pims 4581 preparatory assistance: preparation of a undp ... · pims 4581 preparatory assistance:...

December 12, 2016 of 35

2016

Project Implementation Review (PIR)

of

PIMS 4581

Preparatory Assistance: Preparation of a UNDP/GEF Project: National Biodiversity Project â€“

â€œIona Conservationâ€•

Table of Contents

A. Basic Project and Finance Data .............................................................................................................. 2

B. Project Contacts and Links ..................................................................................................................... 2

C. Project Summary .................................................................................................................................. 2

D. Progress toward Development Objective ............................................................................................... 4

E. Annual Project Quality Assurance Assessment ...................................................................................... 24

F. Ratings and Comments on Project Progress ........................................................................................... 27

G. Project Planning .................................................................................................................................. 31

H. Critical Risk Management .................................................................................................................... 32

I. Environmental and Social Grievances .................................................................................................... 32

J. Communicating Impact ........................................................................................................................ 32

K. Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................... 33

L. Progress toward Gender Equality ......................................................................................................... 33

M. Annex 1 - Ratings Definitions .............................................................................................................. 35


A. Basic Project and Finance Data Project Implementing Partner: National Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (INBAC)

GEF Focal Area: Biodiversity

Country(ies) (ANG) Angola

Project Start Date: 07-Feb-2013

Planned Project Closing Date: 07-Feb-2018

Revised Planned Closing Date: 20-Apr-2018

Total GEF Grant (U$S) $ 2,000,000

GEF Grant Disbursed as of 30 June

(U$S):

$ 818,107.49

Total Co-financing (as planned in CEO

endorsement request):

$ 6,000,000.00

Overall Risk Rating Low

Overall DO Rating Moderately Satisfactory

Overall IP Rating Moderately Satisfactory

B. Project Contacts and Links Partner Contact Name Email Address

Project Coordinator / Manager Aristofanes Pontes [email protected]

UNDP Country Office Programme Officer Goetz Schroth [email protected]

Project Implementing Partner Abias Huongo [email protected]

GEF Operational Focal Point Kamia de Carvalho [email protected]

Other Partners

UNDP Technical Adviser Penny Stock [email protected]

UNDP Programme Associate Munini Teferra [email protected]

Project website, etc.

Links to media coverage

C. Project Summary


AngolaÃ”Ã‡Ã–s protected area system was created during the colonial era (i.e. prior to 1975). It comprises 13 protected areas (6

national parks, 2 strict nature reserves, 1 regional park and 4 partial reserves), covering ~6.6% (82,322 km2) of the national territory.

Due to prolonged periods of instability in the country (1975-2002) and growing population needs, many of the conservation areas

have been almost completely abandoned, without adequate funding, equipment or staff. AngolaÃ”Ã‡Ã–s conservation areas are

served by a weak administrative system, with extremely limited resources and capacity. The rationalisation and rehabilitation of the

existing network of conservation areas, and the creation of new conservation areas, are considered important interventions required

for the effective conservation of AngolaÃ”Ã‡Ã–s globally significant biodiversity and national reconstruction efforts.

The Project is designed as the first phase of a more comprehensive national program to rehabilitate, strengthen and expand

AngolaÃ”Ã‡Ã–s system of protected areas. For this phase of the national program, the project will focus outputs and activities - over

a period of four years - at two levels of intervention.

At a national level, the project will support the government in the establishment and operationalisation of the Ã”Ã‡Ã¿Department of

Conservation AreasÃ”Ã‡Ã– within the recently approved Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidade e â”œÃ¼reas de

Conservaâ”œÂºão (INBAC). It will specifically support: (i) the preparation of a strategic business planning framework for the

protected area system; (ii) the development of an organisational structure and functional staffing complement for the protected area

system; (iii) an assessment of the current state (biodiversity, infrastructure, management, settlement, land use, etc.) of national parks

and strict nature reserves; and (vi) the preparation of detailed implementation plans for the rehabilitation of these national parks and

strict nature reserves.

At a local level, the project will seek to assist the government to rehabilitate a single protected area - the largest National Park in

Angola, Iona National Park (15,150 km2) - through: (i) the establishment, training, and equipping of a functional staff complement for

the park; (ii) the renovation and construction of key park infrastructure (i.e. accommodation, offices, roads, water supply, waste

management facilities, electrical supply, fencing, etc.); (iii) the development of a park management planning system; and (iv) the

piloting of a cooperative governance framework for the park.


D. Progress toward Development Objective

Objective/O

utcome

Descrip

tion

Descriptio

n of

Indicator

Baselin

e Level

Target

Level at

end of

project

Level at 30 June 2014

Level at

30 June

2015

Level at

30 June

2016

Objective Objectiv

e:

Catalyze

an

improve

ment in

the

overall

manage

ment of

the

protecte

d areas

network,

through

rehabilit

ating

Iona

National

Park

1. Financial

sustainabilit

y scorecard

for national

system of

protected

areas

3% at least

10%

No change in percentage since last, but there are indirect indications that the project is making progress towards

the target. The Scorecard was applied again in 2013 in connection with the CEO Endorsement of a new GEF BD

Project (PIMS 4464 Angola PA Rehabilitation and Expansion). The financial analysis has changed quite a bit it has

shown tangible improvements with respect to finance available, costing and other aspects. Not the scoring

though, except for a 1-point difference over 201 total possible points Ã¢?? hence insignificant. New application

of the Financial Scorecard will be done as part of the MTR (in 2015) and the Final Evaluation (in 2016).

Progress

made

towards

the target.

5%

Governme

nt has

invested

USD6M in

Iona Park

infrastruct

ure,

rehabilitat

ed the

training

school at

Quicama

National

Park, the

entry

gate,

herbarium

and

conferenc

e room.

Target

achieved

10%

Increase

over

baseline.

It is the

result of

increased

in the

implemen

tation of

environm

ental

policies,

increased

in staffing

and staff

capacity

including

in

financial

managem

ent,

increased

in fee

collection,


etc.

2. Capacity

developme

nt indicator

score for

protected

area system

Systemic:

42%

Institutio

nal: 39%

Individual

: 35%

Systemic:

55%

Institutio

nal: 50%

Individual

: 45%

No change in percentage since last, but there are indirect indications that the project is making progress, although

modest towards the target. New application of the Capacity Scorecard will be done by the MTR (in 2015) and

the Final Evaluation (in 2016) The project has made advancements in training and building institutional capacity.

Else, in connection with the CEO Endorsement of a new GEF BD Project (PIMS 4464 Angola PA Rehabilitation and

Expansion), the scorecard was again reviewed in 2013, but the same scoring as in 2012 was adopted. Hence, no

change.

Progress

made

towards

the target.

Systemic

46% -

establish

ment of

CBD for

policy and

strategic

oversight

over PAs

Institution

al 40% -

INBAC

fully

functional

and

responsibl

e for

implemen

tation of

PAs

managem

ent

support

programm

es in

addition a

training

school

was

Target on

progress

Institution

al: 21%,

Individual

: 33%

According

to

Compone

nt 1,

Element 9

of the

Financial

Sustainabi

lity

Scorecard

,

institution

al

capacity is

5 of 24 =

21%.

According

to

Criterion

14 of the

Managem

ent

Effectiven

ess

Tracking

Tool,

individual


rehabilitat

ed in

Kuando

Kubango

for

developm

ent of

rangers

and Park

Administr

ators. Park

Administr

ators

participat

ed at the

World

Parks

Congress

to share

and learn

lessons for

improved

capacities.

Individual

37%- 20

park

rangers

and 17

staff were

trained on

security

and use of

GIS, 2

Managers

trained on

capacity is

1 of 3 =

33%


GEF

procedure

s.

3. Total

governmen

t budget

allocation

(including

operational

, HR and

capital

budget)

(US$ per

annum) for

protected

area

manageme

nt

US$1.5

million

(as at

2010/11)

At least

US$8

million

Progress made at 84% of the proposed target and making steady progress towards it. In 2013, government

allocated 6.7 million, which is 84% of $8M. The information for 2014 was solicited to MINAMB by the Project

Coordinator; however it is has not yet been made available. Angola is making tangible progress in terms of State

budget transparency. The annual budget for 2013 has been published online and is available for scrutiny by the

public. In connection with the CEO Endorsement of a new GEF BD Project (PIMS 4464 Angola PA Rehabilitation

and Expansion), some research on government budgeting was carried out. The results shows the following break

down for the 2013 figure in USD: Available finances, item (1) Annual central government budget allocated to PA

management (excluding donor funds and revenues generated for the PA system) Ã¢ total = 6,727,000, as

follows: - operational budget (salaries, maintenance, fuel etc) 3,977,000 - infrastructure investment budget

(roads, visitor centres etc) 2,750,000 In addition, the scorecard also showed the following as extra-budgetary

funding: Available finances, item (2A) Funds channelled through government - total 7,239,000, as follows = -

PA dedicated taxes not estimated - Trust Funds - Donor funds [*] 3,800,000 - Loans [**]

3,439,000 - Debt for nature swaps 0 - Others 0 ------- * $2 million from GEF, UNDP, EU;

$1.8 m from other donors ** Spanish cooperation.

Target

achieved

and

surpassed

by far.

Governme

nt has

allocated

$82M for

PAs in

2015

budget.

Giving the

target

level of

$8M the

result is

over

100%.

Target on

progeress

(40%

achieved)

$ 3.2

million

Governm

ent

spending

for Iona

NP in

2015 is $

3.2

million

according

to INBAC

4. Number

of

protected

areas in

which the

METT is

adopted as

a tool to

monitor

effectivene

ss of PA

manageme

0 At least 7 Target achieved with 7 national PAs adopting the METT. METT is periodically prepared for Iona National Park

under this project plus for 6 Protected Areas in Angola under the Expansion of Protected Areas Project Document

(GEF 5): Luengue- Luiana, Mavinga, Maiombe, Kissama, Cangandala and Bikuar.

The

methodol

ogy of

METT has

been

adopted

for all 7

PAs.

However

only Iona

Park has

started

Target on

progress

(14%

achieved)

Only 1 of

7 PAs

uses

METT

methodol

ogy (Iona

NP)


nt using the

tool for

data

collection.

Other

parks are

expected

to come

on stream

in the

near

future.

Outcome 1 Outcom

e 1)

Rehabilit

ation of

Iona

National

Park

5.

Manageme

nt

Effectivene

ss Tracking

Tool

scorecard:

Iona

National

Park

0.07 5 points

out of

102

possible,

giving

(Jan

2012) =

5%

[NOTE

ON

LOGFRA

ME Ã¢

2014:]

We need

to make a

correctio

n to the

baseline.

In the

PRODOC,

it

mentions

No change in the scoring since last but there are indirect indications that the project is making progress towards

the target. New application of the METT will be done as part of the MTR (in 2015) and the Final Evaluation (in

2016). The TT is not due now, but will be prepared in early 2015. The five points scored in 2012 refer to the

following questions. 1. Legal status: Does the protected area have legal status (or in the case of private reserves

is covered by a covenant or similar)? 3 / 3 points 5. Protected area design: Is the protected area the right

size and shape to protect species, habitats, ecological processes and water catchments of key conservation

concern? 1 / 3 point 6. Protected area boundary demarcation: Is the boundary known and

demarcated? 1 / 3 points Given the progression of our work in operationalising the site, in the next

application of the METT, we will likely see improvement in the following questions: 2. Protected area regulations

7. Management plan 10. Protection systems 12. Resource management 14. Staff training 15. Current budget

18. Equipment 24. Local communities This may not be enough to reach the target, but progress is being made.

Target

achieved,

but this

needs to

be

independe

ntly

vetted.

Considera

ble

improvem

ent in the

METT

score has

been

attained

since the

original

evaluation

of

November

20, 2011.

Target on

progress

37/102 =

36%

Scoring

improved

due to

improvem

ent in all

the

criterias.


a 7% rate.

However,

5 points

was the

final

baseline

score,

and all

questions

were

considere

d (none

considere

d n/a).

This gives

a total

possible

points of

102 and a

percentag

e of 5% at

the

baseline.

The June

2015

METT

evaluation

returned a

score of

32/102 =

31% in

compariso

n with

only 5/102

= 5% in

2011. In

the 2011

assessmen

t only

three

questions

(1, 5

& 6)

were

awarded

positive

scores

totaling 5

of a

possible 9

points.

The same

total score

for these

three

questions

was also

awarded


in 2015.

However,

of the 39

questions

that

received

zero

scores in

2011, 23

received

positive

scores in

the recent

evaluation

indicating

a wide-

ranging

improvem

ent in

managem

ent

effectiven

ess. The

target of

at least

45% in the

final

evaluation

is

considere

d

attainable.

6. Number

of park

0 12 Target basically achieved. We report that 1 staff Ã¢ the Park Administrator was contracted by Government, as

part of the co-finance, in 2013. We can report that 20 Ã¢Community AgentsÃ¢Â• who will act as park rangers,

Approachi

ng target.

Target

achieved


manageme

nt staff

appointed,

equipped,

trained and

deployed in

the park

paid by the Project, were contracted in July. Their work initiated on 1st August 2014. Strictly speaking, this was

not during the reporting period, but we considered this as target practically achieved. The next steps will be

training and equipping the community agents.

Same as

last year.

22 staff

deployed

in the

park.

7.

Percentage

(%) of park

visitors

obtaining a

permit to

traverse/ov

ernight in

the park

0% At least

80%

No change since the baseline Ã¢ still 0%; however, there is progress in the site level revenue generation aspect.

MINAMB is in process of setting conditions and procedures for visitors Â´ registration, producing permits, and

collecting entry fees. This is expected to be resolved during 2014-2015. The park administrator and

international consultant initiated data collection and communication with operators.

Progress

made

towards

the target.

40% of

Park

visitors is

reported.

Registrati

on and

entry fees

collection

pilot

system

launch in

October

2014, has

been

reformula

ted and

submitted

to the

local

governme

nt

authority

for

Target on

progress

n.d.

During

2015,

1936 park

visitors

were

registered

through

Salondja

mba and

Pediva.

However,

entry

through

Tombwa

is not yet

controlled

,

therefore

percent of

visitors

being

registered

cannot be

determin


approval. ed.

8.

Proportion

(%) of the

plains

grassland

habitats of

the park

(~600km2)

overgrazed

by livestock

(goats and

cattle)

More

than 35%

(by

2011/12)

Less than

20%

Cannot yet inform the indicator. Information is not available. This information is expected to be collected and

analyzed through the realization of the aerial survey, planned for 2015. The aerial survey is planned to be

realized among activities related to the cooperation with Namibia, which is in progress. A study of the

communities, livestock, and human-wildlife conflict (HWC) is planned to be initiated this year.

Not

possible

to assess

the

indicator

with

accuracy,

but there

are good

indication

s that the

baseline

may have

been

optimistic

and the

target

even more

so. The

aerial

survey is

yet to be

conducted

.

Observati

ons from

the

ground

indicate

an

increase

of at least

40% of the

Target on

progress

n.d.

There is a

very little

presence

of

livestock

in the

plains (as

opposed

to the

mountain

s),

therefore

overgrazi

ng occurs

only

around

the

relatively

few

waterhole

s and its

impact on

wildlife

cannot be

assessed

through

percent

area

value,

which in


grassland

habitats of

the park

overgraze

d by

livestock.

addition

is almost

impossibl

e to

determin

e for the

whole

park.

9. Increase

in wildlife

populations

: Oryx

Hartmann's

Zebra

Springbok

Ostrich

9b) Oryx:

1650 9b)

Hartman

n's zebra:

265 9c)

Springbok

: 2400

9d)

Ostrich:

400

9a) At

least

2000

9b) At

least 300

9c) At

least

3500

9d) At

least 500

Cannot yet inform the indicator, but progress has been made . Information is not available. This information is

expected to be collected and analyzed through the aerial survey, planned to be realized in 2015. The aerial

survey is planned to be realized among activities related to the cooperation with Namibia, which is in progress.

The park manager has initiated data collection through road counts, which can provide some comparative basis

but not fully reliable quantitative information.

Progress

made

towards

the

general

target.

Road

count

reports

increase in

wildlife

populatio

ns as

follows:

9b) Oryx:

1815 =

10%

increase,

but still

below

target 9b)

Hartmann'

s zebra:

270 = 1%

increase,

meaning

Target on

progress

n.d. Arial

survey of

wildlife

has not

yet been

carried

out.

Qualitativ

e

observati

ons

indicate

increase

in wildlife

density


no

change,

given data

uncertaint

y,

meaning

basically

status quo

vis-a-vis

baseline

9c)

Springbok:

3120 =

30%

increase

and

approachi

ng the

target 9d)

Ostrich:

420 = 5%

increase,

but still

below

target

10. Number

of critical

natural

freshwater

springs and

wells

secured

and

accessible

0 (of 16) 4 (of 16) No change since baseline: still 0 out of 16. The hydrological study is planned to initiate this year, and will

include mapping of freshwater points. A WASH activity (linked to a UNDP programme on access to water) is

planned for 2015. It will be integrated into the park management planning and include use of WASH activities to

attract the communities and livestock outside the park. The park management plan would include measures for

securing access of wildlife to water and grazing areas.

Not

possible

to inform

indicator.

The

hydrologic

al study

and the

park

Target on

progress

Around

10

Natural

wells

have

been

mapped.


for use by

medium-

sized and

large

wildlife

species

managem

ent plan

are in

progress.

The

problem

is that

these

water

sources

are still

occasiona

lly used

by

livestock

during

drought

and most

of the

wildlife

are

dependen

t on

them.

11. Number

of poaching

incidents

(park

visitors)

recorded in

the

park/annu

m

No data Less than

12

Still way within range of what could be considered the achievement of the target. We report one incident during

the reporting period. Two foreign construction contractors (Chinese nationals) operating near Iona NP, were

caught with evidence of substantive poaching for bush-meat, through joint effort of the Park Administrator, the

police, and volunteer honorary rangers from Namibe, The individuals were arrested, and brought to trial.

Insufficient legislation and limited awareness by the judges resulted with a minor penalty of only 1,500 US$

(probably much less than their profit). We currently have data from Iona on enforcement. The fact that the two

individuals were caught is a result of improved enforcement work at the level of sites. Yet, we want the

enforcement to remain effective and keep numbers well within control. 12 is considered a good target. There is

a need to work more concertedly on wildlife enforcement issues in Angola overall to address situations like this,

which are thought to be far too common in other PAs.

Target

achieve.

Less than

12. Shots

were

heard in

Mupaca

area

located at

east of

Iona and

further

east

towards

Target on

progress

2

Indicator

not easy

to

interpret

since

incomplet

e

detection

and

effective

suppressi


Helola and

Monteneg

ro areas.

Motorcycl

es are

used to

hunt wild

animals

within the

Park in the

south of

Espinheira

.

on of

poaching

would

both lead

to low

value.

12.

Proportion

(%) of

communitie

s living in

the park

that are

adequately

represente

d in the

park

manageme

nt decision-

making

processes.

0% More

than 60%

No change since baseline: still 0%, but there is considerable progress being made towards it. Communication for

informing stakeholders and for consultations, with focus on communities in the park, initiated since January 2012

by the project, the Ministry, park staff and, are in progress. The consultancies for community study, and for

management planning, are both planned to initiate this year, and expected to create permanent consultation

mechanisms to secure the representation of the local communities in the dynamic management planning and

decision making processes. When we achieve that, we can start assessing the percentage.

No

change.

0% of

communit

ies living

in the park

are

represent

ed the

park

managem

ent

decision-

making

processes.

Communit

y study

and park

managem

ent

planning

No

progress

made 0%

Although

park staff

interacts

with

communit

ies and

sobas,

these are

not

systemati

cally

involved

in Iona

Parks

decision-

making

process.


initiated

but are

not yet at

the stage

of

informing

the

project on

this

indicator.

13. Number

of job

opportuniti

es (direct

and

indirect)

created for

local

communitie

s living in,

or adjacent

to, the park

a) Direct:

0 b)

Indirect:

0

a) Direct:

at least

10 b)

Indirect:

at least

30

13a) Target achieved and surpassed with 21 in all. 13b) Currently 0, but this may change soon, as the new

rangers arrive and may create the need for services, and yet more jobs can be created, as the park gradually

become a more attractive tourism destination. On 13a, we report at least 20 direct jobs created, if we consider

the 20 Ã¢community agentsÃ¢Â• contracted through the project to act as park rangers, were selected by the

Park. We also mention the Park Administrator, among local communities -- all recently created On 13b, the

project includes supporting the development of alternative sustainable income-generating activities with

communities, which we may then call indirect jobs. A pilot sub-project with one community is currently in

planning to initiate this year or by early 2015. At least 50 people are expected to benefit from this sub-project.

Target

partially

achieved.

a) Direct:

12

members

of

communit

y are

communit

y agents

(rangers)

b)

Indirect: 0

Target on

progress

(a) 100%

achieved,

b) 0%

achieved)

a) Direct:

12

members

of

communit

y are

communit

y agents

(rangers)

b)

Indirect: 0

Direct

employm

ent target

obtained.

Need to

ascertain

sustainabi


lity by

formalizin

g hiring

by GoA.

Indirect

employm

ent still at

a baseline

level, with

no

indication

of

generatio

n of

employm

ent for

local

communit

y

members

living in

or

adjacent

to Iona

Park.

14. Average

annual

income

(US$) of

households

living in the

park

US$155/a

nnum

At least

US$250/a

nnum

Cannot fully inform the indicator, as the information is not available. The collecting of this information is part of

the community study planned to initiate in 2014.

Not

possible

to inform

indicator

at this

stage. The

study on

Communit

y Profile is

No

progress

made

n.d. Full

data

unavailabl

e,

however

(besides


on going

and data

on income

levels will

be ready

at

finalizatio

n of the

exercise.

the 12

rangers

hired by

the

Project)

there has

been no

output or

product

implemen

ted that

could

feasibly

generate

income

and/or

improve

living

condition

s of

people

living in

the Park

Outcome 2 Outcom

e 2)

Strength

en

institutio

nal

capacity

to

manage

the

protecte

15.

Strategic

Plan, and a

policy

framework,

for the

system of

protected

areas

formally

approved

No Yes Yes Ã¢?? and target fully achieved. Government has approved the Strategic Plan for the National Network of

Conservation Areas (PLENARCA). The PLERNACA's implementation has partially initiated, with several

conservation and management measures being taken at both the local (in several parks) and national levels. The

document also identifying the required legislation for implementing PLENARCA is in process of preparation for

approval. Further strategic support is being provided.

Yes. Target

achieved

Yes

PLERNAC

A is

approved

by GoA.

Refineme

nt of plan

through

study


d areas

network

by

governmen

t

contracte

d by the

project is

underway

16.

Organizatio

nal

structure

for

protected

areas and

job

description

s,

remunerati

on levels

and

conditions

of service

for

protected

area staff

formally

adopted by

governmen

t

No Yes No, not yet, but progress is made towards the target. This consultancy is planned to be carried out in 2015.

Coordination with INBAC has initiated for enabling the implementation of this and other project activities.

Not

possible

to inform

indicator

at this

stage. The

Park

Managem

ent Plan

study is on

going

which will

frame the

organizati

onal

structure

of the

Park.

Target on

progress

Key

compone

nts of this

work

have

been

incorpora

ted in the

ongoing

study on

the

strategic

plan of

protected

area

system. A

minimum

structure

of INBAC

is in

place.

17.

Recruitmen

t of staff to

approved

protected

area posts

in the

0 At least

50%

Target fully achieved and surpassed by achieving 100%. Around 150 permanent park staff in 6 parks were

formally integrated into INBAC's organogram during 2013.

Target

fully

achieved.

Current

level

remains as

reported

Target on

progress

n.d.

Organogr

am is

being

develope


organogra

m of the

protected

area agency

(as a % of

posts with

permanent

staff

appointed)

in 2014. d in the

study

funded by

the

project.

Staffing of

INBAC has

been

increasing

but

percent

value

cannot be

determin

ed in the

absence

of an

approved

organogra

m.

18. Number

of

protected

area staff

completing

in-service

training and

skills

developme

nt

programme

s

0 20 Target fully achieved and surpassed. We report that all the 150 park staff mentioned above in Indicator #17 have

received at least the basic rangers' course (45 days). However, the element of training has no direct attribution

to the project, but the achievement is still meaningful in the progress within the national PA agenda. The first

course had been conducted in 2005 and this is why the baseline was 0. The more recent one was in 2013. A

rangers' school was established in Kissama NP, and another is being established in Kuando-Kuabngo. Several

Park Administrators and staff received further training, and a cooperation plan with Cuba, will include an

exchange programme and further training for several park administrators.

Target

fully

achieved.

Further to

the basic

trainings

conducted

last year,

17

governme

nt staff of

INBAC and

Park

Administr

Target

achieved

>20

18 staff

have

been

trained in

GIS. 3

staff

attended

a

workshop

on

wildlife


ators of

Mavinga,

Luengue-

Luiana,

Chimalave

ra and

Cangandal

a, were

trained in

GIS.

crime.

Project

supported

meeting

of all

National

Park staff

in early

2016.

19. Number

of senior

protected

area staff in

a

structured

mentoring

programme

0 3 1 senior protected area staff Ã¢ representing, say, 33% of target achievement. The Iona Park Administrator is

being mentored by the international Park management consultant, since September 2013.

Target

partially

achieved.

1 senior

staff, the

Iona Park

Administr

ator

continue

to be

mentored

by the

Internatio

nal Park

Manager.

Target on

progress

>3

National

and

internatio

nal park

manager

of Iona

NP and

National

Project

Coordinat

or are

being

mentored

by UNDP

staff.

Intensive

and

frequent

interactio

n

between


UNDP and

INBAC

managem

ent.

20. Number

of national

parks and

strict

nature

reserves

with fully

documente

d up-to-

date

assessment

s of their

state and

biodiversity

value

0 7 Some progress towards the target has been made towards the target, with the production in 2013 of technical

reports in connection with the CEO Endorsement of a new GEF BD Project (PIMS 4464 Angola PA Rehabilitation

and Expansion), but these do not represent complete state of biodiversity reports. Strictly speaking, we should

say zero. including for Iona National Park, for which a fully documented up-to-date assessment of the state of

biodiversity is not available. The activity to prepare the mentioned reports for 7 national PAs is included in the

programme of work for this project under the systemic component. Refer to the mentioned technical reports at:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97932458/4464%20Angola%20PA%20Expansion%20and%20Rehabilitation

/PIMS%204464%20Angola%20PA%20Exp_TECH_REPORTS.docx

Initiated. Target on

progress

By

reporting

deadline

this

activity

had been

initiated,

although

consultan

ts have

been

contracte

d and

work is

ongoing.

21. Number

of

protected

areas

where a

structured

rationalisati

on and

rehabilitati

on

programme

is

adequately

1 4 Target achieved with the mobilisation of the CEO Endorsement of a new GEF BD Project (PIMS 4464 Angola PA

Rehabilitation and Expansion). The areas are all national parks: Iona, QuiÃƒ Â§ama, Cangandala and Bicuar.

1.

Currently,

only the

Iona Park

rehabilitat

ion

programm

e is under

implemen

tation.

Target

partially

Target on

progress

(75%

achieved)

3 PAs

Besides

Iona NP,

Kissama

NP has

been

rehabilitat

ed with

governme


resourced

and under

implementa

tion

Achieved. nt funds

and

Canganda

la with

the

support

of

Chevron.

E. Annual Project Quality Assurance Assessment Project Governance

Are at least 40 percent of the personnel hired by the project, regardless of contract type, female? N

Dates of Project Steering Committee/Board meetings during reporting period (30 June 2015 to 1 July

2016)

August 2015

Did the Project Board function as intended this reporting period? N

Please add any comments on project governance. The project board, which is chaired by the Minister of the Environment, is unable to

meet regularly to make technical decisions in the project and also to ensure political

buy-in. Therefore, a technical committee chaired by the Director General of INBAC has

been created that meets at least once per quarter to discuss and plan the ongoing work

and prepare action points for the Board. The steering committee now functioning like a

body of two "chambers" where the "lower chamber" (technical committee) meets

frequently and discusses technical issues, while the "upper chamber" (Project Board)

provides political oversight and linkage to broader environmental policies within the

country. While more frequent meetings of the Board would still be desirable, that the

Board has only met once per year does not severely hold up the project.

Annual Work Planning


Have project inputs been procured and delivered on time and budget this reporting period? N

Will the project be able to close on time as planned? N

Please add any comments on annual work planning. While the work planning is done correctly and on time, delivery is often delayed.

Because it is difficult to find service providers for the remote area of the park. The

project has obtained an extension from the GEF to 20 April 2018 and is requesting the

same from the EU.

Stakeholder engagement and target groups

Please discuss how stakeholders and target groups were directly engaged in the decision-making,

implementation and monitoring of the project this reporting period.

During the reporting period, the project has worked intensively with key stakeholders

INBAC, MINAMB, and the Iona Park staff. Coordination of project work has significantly

improved, through almost weekly meetings between UNDP and the project

coordinator. However, engagement with communities in the park is still lacking. The

ongoing community study has advanced through a new visit of the consultant to the

park and interviews with a significant number of park inhabitants. The report is

expected for August 2016.

Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E)

Please discuss how the project M&E Plan was implemented and used to support effective project

management this reporting period (e.g. please consider whether progress data against the indicators in

the project results framework was reported using credible data sources and collected according to the

M&E plan, including sex disaggregated data as relevant; whether lesson learned were used to take

corrective actions as necessary; whether evaluations were conducted following the UNDP-GEF guidance

available at www.undp.erc.org; and other issues as relevant).

During the reporting period, the Mid-term Review of the project was completed and

accepted. The Management Response to the MTR was prepared and uploaded into

Atlas and PIMS. Project partner EU made a verification mission to the Park in June 2016

but has not yet shared a report. Monitoring visits were carried out in December 2015

and a technical visit by the Programme Officer was made in April 2016. These visits

included intensive discussions of work programs with park staff and help advance

project implementation.

Social & Environmental Standards

Were any new social and environmental impacts and risks identified this reporting period? N

Please discuss how social and environmental impacts and risks were managed this reporting period, as

relevant.

The most important social risk is that communities living in the park (though formally

illegally) lose access to certain resources (eg pasture areas) through the conservation

actions and that their livelihoods would be affected. Managing this risk is the objective


of the ongoing zoning of the park. The risk is in fact not very high because there is a

clear division between the very arid plains where the wildlife is concentrated, pasture

value is minimal and there is very little water unless artificial wells are dug, and the

mountain areas covered by dry forest where the communities reside and where pasture

value is much higher and water more available. During the reporting period, a new

effort at a practical, effective and communicable zoning taking this into account has

been made and this is about to be finalized. This will then be communicated and

discussed with the communities through engagement of a local NGO during the second

half of 2016. This process will help to detect any social issues. The project has no

environmental risks.


F. Ratings and Comments on Project Progress Project Progress toward Development Objective

Role 2016 Rating 2016 Comments

Project

Manager/Coordinator

Moderately

Satisfactory

The project has been making significant progress towards its intended outcomes.

Notably, there is now progress towards Outcome 2, the strengthening of the National

Institute of Biodiversity and Conservation Areas (INBAC) through the much delayed

contracting of studies that will provide an institutional strategy for the protected areas

network and management plans for a set of priority protected areas in the country. A

draft of this important strategy document is expected for the end of September.

Important progress is also being made towards the objectives of Outcome 1, the

rehabilitation and conservation of Iona National Park, although this can not always be

quantified. For example, wildlife densities as a main indicator of progress in the

consolidation of the park will only be known after the aerial survey has been

completed by the end of 2016 or very early 2017, however qualitatively it can be

observed that key populations e.g. of oryx are reproducing very quickly. The situation

of the communities including approximate income levels will also be better

understood when the Community Study has been completed, presumably (after much

delay and new field visits in May/June) in late September 2016. The Park Management

Plan is now in its final revision and should be completed by end September. It is a

precondition for the engagement of the communities in the management of the park,

a key component of Outcome 1, for which now the development of community based

tourism and educational activities have been identified as key components. While not

all infrastructure activities have been implemented (eg guard posts still without water

supply, office building in Espinheira not built yet), the park staff is now focused on this

project component. Despite initial delays, the project can achieve all of its major

Outputs and Outcomes now that extension until April 2018 has been approved by GEF

and EU has communicated to have no objections to an extension. The rating of

"moderately satisfactory" was given because the project is making good progress

towards its targets (several of which have been achieved) and can reach all its major

outcomes and outputs, provided that there will be an extension of the project until

April 2018 without major budget cuts. This extension has been approved by the GEF

but not yet by the EU. While it is very unlikely that the EU will not extend the project,

it may reduce the budget and this could affect the final project outcomes. The trends

in project indicators are generally positive, with the exception of indicators 12 and 14

where no progress has yet been made. These indicators are related to the

engagement of the communities in Iona Park which is a component of the project that

has been neglected and is only now being addressed. There are currently no critical

risks affecting or potentially affecting the project. General risks are non-delivery of

contracted services due to lack of capacity, as has happened in the past in this project,

but in view of the extension such eventualities could now be overcome.

UNDP Country Office

Programme Officer

Moderately

Satisfactory

The MTR, which, was carried out during this reporting period has rated the Project as

MS and we also agreed with the rating given. In fact, many indicators in the log frame

were rated MS although some were rated as MU â€“ this is because only numbers'

(figures) were provided and that cannot be evaluated without supporting data. For

example, in the case of wildlife densities indicators (the result will only be known after

the planned aerial survey conducted) and percentage of degraded grassland area

which would be very difficult to determine accurately unless the specific study is

conducted. The selected indicators make it very difficult to objectively measure the


progress of the project. Where progress indicators can be quantified and are

meaningful, the trend is often positive and a few end-of-project targets have been

achieved. It can be said that considering the financial resources and project team now

fully in place, all objectives of the project can be achieved if there is enough time.

Therefore, the fact that we managed to get the project extension from the GEF by 14

months (and indication from EU to have no objection against a similar extension) was

a key achievement during this reporting period.

Project Implementing

Partner

GEF Operational Focal

point

Other Partners

UNDP Technical

Advisor

Moderately

Satisfactory

The project is moving ahead, albeit at a slower pace than hoped. Significant initial

delays, due in part to staff recruitment and in part to institutional and administrative

issues, has impeded progress. However, in recent months, a strengthened team in the

CO in cooperation with INBAC has led to significant progress under Outcome 1

(rehabilitation) and Outcome 2 (strengthening institutional capacity to manage the

protected areas network). However, while advances have been made with the staffing

of the National Park and the training of staff, the engagement of communities living in

the park and using park resources, notably for cattle and goat herding, is delayed. This

is largely related to the delays in finalizing two key studies of Outcome 1, notably the

community study and the park management plan, both of which were expected to

provide guidance for the engagement with the communities within a broader concept

of park management under Outcome 2. This would also include the zoning of the park

into areas of various uses and non-use zones as a central component of the

management plan. While these two studies have been initiated and drafts have been

presented to the project team during the year 2015, detailed guidance to the

consultants for the completion of the studies, including necessary field work, has only

been provided in late 2015 and early 2016, after the MTR visit. As a result of the

delays in these studies, a comprehensive and consistent community engagement

strategy will only be developed and implemented during 2016. A further major delay

involves the development of a protected areas strategy for INBAC and detailed

assessments of the current state and rehabilitation plans for six protected areas other

than Iona NP. These studies had not been contracted at the time of the MTR (by early

2016), although the selection processes have meanwhile been completed based on

detailed Terms of Reference developed by INBAC, and the work on all studies has

been initiated. Completion of these studies is planned for late 2016. Another delayed

component under Outcome 2 is the transboundary aspect of the project through

exchange of experiences with conservation authorities and communities across the

border in Namibia. It has been decided to initiate the exchange at technical level, with

advances at political level following later. The recent approval of the project extension

by 14 months until April 2018 will therefore provide important additional time to

enable the project to address these delays and achieve its targeted objectives.

Project Progress in Project Implementation


Role 2015 Rating 2016 Rating 2016 Comments

Project

Manager/Coordinator

Moderately

Satisfactory

Moderately

Satisfactory

Project made good progress on a number of key activities especially

in the second half of the reporting period. Under Outcome 1, there

has been significant advance in completing the infrastructure

components of the project through making delayed payments for

infrastructure already completed (buildings in Espinheira,

Salondjamba and Pediva), contracting water supply for the two guard

posts in Salondjamba and Pediva, solar energy for these same guard

posts and Espinheira, and an office building for the park

administration in Espinheira. Once these constructions are completed

and paid, the budgeted infrastructure component of the project will

be completed. For completing the radio system in the park,

assistance from the Ministry of Telecommunications has been

requested and a visit to the park is scheduled. A concept for

improving water supply and sanitation for the communities in the

park without putting additional pressure on park components has

been developed. Additional to the vehicles operating in the park, 4

motorcycles have been purchased. The park management plan has

been completely revised by the project team and is about to be

completed. A Namibian company has been contracted for the aerial

wildlife survey, to be carried out in the second half of 2016. As part of

the aerial survey, the project is restoring an air strip close to

Espinheira. The planned hydrological study for the park has been

canceled. A community study for characterizing the situation of the

communities in the park and identifying conflicts with the park

objectives has been taken forward through an exhaustive survey of

park inhabitants and the report is being finalized. For the alternative

livelihoods component for the park inhabitants, a community based

tourism component has been designed, with input from local

government, NGOs and tourism operators, in a workshop that was

held in August 2016 in Namibe, to be contracted in the second half of

2016. The cross-border cooperation process with Namibia has been

initiated through contact with the Namibian Ministry of Environment

and Tourism and a first exchange visit has been scheduled for

October 2016. Under Outcome 2, studies on several national parks

other than Iona have been contracted, to be completed by the end of

2016. This also includes a protected areas strategy for INBAC that is

currently being developed by a consultancy company. Contact has

been made with the South African Wildlife College to provide training

to the park managers of Iona and other Angolan parks, to be

implemented in the second half of 2016. The construction of a bridge

over the Curoca has been canceled by the Project Board because no

viable option has been identified and permission to use the funds for

the construction of two additional guard posts will be requested.

Under Outcome 3, the MTR was completed and a Management

Response formulated. The rating "moderately satisfactory" was given

because of the delay in the project components relating to the

communities in the park. The completion of these components is now

conditional upon the extension of the project by the EU (these

components are largely EU funded) which is likely but has not been

secured yet. Provided the extension will be granted, essentially all

components of the project can be completed by end 2017 or early


2018. During the second half of the reporting period, the project

management unit has worked well and has effectively guided project

implementation. Weekly meetings of the national project coordinator

with the UNDP team and periodic meetings at INBAC on key topics of

the project have been very effective in ensuring communication

within the project and move activities forward. The integration of the

park management staff in project activities such as the elaboration of

the park management plan and the surveys under the community

study has been very effective and greatly improved the overall

performance of the project. However, the Project Board (chaired by

the Minister) has only met once in August 2015 and again in August

2016 despite efforts at obtaining an earlier meeting in 2016 and it

can be said that more frequent meetings would have been beneficial

to the delivery of the project, although the project management

team and the technical committee meeting at INBAC have filled the

gap caused by the infrequent Board meetings to some extent.

UNDP Country Office

Programme Officer

Moderately

Satisfactory

Moderately

Satisfactory

The project has made good progress during the reporting period in its

overall management, with now almost weekly meetings being held

between project manager and UNDP staff to discuss the progress of

the project and decide on day-to-day issues. While the Project Board

(chaired by the Minister) meets infrequently (once per year) a

technical committee chaired by the DG of INBAC (or his deputy)

meets at least once per quarter to discuss important technical issues.

Consultancy work is monitored and discussed through more frequent

meetings. The interaction between Luanda based and Iona Park

based staff has become much more regular and substantial. The

activities of Outcome 2 on Institutional Strengthening of INBAC,

which had been delayed, are now being implemented. Unfortunately,

there are still delays in implementing the infrastructure targets in

part because it is difficult to find companies that want to work in the

remote park, although funds are available. Also, the community

engagement is still delayed by the delays in producing key elements

of the community study and the park management plan. However,

through intensified interaction with the consultants it is now

expected that these studies will become available during the next

two months, and based on this the more substantial engagement

with the communities, including on alternative livelihoods (tourism)

can be initiated. The transboundary component has also not made

progress, in part because the authorities in Namibia make even

technical visits dependent on progress at the political level which is

not under the control of the project. Considering the delays, but also

the opportunities to still achieve all major objectives of the project, it

was crucial to obtain an extension from the GEF and this has been

successful. Indication from the EU to have no objection against

extending the project is also a positive sign. Financial delivery: From

the total GEF allocated US$ 2,000,000 for 4 years, the project used

US$ 818,107 until end of June 2016. For 2016 the annual budget was

reduced from initially US$ 1,000,000 to US$ 600,000. Out of the US$

600,000 the project has used only US$ 178,850 by end June. The low

spending of GEF funds was partially caused by the delay first in the

contracting and then in the delivery of the studies under Outcome 2

that are GEF funded. Another important reason was that, while the


GEF had extended the project in May 2016, the EU has not extended

the project yet and therefore spending of EU funds was made a

priority, resulting in lower spending of GEF funds for GEF/EU co-

funded activities. The total financial delivery of 48% (43% of GEF

funds, 42% of EU funds, and 87% of UNDP funds) by end June only

partly reflects progress made because significant amounts have been

contracted or built but not yet expended (e.g. infrastructure,

consultancies for Outcome 2).

Project Implementing

Partner

GEF Operational Focal

point

Other Partners

UNDP Technical

Advisor

Moderately

Satisfactory

Moderately

Satisfactory

The project has made good progress during the reporting period in

the overall management of the project. Weekly meetings are now

held between the project manager and UNDP staff to discuss project

progress and manage day-to-day issues. Relationships with GoA

through INBAC have been strengthened and useful dialogue is under

way to improve implementation, particularly of delayed activities.

Although the project is always moving ahead slower than hoped, the

completion of a comprehensive and well-managed MTR process has

provided a clear strategy for the future direction of the project. In

addition, the successful request for extension of the project by 14

months to April 2018 will allow the project more time to advance

delayed aspects. Confirmation of additional funding from the EU to

support implementation of the project during the extension period is

anticipated shortly.

G. Project Planning Key project

milestone

Status Original Planned Date

(Month/Year)

Actual or Expected Date

(Month/Year)

Comments

Inception

Workshop

on schedule July - 2013 June - 2013

Mid-term Review delayed/completed 3 - 2015 3 - 2016 slow start of project. delay

in MTR made its results

more meaningful because

covering a larger period of

actual project

implementation.

Terminal

Evaluation

on schedule February - 2017 April - 2018 After approval of the

extension request to the

GEF, the TER date has

moved to first half of 2018

Project Closure delayed/pending February - 2017 April - 2018 Due to delays in the


initiation and early

implementation of the

project, the objectives

could not be completed by

the originally planned

closing date. An extension

to 20 April 2018 has been

requested from the GEF

and obtained, and is being

requested also from the

EU. The latter request is

still pending.

H. Critical Risk Management Critical Risks Type(s) Critical Risk Management Measures Undertaken in 2016

I. Environmental and Social Grievances Related environmental or social

issue

Status

Significance

Detailed description

J. Communicating Impact Tell us the story of the project focusing on how the project has helped to improve people’ s lives.

The project helps safeguard and rehabilitate a key element of the natural heritage of Angola, notably Iona National Park at

the driest end of the wide range of ecosystems that are found in this extremely diverse country. It, therefore, lays a basis

for a future tourism industry that is incipient in the country, but a large potential has been recognized. If properly managed,

this will benefit the communities that are still living in rural landscapes such as Iona NP in many ways that their ancestors

have done for many years back. During the reporting period, the project has made important advances in the development

of a management plan for the park that will allow for communities and nature to coexist in harmony within this very dry and

harsh ecosystem.

What is the most significant change that has resulted from the project this reporting period?

As a result of the project and the support provided by UNDP, the National Institute for Biodiversity and Protected Areas of

Angola has adopted much more efficient practices in managing work, specifically consultancies, that will benefit not only

this project but also conservation projects in the country in general.

Describe how the project supported South-South Cooperation and Triangular Cooperation efforts in the reporting year.

The transboundary component of the project with Namibia has not made any progress during the reporting period.

However, through the extensive experience of UNDP staff in Latin America (Brazil, Mexico etc.) much useful experience

and information on conservation practices in that continent has been brought into the discussion, especially with regard to


the presence of communities in protected areas.

K. Partnerships Partners Innovation and Work with Partners

Civil Society Organisations/NGOs The international NGO PANTHERA has done a survey on human-wildlife

conflict in Iona National Park in early 2016. The NGO Kissama Foundation

is currently working on a protected areas strategy for the National Institute

for Biodiversity and Protected Areas (INBAC).

Indigenous Peoples While the direct, systematic engagement with the communities in Iona

National Park is still lagging, the project has supported a consultancy that

included extensive interviews with community members in the park and that

will provide a basis for livelihoods and educational activities by the project

scheduled for the second half of 2016.

Private Sector The tourism industry would be relevant but no progress yet.

GEF Small Grants Programme No activities

Other Partners Engagement with government and non-government actors in community

conservation in Namibia are planned and have been initiated, but this has

not yet resulted in an exchange visit or any other tangible results.

L. Progress toward Gender Equality Has a gender or

social assessment

been carried out this

reporting period?

No

If a gender or social

assessment has been

carried out what

where the findings?

Does this project

specifically target

woman or girls as

direct beneficiaries?

No

Please specify results

achieved this

reporting period that

focus on increasing

gender equality and

improving the

empowerment of

Gender aspects will be highly relevant once the project begins engaging the communities living in the park.

This engagement has not started yet. The basis for it are being laid in the Community Analysis that is being

finalized by a consultancy company (SOAPRO). This assessment is led by a female researcher and pays

particular attention to gender aspects of the communities, so that these can be taken into consideration

when the community engagement activities are being initiated. In order to partly address gender balance in

park staff, two of the 20 park rangers hired by the project were women, however it turned out that the two

individuals were not suitable for the post and are currently being replaced.


women.

General Comments

Gender aspects will be relevant in the interaction with the communities in the park but this component is severely delayed and has

not started yet.


M. Annex 1 - Ratings Definitions Development Objective Progress Ratings Definitions

Highly Satisfactory (HS): Project is expected to achieve or exceed all its major global environmental objectives, and yield substantial

global environmental benefits, without major shortcomings. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.

Satisfactory (S): Project is expected to achieve most of its major global environmental objectives, and yield satisfactory global

environmental benefits, with only minor shortcomings.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): Project is expected to achieve most of its major relevant objectives but with either significant

shortcomings or modest overall relevance. Project is expected not to achieve some of its major global environmental objectives or

yield some of the expected global environment benefits.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): Project is expected to achieve of its major global environmental objectives with major shortcomings

or is expected to achieve only some of its major global environmental objectives.

Unsatisfactory (U): Project is expected not to achieve most of its major global environment objectives or to yield any satisfactory

global environmental benefits.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): The project has failed to achieve, and is not expected to achieve, any of its major global environment

objectives with no worthwhile benefits.

Implementation Progress Ratings Definitions

Highly Satisfactory (HS): Implementation of all components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised

implementation plan for the project. The project can be presented as 'good practice'.

Satisfactory (S): Implementation of most components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan except for

only few that are subject to remedial action.

Moderately Satisfactory (MS): Implementation of some components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised

plan with some components requiring remedial action.

Moderately Unsatisfactory (MU): Implementation of some components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally

revised plan with most components requiring remedial action.

Unsatisfactory (U): Implementation of most components is not in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised plan.

Highly Unsatisfactory (HU): Implementation of none of the components is in substantial compliance with the original/formally revised

plan.

pims 4581 preparatory assistance: preparation of a undp ... · pims 4581 preparatory assistance:...

Documents