Upload
lamcong
View
231
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
December 12, 2016 Page 1 of 35
2016
Project Implementation Review (PIR)
of
PIMS 4581
Preparatory Assistance: Preparation of a UNDP/GEF Project: National Biodiversity Project –
“Iona Conservation―
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
December 12, 2016 Page 2 of 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
December 12, 2016 Page 3 of 35
AngolaÔÇÖs 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. AngolaÔÇÖs 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 AngolaÔÇÖs 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
AngolaÔÇÖs 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 ÔÇÿDepartment of
Conservation AreasÔÇÖ within the recently approved Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidade e ├üreas de
Conservação (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.
December 12, 2016 Page 4 of 35
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 â?? 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,
December 12, 2016 Page 5 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 6 of 35
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%
December 12, 2016 Page 7 of 35
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) â 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)
December 12, 2016 Page 8 of 35
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 â
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 9 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 10 of 35
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 â the Park Administrator was contracted by Government, as
part of the co-finance, in 2013. We can report that 20 âCommunity Agents╠who will act as park rangers,
Approachi
ng target.
Target
achieved
December 12, 2016 Page 11 of 35
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 â still 0%; however, there is progress in the site level revenue generation aspect.
MINAMB is in process of setting conditions and procedures for visitors ´ 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
December 12, 2016 Page 12 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 13 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 14 of 35
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 15 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 16 of 35
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 17 of 35
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 âcommunity agents╠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
December 12, 2016 Page 18 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 19 of 35
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 â?? 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
December 12, 2016 Page 20 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 21 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 22 of 35
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 â 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
December 12, 2016 Page 23 of 35
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, Quià §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
December 12, 2016 Page 24 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 25 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 26 of 35
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 27 of 35
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 – 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
December 12, 2016 Page 28 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 29 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 30 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 31 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 32 of 35
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
December 12, 2016 Page 33 of 35
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 34 of 35
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.
December 12, 2016 Page 35 of 35
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.