Evaluation Mission
SEED Project
Results, Conclusions and
Recommendations
Islamabad, 01/07/2013
The Methodology and
the Evaluation Report
•
Assessment of Project Objectives and Design
A. Justification
B. Objectives
C. Project Design
•
Assessment of Project Implementation, Efficiency and Management
A. Project Budget and Expenditure
B. Activities and Outputs
C. Government Support
D. Project Management
•
Assessment of Results and Effectiveness
A. Effects and Impact
B. Sustainability and Environmental Impact of Results
C. Gender Equity in Project Implementation and Results
D. Cost-effectiveness
E. Major Factors Affecting the Project Results
The Methodology and
the Evaluation report (2)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Lessons Learned
Project design
• The Project design is a key component of the project
• SEED Prodoc is a combination of several proposals
from partners
• The focus is sometimes the CKNP/NRM, sometimes
Rural Development activities
• The result is: 13 Expected results, 58 Activities
• 94 Budget lines with repetitions and often including
disparate items, 49 Lump sums
• Logical framework
• Names of activities are often misleading, also in
terms of geographical scope
• Indicators
Project Budget and Expenditure
Partner Name
Total Budget
%
Total
Allocated
Allocated Expenditures
Balance
% Used
PMU
122,444,262
12
74,830,776
47,613,486
61
CKNP
86,670,825
9
48,227,451
38,443,374
56
Ev-K2-CNR
375,976,751
37
219,554,804
156,421,947
58
KIU
187,598,338
18
57,693,658
129,904,680
31
AKRSP
91,934,000
9
78,580,614
13,353,386
85
WWF
72,462,396
7
42,288,852
30,173,544
58
MGPO
40,000,000
4
20,417,254
19,582,747
51
ACP
12,167,654
1
12,293,554
-125,900
101
Total
989,254,226
97
553,886,963
435,367,263
56
29,677,627
3
1,050,000
28,627,627
4
554,936,963
463,994,890
54
Contingencies
Grand Total
1,018,931,853
100
Project Budget and
Expenditure (2)
• The expenditure rate is 54,7% at 30/04/2013,
60% at end of June 2013
• According to Prodoc 50 % should have been
spent by the end of 2011
• No-cost extension depends on PIDSA
Programme overall duration, AED and MAE
Project Budget and Expenditure (1)
No.
Result description
Total Allocated
% Allocated
Exp.
30/04/2013
% Exp.
1
Income generating activities related to conservation and non-farming developed
10,300,190
1.0
6,706,306
65
2
Access to important livelihood-assets ensured for Community Organization and local population
93,919,896
9.2
68,809,032
73
3
Local-level natural resource management improved
41,198,360
4.0
21,624,858
52
4
Local agricultural production improved in accordance with CKNP vision, objectives and regulations
87,413,013
8.6
53,136,921
61
5
Local awareness, quality and extent of health services improved;
33,952,143
3.3
10,083,692
30
6
Quality of lower education system improved;
6,084,000
0.6
7,874,204
129
7
Intrinsic development of Northern Areas and CKNP initiated through the consolidation of KIU as a
vibrant centre for applied sciences and hub for knowledge transfer;
157,544,938
15.5
77,857,257
49
8
Integrated research program to support CKNP development and mgmt implemented; (8a+8b+8c)
150,011,762
14.7
68,987,409
46
8a
Development of an integrated management-oriented research program
114,815,000
11.3
48,175,623
42
8b
Activities related to Social Forestry
29,259,658
2.9
17,080,932
58
8c
Activities related to Local Livelihoods
5,937,104
0.6
3,730,854
63
9
Capacity of CKNP management improved
105,905,633
10.4
59,557,739
56
10
Visitor facilities in CKNP and buffer zone established and visitor management and improved
65,852,689
6.5
38,425,460
58
11
CKNP waste management improved
24,500,000
2.4
15,149,332
62
12
Quality of tourism services improved
30,602,973
3.0
22,824,110
75
13
Cultural heritage preserved and promoted
59,524,367
5.8
28,019,867
47
14
Project Management Unit (PMU)
122,444,262
12.0
74,830,776
61
989,254,226
97.1
553,886,963
56
29,677,627
3
1,050,000
4
554,936,963
54
Sub-Total
Contingencies
Grand Total
1,018,931,853
100.0
Activities and outputs
• When assessing the activities, it is convenient to reason in
term of what is related to:
– CKNP Core Area
– CKNP Buffer Zone (NRM, the Eyes of the Ecosystems)
– Zone of influence outside the Park (Rural Development)
– Research related to CKNP features and outside the Park,
both from KIU and Italian Universities/researchers
(should have been: Management oriented ecosystem
research)
– 2380 man/days, 160 missions
– Tourism related activities
Activities and outputs (2)
Rightly, the SEED project activities in the Buffer Zone
and the immediate area outside CKNP have been:
1. Irrigation channels
2. Poplar, willow, Russian olive and fruit trees plantations
3. Pastures improvements and fodder production
4. Wildlife/livestock interaction
These have to be considered First Priority
Activities and outputs (3)
5. Infrastructures (CKNP Directorate/Entry points,
Link roads, etc.)
6. Trophy Hunting (1 new CMHA)
7. Income Generation (Tourism >>>, mining >>)
8. KIU Researches (11 Bagrote, 9 Shigar, 5
Haramosh and Hushey, 4 Braldo, 11 valleys with
only 1 research)
These have to be considered First Priority
Activities and outputs (4)
• Other activities should be considered good
entry points to work with communities,
however are indirectly related to the Park:
• Health
• Education infrastructure
• Drinking water schemes, link roads
• Anthropological studies and restorations
Government Support
• Government support is satisfactory at this
stage of the Project
• Involvement less satisfactory
• At Federal level SEED is definitely less known
than at Provincial level
• Need to improve GoP and GB involvement for
ownership and sustainability
• Involvement will depend on results
• Role after closure of SEED
• No contacts with Army (pressure on Baltoro )
Project Management
• Project Management has improved since the initial
phase of the project
• Joomla software developed (codes and queries)
• Reporting and Finances are submitted to PIDSA TSU
on time (note: PIDSA TSU does not comment on field
activities and the Management Committee cannot
enter in technical details)
• Audits recommendations and remarks still require
follow-up and agreements on how to handle specific
issues
• The use of a “compensation” account to handle
expenditure abroad is useful but irritual, a way forward
has been identified in the past by PIDSA
Project Management (2)
• Technical follow up needs improvement in the
brief working season:
– Difficult logistics and costs
– “Main office” in Skardu, ”Liaison Office” in Islamabad
(staffed)
– CKNP Directorate and AKRSP in Skardu
– KIU/IMARC, EV-K2-CNR, WWF in Gilgit
– MGPO and ACP in Islamabad
– 1 M&E officer to cover the whole project area
– Insufficient communication and coordination among
partners
Effects and Impacts
• Impact evaluation is currently not possible as no proper
Baseline studies were done
• Indicators proposed in the Prodoc partly unrealistic, vague,
not easy to measure, requiring specific information
• Revision requested, not a proposal for new indicators
• CRITICAL RISK
Sustainability
• The sustainability of SEED achievements is directly linked
to the engagements of Federal and Provincial
Governments of Pakistan to fund selected activities for
CKNP and KIU
• Most field activities are well identified and of great
relevance for communities, therefore engaged in
maintenance works and in applying the acquired skills
• Sustainability of agriculture/livestock related activity is
doubtful in the absence of extension services
Gender Equity
• The social context is extremely difficult to work in
• The prodoc (and CKNP MP) do not have gender analysis
but have a few gender specific activities (gender
awareness, green houses, drinking water, education…)
• However, there is lack of women involvement in NRM
(VCP)
• There is only one female Social Organiser (AKRSP)
Cost-effectiveness
• Overall costs
• Field expenditure
Cost-effectiveness (2)
Summary of Budget and Expenses per line
Budget Items description
Budget 24/06/2009
Expenses 30/04/2013
% over Total
Budget
% Spent
30/04/2013
International Personnel
125,383,844
67,125,998
12.3
53.5
National Personnel
217,923,520
133,287,115
21.4
61.2
Local Commuities Incentives & Labour
55,093,900
33,295,226
5.4
60.4
PhDs and Training
47,132,704
26,050,283
4.6
55.3
105,507,416
73,338,183
10.4
69.5
Logistics International
8,259,000
1,400,559
0.8
17.0
Travels (international)
31,050,200
17,777,752
3.0
57.3
Travels (national)
18,057,442
10,008,618
1.8
55.4
Workshops
94,141,837
38,104,523
9.2
40.5
8,839,096
2,460,020
0.9
27.8
19,887,400
13,416,462
2.0
67.5
4,102,286
8,834,291
0.4
215.4
Supplies Contracts/Equipment
137,414,986
91,935,532
13.5
66.9
Major infrastructural works and facilities installation/Equipment
116,463,633
38,943,993
11.4
33.4
989,257,263
555,978,557
29,677,718
1,050,000
1,018,934,981
557,028,557
Logistics National & running costs
Stationaries/books
Visibility
Equipment, infrastructures, maintenance other field expenses
Total
Contingencies
GRAND TOTAL
56.2
2.9
3.5
54.7
Cost-effectiveness (3)
PERSONNEL, RUNNING COSTS AND FIELD EXPENSES
Budget Items
description
Budget
24/06/2009
Expenses
30/04/2013
% over Total
Budget
% Spent
30/04/2013
Personnel
343,307,364
200,413,113
33.7
58.4
Running Costs
162,874,058
102,525,113
16.0
62.9
Field Expenses
483,075,842
253,040,331
47.4
52.4
Contingencies
29,677,718
1,050,000
2.9
3.5
1,018,934,981
557,028,557
100
54.7
GRAND TOTAL
Cost-effectiveness (4)
• Askole Mosque restoration cost more than
doubled (from 12.9 million to 8 and then to
19.6 after two budget amendments)
• Cost is now more than CKNP headquarter
• Expenses related to raw material and labour
are 12%
Recommendations
The following recommendations have been identified and
discussed:
1. Reinforce the SEED management for the remaining
project duration
2. Reinforce the CKNP Directorate and Park’s functioning
3. Reinforce the current Village and Valley Conservation
Plans into operational plans
Recommendations SEED/PMU
• Establish the Governing Board/Steering
committee at GB level, under Chief Secretary,
including provincial stakeholders and Federal
Rep, this Committee will continue after SEED
closure
• Strengthen the technical guidance of the
Project
• Improve proximity with CKNP area (Skardu or
Gilgit)
• Improve SEED visibility and signage standards
Recommendations CKNP
• Follow up approval of submitted Management Plan by
Province Forest Department
• Finalise the Park budget and submit a PC-4 before 10/2013
• Elaborate an Operational Management Plan for 5 years,
subdivided in year plans, including a M&E system:
adaptive management (as integration)
• Improve Park infrastructure and signage
• Improve field staff capacities and equipment
• Closely liaise with Sassari University and KIU on GIS
• After SEED closure, CKNP should take the lead in
coordinating all activities in and around the Park
Recommendations SEED and Partners
Improve and reinforce the Village and Valley Conservation
Plans (priority):
• They should include a minimum set of information (as
Baseline studies) on population, wealth, village activities,
infrastructure, resources availability (land, water, pastures,
livestock)
• Resource (biomasses) needs assessment quantified
• PRAs should be conducted in coordination (harmonised)
by IP including CKNP
• Plans should include maps (PRAs + GIS/topographic)
• Plans should quantify (estimate) areas and costs of
proposals included
Recommendations SEED and Partners (2)
• The focal points of SEED activities in the Buffer Zone and
the immediate area outside CKNP should be:
1. Firewood production/harvesting
2. Timber production/extraction
3. Pastures and fodder production
4. Wildlife/livestock interaction
For all these points there are technical answers to apply:
Tree plantations, fodder production, Insurance schemes
• Continue with Approved Plans in all the other activities
• All researches should provide indications on which type of
figures will be produced and how use the information within
the CKNP Operational Management Plan
Thank you,
Now: discussion