quality of lower education system improved; 6,084,000 0.6 7,874,204 129

7 Intrinsic development of Northern Areas and CKNP initiated through the consolidation of KIU as a vibrant centre for applied sciences and hub for knowledge transfer; 157,544,938 15.5 77,857,257 49

8 Integrated research program to support CKNP development and mgmt implemented; (8a+8b+8c) 150,011,762 14.7 68,987,409 46

8a Development of an integrated management-oriented research program 114,815,000 11.3 48,175,623 42

8b Activities related to Social Forestry 29,259,658 2.9 17,080,932 58

8c Activities related to Local Livelihoods 5,937,104 0.6 3,730,854 63

9 Capacity of CKNP management improved 105,905,633 10.4 59,557,739 56

10 Visitor facilities in CKNP and buffer zone established and visitor management and improved 65,852,689 6.5 38,425,460 58

11 CKNP waste management improved 24,500,000 2.4 15,149,332 62

12 Quality of tourism services improved 30,602,973 3.0 22,824,110 75

13 Cultural heritage preserved and promoted 59,524,367 5.8 28,019,867 47

14 Project Management Unit (PMU) 122,444,262 12.0 74,830,776 61

Sub-Total 989,254,226 97.1 553,886,963 56

Contingencies 29,677,627 3 1,050,000 4

Grand Total 1,018,931,853 100.0 554,936,963 54

Activities and outputs• When assessing the activities, it is convenient to

reason in term of what is related to:–CKNP Core Area–CKNP Buffer Zone (NRM, the Eyes of the Ecosystems)–Zone of influence outside the Park (Rural

Development)

–Research related to CKNP features and outside the Park, both from KIU and Italian Universities/researchers (should have been: Management oriented ecosystem research)

–2380 man/days, 160 missions

–Tourism related activities

Activities and outputs (2)Rightly, the SEED project activities in the Buffer

Zone and the immediate area outside CKNP have

been:

1. Irrigation channels

2. Poplar, willow, Russian olive and fruit trees plantations

3. Pastures improvements and fodder production

4. Wildlife/livestock interaction

These have to be considered First Priority

Activities and outputs (3)5. Infrastructures (CKNP Directorate/Entry

points, Link roads, etc.)

6. Trophy Hunting (1 new CMHA)

7. Income Generation (Tourism >>>, mining >>)

8. KIU Researches (11 Bagrote, 9 Shigar, 5 Haramosh and Hushey, 4 Braldo, 11 valleys with only 1 research)

These have to be considered First

Priority

Activities and outputs (4)

• Other activities should be considered good entry points to work with communities, however are indirectly related to the Park:

• Health

• Education infrastructure

• Drinking water schemes, link roads

• Anthropological studies and restorations

Government Support• Government support is satisfactory at this

stage of the Project

• Involvement less satisfactory

• At Federal level SEED is definitely less known than at Provincial level

• Need to improve GoP and GB involvement for ownership and sustainability

• Involvement will depend on results

• Role after closure of SEED

• No contacts with Army (pressure on Baltoro )

Project Management

• Project Management has improved since the initial phase of the project

• Joomla software developed (codes and queries)

• Reporting and Finances are submitted to PIDSA TSU on time (note: PIDSA TSU does not comment on field activities and the Management Committee cannot enter in technical details)

• Audits recommendations and remarks still require follow-up and agreements on how to handle specific issues

• The use of a “compensation” account to handle expenditure abroad is useful but irritual, a way forward has been identified in the past by PIDSA

Project Management (2)

• Technical follow up needs improvement in the brief working season:– Difficult logistics and costs

– “Main office” in Skardu, ”Liaison Office” in Islamabad (staffed)

– CKNP Directorate and AKRSP in Skardu

– KIU/IMARC, EV-K2-CNR, WWF in Gilgit

– MGPO and ACP in Islamabad

– 1 M&E officer to cover the whole project area

– Insufficient communication and coordination among partners

Effects and Impacts

• Impact evaluation is currently not possible as no

proper Baseline studies were done

• Indicators proposed in the Prodoc partly unrealistic,

vague, not easy to measure, requiring specific

information

• Revision requested, not a proposal for new indicators

• CRITICAL RISK

Sustainability

• The sustainability of SEED achievements is directly

linked to the engagements of Federal and Provincial

Governments of Pakistan to fund selected activities for

CKNP and KIU

• Most field activities are well identified and of great

relevance for communities, therefore engaged in

maintenance works and in applying the acquired skills

• Sustainability of agriculture/livestock related activity is

doubtful in the absence of extension services

Gender Equity

• The social context is extremely difficult to work in

• The prodoc (and CKNP MP) do not have gender

analysis but have a few gender specific activities

(gender awareness, green houses, drinking water,

education…)

• However, there is lack of women involvement in

NRM (VCP)

• There is only one female Social Organiser (AKRSP)

Cost-effectiveness

• Overall costs

• Field expenditure

Cost-effectiveness (2) Summary of Budget and Expenses per line

Budget Items description Budget 24/06/2009 Expenses 30/04/2013 % over Total Budget

% Spent 30/04/2013

International Personnel 125,383,844 67,125,998 12.3 53.5

National Personnel 217,923,520 133,287,115 21.4 61.2

Local Commuities Incentives & Labour 55,093,900 33,295,226 5.4 60.4

PhDs and Training 47,132,704 26,050,283 4.6 55.3

Logistics National & running costs 105,507,416 73,338,183 10.4 69.5

Logistics International 8,259,000 1,400,559 0.8 17.0

Travels (international) 31,050,200 17,777,752 3.0 57.3

Travels (national) 18,057,442 10,008,618 1.8 55.4

Workshops 94,141,837 38,104,523 9.2 40.5

Stationaries/books 8,839,096 2,460,020 0.9 27.8

Visibility 19,887,400 13,416,462 2.0 67.5

Equipment, infrastructures, maintenance other field expenses 4,102,286 8,834,291 0.4 215.4

Supplies Contracts/Equipment 137,414,986 91,935,532 13.5 66.9

Major infrastructural works and facilities installation/Equipment 116,463,633 38,943,993 11.4 33.4

Total 989,257,263 555,978,557 56.2

Contingencies 29,677,718 1,050,000 2.9 3.5

GRAND TOTAL 1,018,934,981 557,028,557 54.7

Cost-effectiveness (3)

PERSONNEL, RUNNING COSTS AND FIELD EXPENSES

Budget Items description

Budget 24/06/2009

Expenses 30/04/2013

% over Total Budget

% Spent 30/04/2013

Personnel 343,307,364 200,413,113 33.7 58.4

Running Costs 162,874,058 102,525,113 16.0 62.9

Field Expenses 483,075,842 253,040,331 47.4 52.4

Contingencies 29,677,718 1,050,000 2.9 3.5

GRAND TOTAL 1,018,934,981 557,028,557 100 54.7

Cost-effectiveness (4)

• Askole Mosque restoration cost more than

doubled (from 12.9 million to 8 and then

to 19.6 after two budget amendments)

• Cost is now more than CKNP headquarter

• Expenses related to raw material and

labour are 12%

Recommendations

The following recommendations have been

identified and discussed:

1. Reinforce the SEED management for the

remaining project duration

2. Reinforce the CKNP Directorate and Park’s

functioning

3. Reinforce the current Village and Valley

Conservation Plans into operational plans

Recommendations SEED/PMU

• Establish the Governing Board/Steering committee at GB level, under Chief Secretary, including provincial stakeholders and Federal Rep, this Committee will continue after SEED closure

• Strengthen the technical guidance of the Project

• Improve proximity with CKNP area (Skardu or Gilgit)

• Improve SEED visibility and signage standards

Recommendations CKNP• Follow up approval of submitted Management Plan

by Province Forest Department

• Finalise the Park budget and submit a PC-4 before 10/2013

• Elaborate an Operational Management Plan for 5 years, subdivided in year plans, including a M&E system: adaptive management (as integration)

• Improve Park infrastructure and signage

• Improve field staff capacities and equipment

• Closely liaise with Sassari University and KIU on GIS

• After SEED closure, CKNP should take the lead in coordinating all activities in and around the Park

Recommendations SEED and Partners

Improve and reinforce the Village and Valley Conservation Plans (priority):

• They should include a minimum set of information (as Baseline studies) on population, wealth, village activities, infrastructure, resources availability (land, water, pastures, livestock)

• Resource (biomasses) needs assessment quantified

• PRAs should be conducted in coordination (harmonised) by IP including CKNP

• Plans should include maps (PRAs + GIS/topographic)

• Plans should quantify (estimate) areas and costs of proposals included

Recommendations SEED and Partners (2)

• The focal points of SEED activities in the Buffer Zone and the immediate area outside CKNP should be:

1. Firewood production/harvesting

2. Timber production/extraction

3. Pastures and fodder production

4. Wildlife/livestock interaction

For all these points there are technical answers to apply:

Tree plantations, fodder production, Insurance schemes

• Continue with Approved Plans in all the other activities

• All researches should provide indications on which type of figures will be produced and how use the information within the CKNP Operational Management Plan

Thank you,

Now: discussion